Loading Profile...
"Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives"
Of late, I have noticed the "Odd" individual/person, who I can confirm, that I have NOT accessed at any time, in any way, suddenly appear on my "Recents" list.
And, I can confirm that the individuals/persons HAVE NOT been accessed by "Me" in the "Branches" of the "Tree" for any User / Patron that I have "Helped".
In the past, I had simply "Deleted" them from my "Recents" list without accessing.
And, in the past, I had not taken note of the individual/person ( ie. PID ).
Since raising this problem / issue in a previous post, "Unrelated people in Recommended tasks" ( https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... ), I have taken note of the PIDs.
It appeared from the "Reply" in the previous post that by the poster of that post, 'Melissa L -dl-', was experiencing the same situation as I have outlined.
Two (2) examples of the "Odd" individual/person, who I can confirm, that I have NOT accessed in any way, suddenly appear on my "Recents" list areas follows:-
(1)
Name: Jagena. Bancrofte
[ ps: which includes the "Full Stop" / "Period" in the middle of the name ]
Dates: Deceased
FamilySearch Person Identifier: MD1P-DLZ
(2)
Name: Francois Or Kichara
[ ps: which appears to be without a 'Family Name' / 'Surname' ]
Dates: Deceased
FamilySearch Person Identifier: MJV2-2CR
I have subsequently NOT accessed the individuals/persons; and, I have also NOT "Deleted" the individuals/persons from my "Recents" list!
I would really appreciate a reply/comment from an "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative" as to possibly WHY individuals/persons who I have NOT accessed, at any time, in any way, in my own right or as a "Helper", SUDDENLY appear on my "Recents" list!?
'Thank You'.
Brett
Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
I’m
concerned
"Odd" individual/person, who I can confirm, that I have NOT accessed at any time, in any way, suddenly appear on my "Recents" list.
-
Did these show up at the top of your Recents list? What time frame did these two occur?
If they showed up June 13 and you were using the product then, then there was a bug that might have caused that behavior.Comment -
-
Joe
'Thank You' for your response in this post.
No they did not show up at the 'Top' of My 'Recents' List.
They were down a few; but, I suspect that they were not on top as I access and work on a number of PIDs each day; and, before, I even went to access My 'Recents'List.
The first example was from x4 Months ago; and, the second I noticed today, this morning.
Certainly well before and after 13 June.
Again, 'Thank You'.
Brett -
-
I’m
concerned
Joe
Here is another one that must have showed up last night while I was working in "Family Tree".
It is the Fourth ( 4th ) one on my "Recents" list when I access the "Recents" list this morning.
The three before it were some of the ones that I was jumping between last night.
Bartolo De La Cruz
Deceased
M2ZS-4X6
I can confirm, that I have definitely NOT accessed this individual / person, in any way, shape; or, form.
And, I have not, either, deleted; or, attempted to access, "Bartolo De La Cruz" ( M2ZS-4X6 ) this morning in the "Recents" list.
So, it appears that the "Bug" of the "13 June" has not been fixed; or, that there is / are factor(s) causing the problem / issue / error.
Submitted for your information.
Brett -
-
That's odd. But I don't know that the engineers have enough info to recreate the problem. They are aware of this but probably not a high priority. So for now you'll just have to dismiss them from your recents list.
-
-
Joe
'Yes', it is a little hard to describe the process of creating the problem/issue/error when you do not know how you did it in the first place; so, 'Yes', hard to see how the 'Engineers' can recreate the problem/issue/error.
Any, chance you/the engineers could take a quick look through the background of my "Recents" List to identify how they were, accessed; or, not!?
I will leave that last one ( M2ZS-4X6 ) there in my "Recents' List until is simply "drops off".
Brett -
-
Brett, I notice a dismissed hint on https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L1HC-5BC where that Recents PID is in the Reason statement. Can you remember why you mentioned that PID? Thanks.
-
-
I’m
still concerned.
Joe
I just had a look at that Dismissed "Hint".
I DID NOT mention that as a PID, I mentioned that as a CoupleID.
Wow, I did not notice that, there is something interesting:
That the "FamilySearch Couple Relationship Identifier" for that Couple is the exact same identifier as that "FamilySearch Person Identifier" of a totally separate individual / person!?
I did not think that that could ever be the case - a "FamilySearch Couple Relationship Identifier"; and, a "FamilySearch Person Identifier", being the exact same!?
If they can; then, I can, to some degree, understand why "Bartolo De La Cruz" ( Deceased ) M2ZS-4X6; therefore, shows up in my "Recents" List: but, even so, that should not be the case as the one I accessed was a "Couple Relationship Identifier"; as opposed to, a "Person Identifier"!?
Me thinks there is a Flaw / Fault in the "System" in either case.
(1) I would have thought that a "FamilySearch Couple Relationship Identifier"; and, a "FamilySearch Person Identifier" should NEVER be the same.
(2) Even if, a "FamilySearch Couple Relationship Identifier"; and, a "FamilySearch Person Identifier" CAN be the same: If I access a "FamilySearch Couple Relationship Identifier" that should not imply that I accessed a "FamilySearch Person Identifier", when I DID NOT.
Food for thought.
Brett -
-
I’m
still concerned
Joe
FYI
I just had a quick look at the first two "FamilySearch Person Identifiers" that I mentioned in my original post.
(1) MD1P-DLZ:
Is ALSO a "FamilySearch Couple Identifier".
( As well as a totally separate "FamilySearch Person Identifier" )
Whereas,
(2) MJV2-2CR:
Shows no Couple; but,
Indicates / displays the Error Message: "! Unable to load the list of changes. x"
AND,
Furthermore:
'Yes' even though I accessed M2ZS-4X6 and MD1P-DLZ and MJV2-2CR directly as Couple Relationships ( and not as Persons / Individuals ), they now appear at the "Top" of my "Recents" List as Persons/Individuals I accessed, when, in fact, I did not.
Definitely an issue / problem.
Brett -
-
IDs are unique and independent within a domain. The FT Person is a different domain than the Relationship. It's like state license plates: each state is independent and xya123 in California is a different plate that xya123 in Nevada.
-
-
I’m
still concerned
Joe
Here is another one; but, this time the ID does not ( also ) apply to a Couple Relationship that I have accessed.
Cesare CORSIATTO
( 1902- 1984 )
MDQD-886
The Couple was
Laurentius Gruber ... AND ... Eva Baungartner
I have certainly not access "Cesare" or "Laurentius" or "Eva".
Curiouser and Curiouser!?
Brett -
-
I think I reproduced the bug. To trigger this you have to go to the "Show all info about the relationship" link on a spousal relationship. That relationship PID will now show up as the second entry in Recents, under the primary person you went to after closing the relationship screen. Does that sound right? It only shows on certain relationships - probably ones that have the same id in the Person domain.
-
-
I’m
NOW really concerned.
Joe
Even another one.
But, ...
I will not broadcast this one, as the Couple Relationship ( ID ) relates to that of my wife and I.
If you want the the details please e-mail me directly.
Brett -
-
I’m
NOW still really concerned.
Joe
Sorry I missed your last post as I was working though " "Odd" individual/person, who I can confirm, that I have NOT accessed at any time, in any way, suddenly appear on my "Recents" list. " ( https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... )
And, we must have been posting about the same time.
'Yes', what you say sounds correct.
So, the PID and the CoupleID are in different domains ( ie. I assume different "Databases" )!?
So, the ID's are in different domains ( ie. I assume different "Databases" ); but, ARE NOT "Unique" - Hm!?
Wow, I would have thought that that would be difficult to Code for; and, even, potentially, dangerous, later on down the track!?
Well, it certainly has raised its ugly head now.
==========
BUT, ...
That does not apply to:
Cesare CORSIATTO
( 1902- 1984 )
MDQD-886
The Couple was
Laurentius Gruber ... AND ... Eva Baungartner
I have certainly not access "Cesare" or "Laurentius" or "Eva".
==========
Brett -
-
Actually the ID is just a value underneath 0010010011100101001010... It couple be displayed at decimal, hexadecimal or what you see XXXX-XXX. You can consider these a primary keys in a database table and the primary key 123 for the Person table is a different primary key for Relationship table even though they both appear to you as 123. The code error is probably adding to the recent Person table a coupleID.
-
Joe
'Yes' understand what you have said.
Especially, where the PID and the CoupleID are the same.
But, still a little concerned about:
Cesare CORSIATTO
( 1902- 1984 )
MDQD-886
And,
Couple
Laurentius Gruber ... AND ... Eva Baungartner
I have certainly NOT access "Cesare" or "Laurentius" or "Eva"
And, I had NOT accessed CoupleID until it appeared on my "Recents" List.
Brett -
-
-
-
-
I’m
still concerned.
Joe
Can, you; or, another, "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative", please advise in THIS post when the fault / flaw of these spurious PIDs now appearing in the "Recents" List is, addressed; and, fixed.
As I quite often use the "Recents" Lists to get back to PIDs that I was working on, those spurious PIDs now appearing in the "Recents" List make me loose valid PIDs - they drop off too quickly now because of those spurious PIDs.
'Thank You'.
Brett -
-
The teams are aware of the defect. Priorities will dictate when it gets addressed.
-
Joe
'Thank You'.
Thought as much.
Just hope they let us know when it is fixed.
Brett -
-
-
-
-
Joe
I have been regularly checking my "Recents" List of late; and, have NOT noticed any spurious PIDs of late.
I was just wondering if the problem / issue of the "Odd" individual/person who was NOT accessed at any time, in any way, suddenly appearing on the "Recents" list, has been, addressed; and, fixed.
Maybe, I have just been lucky; but, I do not think so - it appears that the problem / issue may have been fixed.
Any up-date available?
Just curious!
'Thank You'.
Brett -
-
Joe
Please disregard my last "Reply".
Nope. Has NOT been fixed yet.
Just came across another one in my "Recents" list.
The PID is the same as ( and relates to ) a CoupleID ( for different PIDs ) that I only just created.
Brett -
-
Sorry I didn't get back to you Brett. The defect is still pending in the backlog.
-
Joe
No probs.
I initially thought that it had been fixed; because, I hadn't noticed any for a while - then up poped one today ( funny thing was I only just created the CoupleID ).
I didn't expect it to be fixed so soon, not too important in the scheme of things - all in good time.
I'm just pleased that "FamilySearch" is aware of it; and, it is being addressed.
Once again, 'Thank You'.
Brett -
-
-
-
-
"Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives"
FYI
If there was a "Fix" applied for this post, that was uploaded in the updates of Saturday, 18 August @ Midnight [ Mountain Time ] - it DID NOT work.
Just thought I would let you know, just in case it was supposed to have been fixed - but, probably not.
Those "Odd" individuals / persons, that appear on the "Recents" list, that have NOT been accessed, at any time, in any way; and, relate to an accessed corresponding "Couple Identifier" are STILL occurring.
Brett -
-
"Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives"
FYI
The problem/issue with those "Odd" individuals/persons, that appear on the "Recents" list, that have NOT been accessed, at any time, in any way; and, that have initially been identified as relating to accessing corresponding "Couple Relationship Identifiers", NEEDS to be expanded; as, I have identified that these "Odd" individuals/persons, that appear on the "Recents" list, ALSO apply to accessing corresponding "Parent-Child" Relationships Identifiers.
Submitted for your information and consideration.
Just in case you were not aware.
And, 'Yes', they are still occurring, the problem/issue has not been fixed.
It is annoying, to say the least, to have one's "Recents" List populated with erroneous "Person Identifiers". And, certainly, a trap; and, confusing, for those Users/Patrons who are unaware of this problem/issue.
Brett -
-
Thanks Brett, I don't expect this bug to be fixed for awhile. I did note to the team responsible that it was for spousal and parent-child ids colliding with the Person Ids in Recents,
-
Joe
'Thank You'.
I had considered that you would have been aware.
But, just wanted to make sure.
I only realised myself about the "Parent-Child_IDs" when a few new ones showed yesterday, when they did not relate to "Couple_IDs"; and, I checked them against recent incorrect "Parent-Child_IDs" I had worked upon ( ie. "Deleted" ).
To probs. All in good time.
Sorry to be a nuisance.
Brett -
-
-
-
-
Joe
FYI
Again, I have been regularly checking my "Recents" List of late; and, have NOT noticed any spurious PIDs of late.
Maybe, I have just been lucky; but, this time, I do not think so - it appears that the problem / issue may have been addressed / fixed by now.
No need to reply, just an observation on my part.
Brett -
EMPLOYEE
