newFamilySearch Pedigree Display Record

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

newFamilySearch Pedigree Display Record

Postby garysturn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:29 am

newFamilySearch displays in the Pedigree Views and in the Details Summary View the top record in a Sort.

The current sort order is: (Personal Submission) then (LDS Membership Record) then (A-Z Sort).

Because of this sort, every person signed on might see a different default view.

-When you go beyond LDS Members in a line this method often displays a first name as default.
-Those without a submission see the first record in an A-Z Sort if beyond LDS Members in the line.
-This encourages each user to add an opinion for each incomplete name displayed.
-When someone enters another opinion, it becomes a (Personal Submission) for them.
-Users might think this opinion is seen by others as default, but it is only sorted to the top for them.
-This creates another record for the folder and adds to the number of records in the folder.
-When folders get to full, the pages will load slower. Many of the entries are just display entries.
-Correlation between users is more difficult when every user sees a different view.

I would like for this Thread to be a place to discuss Ideas about how to display records better.
If the thread is used enough we might draw the attention of the developers and they can get ideas from us.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

The_Earl
Member
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:12 am

Huh?

Postby The_Earl » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:54 am

I guess I am not following your description. I understand that different people see a different view, but I am not clear as to the reasons such a thing would be useful, or what information is different from user to user.

Draw me a picture.

Could you post some screenshots or mockups to poke at?

Can you provide reasons why the views should be different?

Thanks
Barrie

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20734
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:22 am

From what I understand, the developers are aware of the situation. Keep in mind that nFS isn't even up to version 1.0 yet.

As for what should be selected as default, I'd suggest:

"Grading" the sources. The source judged most accurate would be given preference.

Another thought is simply to go with the longest name. At least that would be an improvement over alphabetical which favors the shortest name.

rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon

Postby rmrichesjr » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:49 pm

Gary, where did you learn about the priority order? Is it documented? Or, did you figure it out by observing system behavior?

I can understand why personal submission would take first priority and why Church membership info would be higher priority than other info. On the other hand, I can see the point that it's not good to encourage everyone to submit their own preference just so it displays the way they want to see it. In the early 2007 beta test, working with a person made of around 300 pieces was difficult, especially when trying to separate out a piece that shouldn't have been combined.

Based on the beta test, it should be possible to dispute any info that is provably wrong. I would hope disputed info would become lower in priority than undisputed info.

It would seem it would be helpful for the system to give priority to items with sources, as opposed to items without sources. Perhaps, different types of sources could be prioritized, with a source likely to be an original primary source counting more than a source likely to be less reliable.

Another option might be to allow some form of voting on the various pieces of info. There are probably a lot of issues with how voting could be implemented.

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Possible Solution

Postby garysturn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:58 pm

One possible solution would be to create 2 view modes. The Personal view mode (which is the current mode now) and a FamilySearch view mode. Adding a tab on the home page for the FamilySearch view.

-Create a (FamilySearch record) for each folder which does not have an (LDS Membership record).
-Make the FamilySearch record have full editing access by all users.
--Populate the new record with the version of each event which has the most multiple contributors.
--This would be a field that could only be changed by selecting a new event from within the folder.
-Create 2 sort routines for the two different views.
-Family Search View Sort:
--(LDS Membership record) then (FamilySearch record) then (Personal Submission) then (A-Z Sort).
-Personal View Sort:
--(Personal Submission) then (LDS Membership record) then (FamilySearch record) then (A-Z Sort).
-When a user edits the (FamilySearch record) the user would choose from the existing versions of an event in the folder or create a new entry to go into the folder to select.
--Keep a change log with the name and comments of the person making the change so other users can correlate with each other when disagreements exist.
--Once the correct information is in the (FamilySearch record), other users would not need to express an opinion (creating a record in the folder) to get the correct information to display because the (FamilySearch record) would be sorted to the top of the list for those folders without personal submissions..
-Display the name in the pedigree in Red in both views when the (Personal Submission) of the user disagrees with the (Family Search View) this would indicate that futher research is needed and a change to one or the other record is needed.
-Offer three views in the "Individual Details" section. "Summary" "FamilySearch View" "Detailed View"
--The "FamilySearch View" would display FamilySearch default record.
--The "Summary" view would display the same as it does now displaying the default record for the mode you are working in.
--The "Detail View" would remain the same as it is now only using the selected sort Personal view or FamilySerch view.
-This FamilySearch record could then become the Life Browser record when those functions are added, which allow the attaching of multimedia, histories, and source images to a record.
See: http://www.familysearchlabs.org/
-I came up with this possible solution to require the least amount of programming. A rating system would take a much more complicated program.

Any questions, comments, or additions to this or other solutions are welcome.

Here is sample of what the Screen might look like with these options.
Image
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Sort order

Postby garysturn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:11 pm

I attended a training session on newFamilySearch for Family History Consultants at the Family History Library in SLC. One of the presentors explained the Sort order and I wrote it in my notes, then tested the sort by checking different records. Then I entered a Personal Opinion and watched to see what happened. My testing confirmed what the presentor described. The presentor was a Product Manager for FamilySearch. I know they are working on a solution to the display record, but do not know what type of method they are working on. I then got another user to log in and see what their view was, which confirmed that they did not see my opinion in their pedigrees or details views.

rmrichesjr wrote:Gary, where did you learn about the priority order? Is it documented? Or, did you figure it out by observing system behavior?

I can understand why personal submission would take first priority and why Church membership info would be higher priority than other info. On the other hand, I can see the point that it's not good to encourage everyone to submit their own preference just so it displays the way they want to see it. In the early 2007 beta test, working with a person made of around 300 pieces was difficult, especially when trying to separate out a piece that shouldn't have been combined.

Based on the beta test, it should be possible to dispute any info that is provably wrong. I would hope disputed info would become lower in priority than undisputed info.

It would seem it would be helpful for the system to give priority to items with sources, as opposed to items without sources. Perhaps, different types of sources could be prioritized, with a source likely to be an original primary source counting more than a source likely to be less reliable.

Another option might be to allow some form of voting on the various pieces of info. There are probably a lot of issues with how voting could be implemented.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Display order Slides

Postby garysturn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:55 pm

"The Earl" asked for some pictures to demonstrate how the sorts and display records are chosen. I have created a small slide show of 7 slides. If the slides scroll to fast, click on the pause button and move through the slides one at a time, by pushing the arrows at the bottom of the screen that pop up when you move the mouse over the slide. Click on this link:
newFamilySearch Slide Show displaying sort and display order

Remember the sort:
(User Submission) then (LDS Membership record) then (A-Z Sort)
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

MarianJohnson
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:48 am

Prioritizing names in new FamilySearch

Postby MarianJohnson » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:47 pm

I think we are trying to make this too complicated. Why not allow users to select the names dates and places they think are most correct. Those of us who have done research should know which is correct. The number of selections could be tabulated and the option with the most votes rises to the top. The membership record SHOULD be the most correct, of course, but in those cases where there is no membership record, using whichever name comes first alphabetically makes no sense. It would be better to put the names with no surname at the BOTTOM of the list rather than the top. We KNOW those aren't correct or complete.

We might also give consideration to the fact that some people went by more than one name - patronymic, natural, adopted, nicknames (some people never used their given names). I like to use the format
Given Name(s) OR Nickname OR Foreign Name OR any other name used / Patronymic Name OR Surname OR Foreign Spelling of Name OR Adopted Name/--- whichever apply. PAF and nFS both support the use of OR to separate names. That way you can cover all the options on one line. nFS allows the editing of parts of names to be either given names or surnames, which can be changed if nFS interprets the name incorrectly. I see lots of entries where the name is spelled in ways which the person never used in his/her life. Those are the ones that should be disputed. Most of the others are differing combinations of the above assortment I have listed. Sometimes people went by names of step-fathers even though they were never adopted. Marriage records for second marriages usually show the wife using her first husband's surname. Diacritics in a foreign name are sometimes interpreted differently by different members of a family when the family immigrates. My Dutch ancestors used their patronymic name for a middle name for over 50 years after they adopted surnames. Perhaps the name should be broken down and identified whether each one is foreign, adopted, patronymic, nickname, etc. So the question is IS THERE REALLY ONE CORRECT OPTION FOR NAMES?

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20734
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:25 pm

Marian JOhnson wrote:So the question is IS THERE REALLY ONE CORRECT OPTION FOR NAMES?


That's certainly a valid point. There may not always be one. That said, some are more correct then others. I think we all agree the current system of "alphabetical" doesn't make any sense.

I think the goal here is to get something that will be "close enough" for most people and which wouldn't be too hard to implement. While voting is one option, there would still need a database with all votes and the accompanying overhead to hold it. I'd like to see something that works most of the time without having rely on users inputting more information just to get the right name to float to the top.

Another thought might be some "averaging" of names. Using the example given, since 10 entries contain "Francis" and only one "Frances", "Francis" wins. Since most of them contain "Beckstead" and "Jr", those are added as well.

And yes, the same person could well have the same name in different languages. For example someone from China who immigrated to the US as a laborer. In that case, I'd think the "code page" for the user would take preference so that someone in China would see sources that use Chinese characters as primary while someone in the US would see the name from sources that used the English alphabet.

Another simple method is to simply elevate personal opinion over alphabetical listing. That way the second person to come in will see by default the opinion of the first and won't have to enter another opinion just to get the same name to appear at the top. Now, what to do when there are conflicting opinions .... I don't know.

User avatar
thedqs
Community Moderators
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:53 am
Location: Redmond, WA
Contact:

Postby thedqs » Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:18 am

Another would be those names that are tied to vital records (birth, death, marriage, etc) are the preferred and if you cannot find a vital then those found in other records would be taken and finally if there is no records the suggestion of Russell just to count the entries and see which name out votes the others would be best.
- David


Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest