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

Attach Source Screen Scrambling

When adding a source from my source box to a particular PID, I frequently get glitches on the pop up window used to attach it with. I'm using MacOS 10.12.6 Sierra and Safari 12.0.2.



I suspect that this will be considered trivial enough that it might be ignored, but I thought I should report it anyway.
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • What's the ID, Jeff, and is the problem repeatable?

    Thanks,

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

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

  • I doubt that it is PID specific. However, I was attaching a source from my source box to most of the members of a family. I was going through them fairly quickly and if I remember correctly, probably over half the time I got the glitched Attach Source display. IT was "repeatable" but not on command. Just keep attaching and every other attempt would produce the glitched window.

    The PIDs I was working on was Sarah Monroe LZ4F-T3R and kids (minus Amelia and Elizabeth where the source didn't apply). The source from my source box was the one labeled Daniel Freshour family, "United States Census, 1840". Again though, I don't think it is PID specific because when I had to redo everything, not the same ones were glitching.

    I made a bit of a mess there in the change log since I'm still not real familiar with the details of the totally unexpected way source copies in the source box work when attached to different PIDs.

    The 1840 US Census only shows the head of household (in my case Daniel Freshour). The other 7 family members that were there are only shown as numbers in the columns for different ages. There is only one index citation for that source so I attached it to Daniel (the father) as it should be. But I wanted to also attach the 1840 Census to the other family members where it applied as there was a strong correlation there. Problem is of course, there were no indexed citations for the other family members.

    The thing that didn't occur to me is that in spite of the fact the system lets you "sort of" do it, you can't attach an index with a single citation to multiple other PIDs even if it you go through your source box. When I did this, the attachments for everyone as shown in the source linker were totally scrambled with duplicate source attachments. I had to detach everything and start over so the change logs are a bit involved now.

    Eventually I went to the 1840 Census source on Daniel and then went to the UNINDEXED image for that source and copied THAT as a source (with a modified title) to my source box. Then I could attach it to the remaining applicable family members without source linker problems. I don't know if this was the best way, but it was the only thing I could come up with.

    If you put a source that is indexed into the source box for copying, bizarre things seem to happen as the source linker trys to figure out what is going on.

    Anyway, that is why I had to do a bunch of attaches and a bunch of detaches, followed by more attaches. During all this time I frequently saw the glitched attach windows shown above.
    • Thanks. I suspected this is an intermittent problem.

      The situation with a census that lists on the head of family is definitely a conundrum for the family historian. We believe we know who the persons are, but there is no means by which we can be sure that the numbers represent the people in the family.

      It is something that I ran into many years ago when someone set up a record for a person with the wrong sex. The problem was there were no sources that actually provided the person's sex and they had died between 1840 and 1850. The only evidence I had was the unusual name -- Benoni -- and that it was typically used as a boy's name. The 1840 census recorded the numbers and age ranges for the family and because I had all the rest of the information, circumstantial evidence suggested that Benoni was male. FamilySearch support agreed and since there was already a record with Benoni as a boy, they proceeded to "hide" the record that had him as a female.

      I'm not sure I would follow that process today with FamilySearch, but when this took place, we were using new FamilySearch. I don't remember if merging was an option or not or easy to use.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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