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

Hey! Is there any way to STANDARDISE, the DATE; &/or, the PLACE, of a Record, WITHOUT, having to ACCESS & SAVE that Record? - I think NOT!

Hey. Is there any way to "Standardise", the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", of a Record, WITHOUT, having to "Access" and "Save" that Record - short of raising a 'Support' Case? - I think not; but, have to ask!

==========

"Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives"

In the case of many ( well, certainly a number of ) "Records" with a "Date" and a "Place" field that were 'transferred' / 'transitioned' from "New.FamilySearch" to "Family Tree", the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", were NOT "Standardised"; and, that was despite the fact they were, either, actually the standard or that close too the standard that it was negligible. And, technically those "Records" are correct; and, do not need fixing; but, in "Family Tree" under "Research Help", those Records display as, "Data Problems" with, ... "! Missing Standardized [ Birth / Christening / Death / Burial / etc ] Date / Place".

I DISLIKE having to access the "Records" with, a "Date"; and / or, a "Place", field that were 'transferred' / 'transitioned' from "New.FamilySearch" to "Family Tree", where, the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", were NOT "Standardised", when they should have been.

The reason that I dislike having to do so, is NOT that I mind "Standardising" the Records, where needs be; but, that when you do "Change" ( ie. "Standardise" ) and "Save" those Records, the "Contact Name" and "Date" for those Records then becomes your name and the current date; thus, negating all the work and effort of the Original User / Patron; and, that was usually from "New.FamilySearch".

I am HOPING ( but, not expecting ) that there WAS a way to "Standardise", the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", of such Records, WITHOUT, actually having to "Access" and "Save" those Records - short of raising a 'Support' Case!?

I think NOT; but, have to ask!

If you do not concur with the implication of this post; please, DO NOT bother to Reply or Comment - this post is merely to elicit advice or an answer from "FamilySearch" personnel. But, of course, if you do know a way to "Standardise", the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", of a Record, WITHOUT, having to "Access" and "Save" that Record; please, DO Reply or Comment, such advise would be greatly appreciated.

'Thank You' in advance.

Brett
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 1
    Hi Brett,

    This was a common complaints of mine back when the majority of records from nFS were moved to FamilySearch Family Tree. I do not remember how many of my requests to simply mark as standard, places that exactly matched the standard, but not only was the request not honored, but went without any kind of response from any FamilySearch personnel.

    I was not a happy camper, but ended up "fixing" the standard places (dates were okay and recognized) for many of my relatives. I had been using the BYU/FS Labs site that eventually became today's Search Places to set the places to the standard. One would think that it would be relatively simple for FS to run a routine to "look" at each place to see if there was a "standard" that actually matched (in every way), but they didn't.

    Given the recent fiasco over removing exact duplicate names, which was stopped and will likely not be run because of the complaints, I can now appreciate the fact that FamilySearch has left it up to us, as patrons, to fix any "problems" we see, such as this one.

    And, given the fact that you complained long and hard over the duplicate name removal, I was a little surprised to see this request from you.

    I'm just as happy to have FS not automate any action with regard to places, especially given the nature of the standards and hinting system with regard to British locations and other areas around the world.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    Brett

    Sorry if you think Tom & I are "interfering" in joining this thread - as you had requested FamilySearch representative responses only. However, like him (and many others) I, too, have found it a real pain to "standardize" places (and dates) that DO already appear in a standardised format. I would have have been delighted if a routine could have been run that stopped the need for us to carry out such time-wasting work.

    However, he does make a good point about FamilySearch putting this right! A totally different issue, but the same principle when it comes to its actions on identical Alternate Names.

    By the way, I just type "Standardised only" in my reason for change statement, so users can see I have not researched the actual (place / date) detail and/or have verified this input.
    • Paul

      'Yes", I add that reason too.

      I just wish that I could do it WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron ( and Date ) who entered the Record.

      Please, see my Reply to 'Tom' below.

      I was Replying to 'Tom's' Reply; and, your Reply snuck in before mine - I am only a two fingered typist ( and I cannot spell ).

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

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

  • Tom

    'Thank You' for your input into this post, I always appreciate it.

    Understand you angst.

    But, for me this post is nothing like the situation of my post about the systematic programmed sweep ( ie. "Purge" ) by "FamilySearch" of REMOVING ( "ie. "Deleting" ) of the "Alternate Names". By the way, I have not finished there yet, just having a breather - need to get some Family History work done ( hence, this post ).

    I DO NOT, "Want"; or, "Expect", "FamilySearch" to run a systematic programmed sweep to fix this matter - 'lo and behold' they do; and, I will on the 'war-path' again.

    'No', I was just wondering, if the "experts" ( Hm!? ) had any ideas on something else I can do, as a User / Patron, other than "Accessing" and "Saving" the Records.

    I am sure there is NOT; but, as I said, I have to ask the question.

    I was just hoping that there was a simple way to "Standardise" such Records WITHOUT changing the details of the Original User / Patron and Date who entered the Record.

    As is the case, with "Sources", where you can make a change to the "Title", for example, of the "Source", without affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who "Attached" the "Source".

    eg.

    Attached
    18 January 2014 by ???

    Modified | History
    30 January 2017 by ???

    I do not want to change the essence of the Record, just want to remove the "Research Help", that displays those Records in "Red" as, "Data Problems" with, ... "! Missing Standardized [ Birth / Christening / Death / Burial / etc ] Date / Place".

    The situation, 'reared its ugly head', with a whole Family Group of 'Early Mormon Utah Pioneers', where some 'well meaning' ( Hm! ) User / Patron has gone through; and, what you might say, for want of a better reason, "Standardised" ( in their view ), just about every Record for just about everyone in the group - when there was no need to do so. In this case there were certainly not many, if any, Records that required "Standardising" ( ie. 'Red' ) . Many of these Records date back past 2012 in "New.FamilySearch"; and, were certainly acceptable, even by today's standards. Many of the group were already well Documented and Sourced. All I can think of is that this 'well meaning' ( Hm! ) User / Patron had nothing to "Added"; and, so, wanted to get their "Name", 'up in lights' ( ie. their '15 Minutes of Fame' ), so to speak. Personally, I call it a form of "Vandalism" - others may not be so harsh. It just got me thinking about being able to "Standardise" ( ie. so that no 'Red' alert was showing ) WITHOUT changing the details of the Original User / Patron who entered the Record.

    I expect not; but, stranger things have happened - you will not know, if you do not ask!

    Brett

    ps: 'Tom', have you checked out my last Reply to "Adding Sources to 'Living' individuals / persons", you should enjoy it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    As the current and lowly software architect for the Family Tree application of FamilySearch, maybe I can claim to be an official FamilySearch representative. I don't know.

    Please know that your comments, questions, and suggestions are not lost on us. We read them all, and consider them all. Keep them coming.

    The following explains why Family Tree records which user does something as trivial as standardizing a date or place.

    When we designed the Family Tree, one of several key tenets was that the user community manages and moderates the data. This tenet was a result of operating our previous systems over many years. An impact of this tenet is, where possible, we do not have systems contribute any data automatically. Another impact is, where possible, we provide user experience and tools that recommend how the user community might better manage and moderate the data instead of automatically managing and moderating the data.

    For example, Family Tree provides hints to the user about historical records that the user may choose to attach to a person in the tree as a source. Family Tree does not automatically attach those sources because it would violate the design tenet that the user community manages and moderates the data. Merge is another example of this.

    Standardizing dates is a further example. The Family Tree could automatically standardize all dates, however, this would violate the tenet that the user community manages and moderates the data. Sometimes the system cannot make a good choice. For example, would Family Tree standardize a date of 05/06/1900 as May 6, 1900 or June 5, 1900? Either might be correct for a number of reasons in various instances. Obviously, Family Tree could deal with cases where there is no obvious ambiguity, but that would violate the tenet that, if possible, the user community manages and moderates the data.

    I understand that Family Tree's design tenet causes users work that the system could do. Some users will see that work as a complete waste of time and busy work, which view I can understand. However, even with artificial intelligence improvements, systems are not good enough yet at making a high enough rate of genealogically correct decisions and conclusions to warrant changing the design tenet that users manage and moderate the data.

    In this comment, I have tried to explain why Family Tree records which user does something as trivial as standardizing a date or place. If this explanation does not make that clear, please comment and I will clarify and add more details.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Randy

    In case you might have missed the point, what is bring referred to here is the situation where a warning flag suggests a place (or date) needs standardising. However, the existing entry does not have to be changed in any way - just clicking on a standard in the drop-down list is all that is required. To the "layman" it does seem strange that a place can suddenly become standardised without any change being made to the existing input.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Thanks Paul for your response.

    Assuming we are not talking about the result of a software defect, the Family Tree knows whether the date or place is not standardized. The presentation of that to the user in the user experience makes it appear that the resolution is obvious and trivial. This is an example of the user experience recommending how the user should manage and moderate the data instead of automatically managing and moderating the data.

    I acknowledge that some users will think that having to standardize the data is a complete waste of time and mundane work in the case where it appears obvious, which I can understand. However, Family Tree is designed to have users manage and moderate the data when possible instead of systems automatically changing the data.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • There are two date and two place fields for each vital event. One that can be customized to anything the user wants, and the other is a standard field for the database's use in performing searches and record hint suggestions.

    If I need to set a standard date/place on a record that was created via nFS or via another user's Gedcom upload, I go ahead and set the standard and add a note in the reason field that I'm standardizing.

    It is very rare that the reason field actually contains a reason by another person when I do this. If there is something in that field, I usually just leave it there - and add my note at the bottom of it.

    Accessing the change log will show all the changes to these fields.

    I do not feel that my work in quickly adding the standardization to dates and places is trivial or extremely time consuming. Often as soon as I make these changes, the system provides me with additional record hints so that I can make the person's record more complete with additional sources of information.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I have just remembered that I raised a similar issue some months ago and I believe it was Gordon Collett who suggested the logical reason this occurs.

    A patron inputs the date and/or place but does not bother to click on the standard suggested. The input is accepted but not registered. However, if the patron does not go back to the person page (but moves on to something else) they do not notice their input has not been standardised, although the input does perfectly match the standard.

    Most of my problems have been connected to one patron who must have typed very quickly, clicking on "Save" without even realising he had to standardise first. He entered hundreds of records like this - hopefully, I have just about finished standardising them all!

    Sorry this slipped my memory earlier, but I was too busy thinking about system problems, especially relating to the movement of records from nFS to Family Tree. I'm sure this has some link with the overall problem, but it can still arise when records have been dealt with exclusively within FT.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I think that Brett is looking for a means to standardize a date / place without impacting the original contributor's credit for entering the date / place. I can understand his desire to do that -- to allow the original patron the credit for the work.

    However, I know of no way to set a standard without the system indicating that I made the change. Regardless of the patron's name, the "History" for each event is a filter of the change log and by opening the event or fact and clicking on History, the change log page opens and displays all changes that pertained to that event or fact.

    I'm like Paul. Whenever I standardize the record, I add "Standardized date and/or place" for the reason statement. The two are inseparably tied together.

    If the place is not an abbreviation of a standard place, I will leave it alone and just set the standard, or if it is an abbreviation of a standard place, I will set both to the standard. I am careful to find out if places that are like New York, where both the name and the county are the same, I will attempt to find the actual place. Usually, it is one of the boroughs, which I then record correctly, cite the record, and set the standard accordingly.

    Randy is absolutely correct. Computer A.I. cannot do the additional research that is sometimes needed to fix a problem of this nature and these things are best left to us patrons to take care of.

    By the way, Randy, if you can, set your ID for this forum so that it indicates you are an employee, even if you only express and opinion or offer and explanation.
    • " I know of no way to set a standard without the system indicating that I made the change"
      And I think that's fair enough. There is just one user/date/time stamp to say who made the last change. If there were a user/date/time stamp for the standardised item and another for the display item, it would be a different matter, but as it is, there's just the one.

      The standardiser is, after all, making the decision (a) to standardise and (b) what the standard value is. That's not something to be ignored. I guess I can be a little pedantic over these things - "update" means "update" to me. It doesn't mean "but forget about XXX because that wasn't really an update". I also appreciate that someone might want to highlight one particular type of update more than others but we don't have that ability.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Brett

    I have found the thread I was referring to! See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... Gordon's contributions are particularly interesting regarding how this problem arises in the first place.

    However, as Tom points out, a main issue for you is the problem whereby any changes result in the person amending the record appearing to be the (original) contributor. Of course, this applies to ANY change in a comments / reason statement field in FT. Apart from the specific "Standardised only" comment that can be made in the instance related to this topic, I am inclined to add other remarks in other situations - often to make it specifically clear I did not add the detail to Family Tree.

    However, I'm sure I often still do look responsible for the original inputs - especially when I am involved in a merge of two individuals. As Tom has mentioned, this problem is difficult to avoid, but the change log can prove very useful with regards to "who entered what".
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Randy [ YNCHAUSTI ] ( "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative" )

    As the User / Patron who raised this post, 'Thank You' for joining in on this post.

    And, 'Thank You' for your explanation, of certain "Tenets" in the Design of "Family Tree"; and, as to why "Family Tree" needs to "Standardise" the "Dates" and "Places"; but, please forgive my abruptness, I do not need such an explanation, I already aware of such need.

    The situation that lead to this post is twofold:

    Firstly, in the case of many ( well, certainly a number of ) "Records" with a "Date" and a "Place" field that were 'transferred' / 'transitioned' from "New.FamilySearch" to "Family Tree", where the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", were NOT "Standardised"; and, that was despite the fact they were, either, actually the standard or that close too the standard that it was negligible. And, technically those "Records" are correct; and, do not need fixing; but, in "Family Tree" under "Research Help", those Records display in "Red" as, "Data Problems" with, ... "! Missing Standardized [ Birth / Christening / Death / Burial / etc ] Date / Place".

    Secondly, in relation to the aforementioned, there should be / needs to be, a way for a User / Patron be able to "Standardise", the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", of such aforementioned Records, WITHOUT, actually having to "Access" and "Save" those Records; thereby, WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who entered the Record and the Date that the Record was entered.

    This post has nothing to do with the design tenets in "Family Tree" causing Users / Patron work that the "System" could do.

    This post is not about a User / Patron seeing the requirement of "Standardising", a "Date"; and / or, a "Place", as a complete waste of time and mundane work.

    And, as I eluded to in my Reply to 'Tom', there is already existing provision coded into ( ie. a design feature of ) "Family Tree" to allow certain details of a "Source" ( for example ) to be "Changed" WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who attached the "Source" and Original Date when that "Source" was attached.

    So, it is disappointing that a version of the aforementioned design feature could not have been adapted and incorporated into "Records".

    It is ashame the often used phrases of "user experience" and "resolution is obvious and trivial" are 'bandied about', far from it, this post is nothing about a User / Patron thinking that "Standardising", a "Date"; and / or, a "Place" is trivial.

    This post has nothing to do with Records that were entered AFTER the "Switch Off" of "New.FamilySearch" and its disconnection from "Family Tree".

    This post is principally about Records from "New.FamilySearch" with a "Date" and a "Place" field that were 'transferred' / 'transitioned' from "New.FamilySearch" to "Family Tree", where, the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", were NOT "Standardised"; and, that was despite the fact they were, either, actually the standard or that close too the standard that it was negligible. And, technically those "Records" are correct; and, do not need fixing; but, in "Family Tree" under "Research Help", those Records display in "Red" as, "Data Problems" with, ... "! Missing Standardized [ Birth / Christening / Death / Burial / etc ] Date / Place". And, there needs to be, a way for a User / Patron to be able to "Standardise", the "Date"; and / or, the "Place", of such Records, WITHOUT, actually having to "Access" and "Save" those Records; thereby, WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who entered the Record and the Date that the Record was entered.

    In essence, confirming the obvious answer to my original question in regard to this post, the answer is a definite 'NO'.

    It is just SAD that such is the case.

    Maybe, for future re-design of the various features of "Family Tree", the ability to "Change" certain elements of Records and the like, WITHOUT, actually having to "Access" and "Save" those Records; thereby, WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who entered the Record and the Date that the Record was entered, may be able to be adapted and incorporated.

    Again, 'Thank You'.

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

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

  • Brett

    Like yourself, I have no programming experience so could not begin to offer a positive "solution" to how this issue could be / have been addressed.

    Also, you offer no evidence that the situation post-nFS is any different from then - i.e. the patron carelessly (perhaps through typing so quickly) just did not standardise the input(s). I can't explain how a computer program can possibly differentiate between this type of non-standard input and one that involves the input of a place not in the FS standards list.

    Specifically regarding the closure of nFS, I find the multiple ids carried across for the same individual to be by far the most time-taking "additional" work I need to carry out - often having to merge ten fathers, then possibly ten mothers until I finally get all the (ten) children under the same couple. I am so exasperated in having to spend so much time undertaking this work I often have said, "Surely there could have been some way of "the computer" merging these records before they came across to Family Tree - saving me/us all this work?"

    Apparently not - just as in the case you have raised here. Possibly in neither example was it an "impossibility" but the FS management wanted to get things up and running in Family Tree and desperately needed to get nFS shut down. So designing programs to avoid this sort of problem could have just caused serious delays to getting as far as advanced with Family Tree as we are now.

    I would not wish to discourage you from carrying on raising these issues, but we do have to accept that the technology is just not there to deal with every issue that we think should be (or have been) addressed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Paul

    I actually do have such Evidence.

    In a number of the instances, of such Records, that I am talking about, the evidence is that I was the User/Patron who entered/input the Records in "New.FamilySearch".

    I was certainly NOT careless in imputing/entering the Records in "New.FamilySearch"; and, at the time, the Records were, in fact, the "Standard" then and still the "Standard" now; but, for whatever reason, did not "Standardise" with the 'transfer'/'transition" (ie. migration) from "New.FamilySearch" to "Family Tree".

    In relation to your comment about the "Duplicates" that existed in "New.FamilySearch"; and, your thoughts that "FamilySearch" should have gone ahead with a systematic programmed sweep to "Merge"/"Combine" such "Duplicates"; before, they were 'transferred'/'transitioned" (ie. migrated) from "New.FamilySearch" to "Family Tree", as far as I am concerned, 'No Thanks' - I would prefer to spend my time doing it myself to make sure that the "Merging"/"Combining" is done correctly.

    I am all for saving time in relation to this Genealogical/Family History work; but, not at the expense of accuracy and correctness.

    Just take a look at what even semi-automation allows, in relation to the up-loading of GEDCOMs to "Family Tree".

    Full-automation of "Merging"/"Combining" by "FamilySearch" - 'No Thanks'.

    Personally, I wish there would have been MORE time with the DESIGNING of "Family Tree" to better accommodate the 'transfer'/'transition" (ie. migration) of all the existing data from "New.FamilySaerch" to "Family Tree".

    Technology can just about deal with every issue that we think should be (or have been) addressed, the problem is that we are impatient; and, are not willing (or able) to spend the time that is required; and/or, do not have the resources to do the job that is required properly.

    Brett
    • Brett

      Sorry - I had overlooked the fact you were speaking from personal experience in that you know you entered these records as standards, and saved properly, whilst working in nFS. Obviously, the reason for this behaviour remains a mystery. Why some places and not others?

      In my case, I was convinced the problem did relate to specific places. Most of the entries I have needed to standardise relate to the place name "Alnwick, Northumberland, England". However, I had been convinced it was not the name itself but the way it had been inputted that caused the warning flag to appear. I was very happy to accept this explanation because I know (before I realised the consequences) I had often typed, say, "1857" as the year of an event and immediately (i.e.without clicking on the standard "1857" shown below my input) just hit the tab key and completed the place name field. I assume (although I have not identified any) these dates will now be displayed with a warning flag. (As has been pointed out, these warnings are a feature only introduced more recently to Family Tree, however.)

      From the comments made (or lack of them!) in this thread it does seem unlikely that there is / will be a way to standardise without changing the name of the original contributor to the name of the person who standardises the name / date but, as we know, this applies to every situation where a change / amendment is made to a reason statement. This general issue has been raised many, many times in this forum and the answer is always basically the same: "That's the way the system works - just refer to the change log for the full history."

      Paul
    • I've had a few of these (not enough of them to figure out any sort of pattern). When fixing them, I wrote the contributor (whether "FS" or someone else) in the reason statement: "Choosing standard for place contributed by UserXYZ" or "Standardizing date with contributor labeled FamilySearch".
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Paul

    I was ALSO hoping from this post, without asking such, that the 'powers to be' in "FamilySearch" would consider adding a "mechanism" or the "ability" to "Standardise", a "Date"; and / or, a "Place", of such Records, WITHOUT, actually having to "Access" and "Save" those Records; thereby, WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who entered the Record and the Date that the Record was entered, similar to such "mechanism" or "ability" that currently exists with "Sources".

    A forlorn hope, I know, due to the competing priorities and limited resources in "Family Tree".

    But, I have always been the optimistic pessimist!?

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

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

  • Juli

    'Yes', where appropriate, as a "Work Around", my "Reason" Statements includes an acknowledgement of the Original User / Patron who entered the Records and the Original Date that the Records were entered / input; and, the fact that I have only accessed the Records to "Standardise" the Record, the whole purpose being to remove the "Research Help", for those Records displaying in "Red" as, "Data Problems" with, ... "! Missing Standardized [ Birth / Christening / Death / Burial / etc ] Date / Place.

    But, that for me, is only a "Work Around".

    As I sated in my "Reply" to 'Paul' ...

    I was ALSO hoping from this post, without asking such, that the 'powers to be' in "FamilySearch" would consider adding a "mechanism" or the "ability" to "Standardise", a "Date"; and / or, a "Place", of such Records, WITHOUT, actually having to "Access" and "Save" those Records; thereby, WITHOUT affecting the details of the Original User / Patron who entered the Record and the Date that the Record was entered, similar to such "mechanism" or "ability" that currently exists with "Sources".

    A forlorn hope, I know, due to the competing priorities and limited resources in "Family Tree".

    But, I have always been the optimistic pessimist!?

    Brett

    ps: Repetition for dramatic effect - hoping 'powers to be' in "FamilySearch" will note.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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