Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

"Beta" ("Test") Environment. NEW Design/Format of "Person/Details" page/screen. Re: "Labels". Four (4) Suggested Enhancements.

"Beta" ("Test") Environment. NEW Design/Format of "Person/Details" page/screen. Re: "Labels".

Four (4) Suggested Enhancements.

(1) Change to "Title" of "Labels" Tool from "Edit Labels" to "Attach Label"; or, better still, "Attach a Label".

Please change the "Title" of "Labels" 'Tool' from the current "Edit Labels" (back) to (the original) "Attach Label"; or, better still, "Attach a Label".

We (ie. the Users/Patrons) are NOT "Editing" the "Label". We ARE simply, "Attaching" a "Label", from an existing "List", of pre-set "Labels".

We have never had the ability to even "Add" a NEW "Label" to the "List" of existing, pre-set, "Labels", let alone "Editing" a "Label".

We can now request the possible addition of a "Suggested" new "Label" to the "List" of existing, pre-set, "Labels"; and, correct me if I am wrong; but, as far as I am aware, there has been no indication with the new design/format of the "Person/Details" page/screen of "Family Tree" for the consideration that we (ie. the Users/Patrons) will ever have the outright ability to directly "Add" a NEW "Label" to the "List" of existing, pre-set, "Labels", let alone "Editing" "Labels".

So, please change the "Title" of the "Labels" 'Tool' from the current "Edit Labels" (back) to (the original) "Attach Label"; or, better still, "Attach a Label".

(2) Place FIRST "Label" attached at "Top" of placement area; and, place subsequent "Labels" in a position "Below" previously attached "Label(s)" in sequential order as attached.

Currently, in the new design/format of the "Person/Details" page/screen of "Family Tree", when you "Attach" a "Label", the FIRST (and possibly the only "Label") appears at the "Bottom" of the placement area for "Labels", which detracts from the "Label" because (1) the "Label" is placed at the bottom; and, appears therefore cluttered with the "Menu" of "View Tree"; "Watch"; and, "View My Relationship"; and, (2) implies that the "Label" is insignificant, unimportant.

Then, in relation to the previous paragraph, if another subsequent "Label" is "Attached" that subsequent "Label" is placed "Above" the previously attached "Label(s)".

Therefore, I suggest that the aforementioned current placement of "Labels" be changed; so that, when you "Attach" a "Label" the FIRST (and possibly the only "Label") appears at the "Top" of the placement area of "Labels"; and, also, that, when other subsequent "Label(s)" is/are "Attached" that/those subsequent "Label(s)" is/are placed "Below" the previously attached "Label(s)" in sequential order as attached.

(3) There is a "Flaw"/"Fault" if more than Three (3) are "Attached" - in this case, First in First to "Disappear" from Placement area.

It may seem unlikely or improbable to some that there would be more than one or possibly two "Labels" attached to an individual/person in "Family Tree"; but, in reality, with the "Expansion" of the "Labels", that there WILL certainly be the possibly more than Three (3) "Labels" attached to an individual/person in "Family Tree".

There is a "Flaw"/"Fault" in the current placement of "Labels" if more than Three (3) are "Attached". That "Flaw"/"Fault" is that if more than Three (3) are "Attached", the "Labels" that are "Attached" first "Disappear" from the Placement area in the order that they are attached.

BUT, ...

Even though there may be more than Three (3) "Labels" that are "Attached" to an individual/person in "Family Tree"; and, the "Labels" that are "Attached" first "Disappear" from the Placement area in the order that they are attached, those "Labels" that have "Disappeared" from the Placement area are, in fact, still recorded (ie. retained) in the "Pop Up" Box for "Labels" when you "Select" the (current) "Edit Labels" Tool. So, in fact, no "Labels" are "Lost"; but, "Labels" do "Disappear" from the Placement area in the order that they are attached.

I suggest that regardless of how many "Labels" are "Attached" to an individual/person in "Family Tree", ALL "Labels" as "Attached" SHOULD appear in the Placement area for attached "Labels".

And, may I further suggest that if more than Three (3) "Labels" are "Attached" to an individual/person in "Family Tree"; then, the order of "Labels" may be from "Top" to "Bottom" in columns from "Right" to "Left".

(4) Enable ability to "Change" the "Default" Order of Placement of "Labels"; and, "Set" Order of Placement of "Labels" to User's/Patron's preference

Please enable the ability to "Change" the "Default" Order of Placement of "Labels"; and, also, the ability to "Set" the Order of the Placement of "Labels" to a particular User's/Patron's preference.

This placement and set order, can; and, will, always be subjective, to a great degree, on the importance of a particular "Label" (or "Labels") to any particular User/Patron. And, I do not have a problem/issue with this predicament.

Perhaps, the "Default" order for the placement of "Labels" should be in order that those "Labels" where originally attached; but, there should also be the ability to, both, "Change"; and, "Set", the Order of the Placement of "Labels" to a particular User's/Patron's preference, just as there is the ability for User's/Patron's to change and set a preference for the location of "Sections" within the "Person/Details" page/screen.

==========

Please refer to a test subject that I created in the "Beta" (ie. "Test") Environment.

https://beta.familysearch.org/tree/pe...

The aforementioned record displays the "Flaw"/"Fault" if more than Three (3) "Labels" are attached; whereby; but, only Three (3) of the attached "Labels" are displayed in the Placement area for "Labels"; yet, the actual Four (4) "Labels" that were attached are still recorded (ie. retained) in the "Pop Up" Box for "Labels" when you "Select" the (current) "Edit Labels" Tool.

==========

'Thank You' in advance.

I hope that you find these suggested enhancements to the "Labels" Tool in the NEW Design/Format "Beta" ("Test") Environment, both, understandable; and, helpful.

Brett
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 4
    My personal request consists of just six words: please remove the Labels feature altogether!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Paul

    I loved the original premise of the "Labels" feature which was the "Early Utah Mormon Pioneers" ( ie. Mormon Pioneer Overland Travel, 1847 - 1868 ); and, the "Companies" associated with that Travel.

    If I recall that original premise of "Labels" was later expanded to include the "Mormon Battalion" and the "War of 1812", I had no problems with that expansion.

    It is the expansion of the "Labels" feature further, beyond the "Early Utah Mormon Pioneers"; and, the "Companies" associated with that Travel; and, the "Mormon Battalion"; and, the "War of 1812", to what we have now, that I dislike.

    'No', I certainly DO NOT want the "Labels" feature removed altogether; but, perhaps toned down and reduced back down to only the "Early Utah Mormon Pioneers"; and, the "Companies" associated with that Travel; and, the "Mormon Battalion"; and, the "War of 1812".

    A "Mormon-centric" view, I know; but, despite the fact of the now World Wide appeal and use of, "FamilySearch" and ( formerly: PAF, "New.FamilySearch" ) "Family Tree", they were originally created by the Church for ( but, not exclusively ) the use of Members of the Church.

    I certain love and wholeheartedly encourage non-members of the Church to use "FamilySerach" as a Research Tool; and, is they wish, use and participate in ( ie. be part of ) "Family Tree", a World Tree.

    To me, like some, it is just that, the expansion of the "Labels" feature to what we have now 'has got way out of hand'; and, the possibilities appear to be limitless, if not kept in check.

    Oh, yeh, I would like the enhancements, in the "Beta" ("Test") Environment for the NEW Design / Format of "Person / Details" page / screen, as I have suggested.

    Brett
    • Just a quick correction, Brett, and more information.

      PAF (Personal Ancestral File) is a separate family tree management program, and not a predecessor to newFamilySearch, FamilySearch, etc.

      The Ancestral File, which was a CD-based system of user-provided genealogies and temple records, was the latest forerunner to what became newFamilySearch.

      The submitted genealogies were then released in CD sets and maintaining an updated CD-set for use in Family History Centers was a major problem.

      After the Ancestral File system was somewhat abandoned as nFS was introduced, the submissions continued and became known as the Pedigree Resource Files, the combination of which are today, the base system of the Genealogies section.

      The temple records are still available on Fiche in most Family History Centers as the IGI, and include temple information for Baptisms, Endowments and Sealings. Missing are confirmation and initiatory dates. Today's online searchable IGI has no temple information, even for LDS members.

      The GEDCOM format was designed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide the ability to exchange genealogical information between various programs and was introduced about the same time as the original PAF program. The earliest PAF programs used a text-based relational database structure that could actually be interpreted by many database programs that could read and understand text-based data.

      Later versions of PAF used more complex data structures and as they were developed to include primitive sourcing structures, the GEDCOM definition also advanced. Both PAF and GEDCOM development ended about the same time.

      Today's successor to the PAF is Ancestral Quest, whose author is the original author of the PAF program.

      Getting back to the idea of Labels -- if it was an attempt to be able to identify and group people who took part in the same events, then the idea had a lot of merit. However, it has also proven to to be divisive in nature and what would be a great label for one group of people could be extremely offensive to another group.

      In the United States, the Confederate flag (colors) are considered to be offensive to the point where some are proud to be associated with the Confederate States, while others want nothing to do with it or that part of history.
    • Tom

      'Yes' I know all that about PAF ( and GEDCCOM ), just did not want to go into all that, the inference in its use and that of "New.FamilySearch" and "Family Tree" being that they were originally created by the Church for ( but, not exclusively ) the use of Members of the Church.

      The expansion of the "Labels" from the "Mormon-centric" beyond the "Early Utah Mormon Pioneers"; and, the "Companies" associated with that Travel; and, the "Mormon Battalion"; and, the "War of 1812" to "... an attempt to be able to identify and group people who took part in the same events" ..., is what I dislike; and, principally; because of, its divisive nature in relation to "... what would be a great 'Label' for one group of people could be extremely offensive to another group".

      Brett
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    I had occasion to look at the beta site tonight and the details person page. I'm impressed with what I am seeing, but...

    I strongly recommend that Possible Duplicates be expanded.

    First, if no possible duplicates are found, that's fine, but it would be nice to be able to, from the point where "Possible Duplicates" takes me (the initial merge screen), if no duplicates are available, that I could trigger a "Find" search function against the tree, using the parameters of the person from which I triggered possible duplicates.

    Because of the nature of many records in Family Tree, I do not believe that Possible Duplicates can ever be made selective (or "smart") enough to locate all the duplicate records for the same person that have been created or imported into Family Tree.

    Therefore, it is very important that the Possible Duplicates routines be supplemented with the Find search function.

    Thanks,

    Tom
    • Tom

      I agree with you wholeheartedly on the premise of this "Reply" in this post.

      That said ...

      I am just concerned that the premise of your "Reply" will get "lost" (ie. "Buried", excuse the pun) with this post, as this post relates to "Labels" (such a 'touchy' subject at the moment).

      Can I suggest that you re-post the premise of your "Reply" as a new separate post; simply, to ensure that your premise get properly looked at and considered.
      Hope you do not mine this comment of mine.

      By the way, like you, I never trust/accept the result of the "Possible Duplicates" check; and, 'Yes", have always wondered why, as a matter of course, tha after a negative result of a "Possible Duplicates" check that the "System" does not require a "Find" Search, just to confirm matters. We all know that a "Possible Duplicate" may not show-up when comparing records with details; but, quite often misses those "Possible Duplicate" where there are no details and only as a "Parents" and / or a "Spouse".

      Brett
    • So true, Brett, and no, I do not mind your comment. I'll go ahead and start a new thread.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • So looking at this: it doesn't go as far as I would like in some respects, but I would definitely say that it is still a huge improvement over the current system in general.

    It is now possible to see exactly which standard place name is being applied to a particular event. That includes the year range for the standard place name. This is a big improvement.

    The direct edit click has been retained. This is a big improvement.

    The numbering of possible duplicates to alert to their possible existence is a big improvement.

    It is an extra click to access sources now, but that is a trade off I am willing to accept.

    The map has been retained for the timeline, although I feel that it should be on by default and not off by default. The combination of geography of events and direct access to family events if those are turned on allows the easy spotting of problems. However the default zoom level for the map appears to be a bit wonky: it starts far too far out in some cases.

    So overall positive, and heading in the right direction.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited