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

Expansion of Family List search fields

It was suggested I put this as a separate suggestion.

Please add a 'search' function within the Family Tree people list to the degree of all included fields. Maybe it's there but I haven't found it. For example, I ran across new information about a person who was in a specific military regiment and I know I recently added that same info to a specific ancestor, but I can't recall who that was.

By this suggestion, I mean within our Find of our own tree members, or at least established FS created records.

I will now go look to see if I can search on military service, but if that is not there, please consider adding that function. I looked. Nope. That field isn't included.

I did end up finding who it was, but purely by a long way around and hitting the entire database again. What would have saved me a lot of dead ends and time would be if I could search purely against my tree members in the Military Service field.

Thanks for your consideration and for providing this feedback space.
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • This reply was removed on 2018-04-05.
    see the change log
  • Jan

    You say, "I will now go look to see if I can search on military service, but if that is not there, please consider adding that function. I looked. Nope. That field isn't included."

    Perhaps you could advise where you are looking that provides other search options, but not "Military". In general, you can not carry out broad searches of your "own tree members" because there are no separate trees within Family Tree.

    A screen shot would help, to illustrate the search page from which you would like to make this specific search.

    It is quite easy to search on a known individual, of course, as illustrated below. I had deleted my original reply when I realised you were referring to searches on multiple individuals, but am reinstating it as many patrons overlook that "Restrict records by" facility when trying to narrow down a search on an ancestor:

    (My original response)

    You can already search on Military service for a particular individual. From the person page, click on the FamilySearch icon to the right of the screen. On the left hand side on the search page scroll down to "Restrict records by:" then click on "Type". Check the "Military" option, then "UPDATE" and this will provide the available military records that are likely to be for that person. The screen shot below illustrates an example of the results.

    • Thanks for the reply.

      My problem was that I couldn't remember which relative first name to reduce the record set results. So I just used last name, then scanned through until I found the Illinois result with a match, and used the military record limitation.

      It would have been nice for the Military field to be part of the Find function that you show. I think that's what my idea was, rather than looking at the source data and recreating the search (which I finally did and found my relative).
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I just finished responding in another thread about the application, Find a Record. If you are searching for specific types of records, then Find a Record is an application that is worthy of your consideration. You may want to read through my explanation of the application in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... thread.

    That is just a suggestion but not a solution to what you are asking for. In your other thread, I responded with this (to make this suggestion more complete. My comments have been edited to be more in line with what you are looking for):

    This is a really good idea. We know, from comments by FamilySearch personnel, included Ron Tanner, that search results are ranked between 1 and 5. The highest ranked results (those with a 1) are at the top of the list while those with the lowest ranking are at the bottom.

    However, that is something that only experienced FamilyTree users know about, or have seen said in external posts, such as Ron Tanner's excellent live "Q&A" Facebook sessions (they are recorded and available on his FamilyTreeRon Facebook page.) Ron is one of the major players in the development of FamilySearch and often shares many things that are of importance to us patrons in those sessions. He posts the recording that is made during the session on the Facebook page under videos and those who want to view the videos of past sessions do not have to be members of Facebook

    With regard to finding and ranking historical record sources related to any specific relative, I like to go to that relative's page and first resolve all hints, either attaching them, or declaring them "Not a Match".

    Then I click on FamilySearch in the Search Records box.

    Here is where giving a ranking would be really great, but unfortunately, we don't have that feature at the present time. What we do have is that the most likely applicable records are provided and those whose ranking falls below some level, are presented below a blue bar that says, "The following results don’t strongly match what you searched for, but may be of interest."

    If you are working with an ancestor with a common name, such as Elizabeth Clark (LHWH-28M), that is going to produce a lot of results above the blue bar. You may want to take a look at her record. There is a lot of other work that needs to be done in terms of cleanup, but for now, the search results is what we will deal with.

    Rather than wading through all of those above the blue bar, I like to concentrate on one collection or maybe two at a time.

    Clicking on Collections at the top of the search results page (and below the banner that provides an overview of Elizabeth's vitals), When I looked at collections, there were 102 that fall into the general category of Birth Marriage and Death. Only the top five (counting the results) are displayed, but I can expand the list to include all 102 collections.

    Since Elizabeth was born in Coshocton County, Ohio and died in Iowa where her family founded the town, Clarksville, I know that Elizabeth was never in California. It would be nice to eliminate that one collection from the results, but at the present time, we don't have that feature.

    What we do have and something that I use, is the ability to check those categories that are important. For instance, I already have the information about Elizabeth's marriage, but I do not have it sourced. I know, from looking at her details page, that she was married in Indiana, where the family stopped for a while (and relatives still live) on their way westward.

    So none of the top five fall into the collection where I want to look at just Indiana marriage records. I click on See all 102 for that category. I look down the list (sometimes, using Ctrl-F to search the page helps) and found three Indiana record sets that may apply. I checked the check-boxes for all three and pressed "Filter These Results".

    That lowered the results considerably. Looking down through the entries above the blue bar, I did not find any where Elizabeth had married a person names Poisel (or with a similar spelling.

    Anyway, I had successfully narrowed my search of the historical records and limited the results to those most likely to be a match. At least the results page was manageable.

    Regardless, it would be nice to actually see the degree of how close to our specified search parameters the results come to matching.
    • Yes, when searching actual source records, I find the Collections filter very useful. Also, I have begun using the limitations options on the left column when presented. I like that the number of results from the first results are presented - e.g. birth, or location, etc.

      I have found that sometimes repeating a search can result in fewer hits or even different hits. Sometimes things get 'stuck', so I reset and start over. That's not a bad strategy, either, because sometimes that ranking returns something slightly different OR I see different clues or relationships than I did the first time through.

      I've begun looking at raw sources, too, which is fascinating what you can find about history of places and people. Unfortunately not all the online data is available to a home user without an LDS login. I'm collecting links and catalog information so I can make use of time in a Research Centre that's not far from me.

      Thanks for all your time answering my posts. I'm enjoying this.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • To restate your request, the current Family Tree Find form is:



    which covers everything in the Vital Information section, all alternate names in the Other Information section and the parents in the Family Members section.

    You would like to expand this to include everything in the Other Information section:



    A very interesting idea. Unlike a lot of ideas that get presented here, I don't think I've ever seen this requested before. I can see how this could be useful in narrowing down search results.
    • Yes, that's it! Since each record has this information attached to it and displays in the person result page, seems like it wouldn't be hard to be able to search those extra fields.

      I came across some Military information of the 62nd Illinois Infantry in (I think) an unindexed source (my memory is crap) and wanted to add it to the relative's record, but I couldn't remember which relative it was. If those Other Information fields were searchable from the Find function, it would have been a lot easier to home in instead of repeating my original search of military records, of which there were thousands. I don't think the Find could even be limited to state, even though I knew the regiment state.

      Glad it's original. :-) This system is amazing and every day I find something new to try (like today I spent hours downloading and scanning unindexed images and PDFs available online). Not everything was accessible from home, but the info that was added more detail to relatives via cross checking maps and local histories. Since I don't live in the area, this is fantastic!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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