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

Search within my tree

Please change the search results to show whether someone already appears in our tree and/or add a search function to search just our tree. I often look through results and have a hard time finding my way back to someone who I previously was researching, unless I remember the exact line.
9 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 2
    There is no such thing as "your tree" Family Tree is an attempt to create one correct tree for all of mankind. You can retrace your trail. In the top left there are drop down buttons for tree and person. They include the last 50 or so people you have been to. You can use them to retrace your steps back.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Ron Tanner (FamilySearch.org Product Manager) May 01, 2014 15:46
    We do have a desire to have search with an option to just search your line. Until then the history list should help you get back.
  • (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

  • 1
    Wow, Ron. Your willingness to keep accepting suggestions is just so cool. It is very encouraging! I would have made exactly the same response that cara did.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m impatient
    1
    I agree with Dustin - we need the option of searching for people we are already connected to. I switch back and forth between different lines in my research, and since I'm working in Norway, I find the same "last" name in multiple lines. I don't keep research notes in FS, since that option is not offered. (It would need to link to the person AND be viewable from anywhere on the Tree.) Sometimes I forget to make note of their PID, and have a hard time finding them again. (Especially when doing descendancy work!)
  • (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

  • 1
    One of the problems that has been discussed before on this topic is how to define “people we are already connected to.” What does that really mean?

    Just direct ancestors? How many generations back?

    Direct ancestors and their children? And cousins? How far out? 10th cousins?

    With spouses? With in-laws?

    My wife’s father was born on the island of Stord, in Hordaland, Norway. As we work in her family, we find that he is connected to basically everyone that has lived on Stord back to the 1700’s. As we continue to fill out her family in Family Tree, at some point it will contain nearly every parish record for Stord.

    If the search routine was designed to find an individual then check every twisting and turning line back to her father for each match to see if it should be eliminated from the results, one search could take hours to complete.

    It will probably always be more efficient to keep the people you are researching on your watch list where you can easily find them.

    Keep in mind that at some point you will be connected to everyone in Family Tree since it is just one, single tree covering all of humanity.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    I have no idea what category this falls under.
    I received an eMail from Family Search stating that I could reserve a name of one of my ancestors for temple work.
    The name is Elizabeth Long Bohannon born in 1865 in Kentucky.
    I cannot verify her relationship to me.
    How did Family Search determine she was my ancestor?
  • (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’m frustrated
    1
    This is a very frustrating topic for me and I'm not sure why it is so difficult to search. I understand that we are all part of one tree, but we all have our own branches that we are interested in. My computer definitely knows who I am and shows me generations that branch off from me. Here is my suggestion: If I want to search for John Smith, who is in my direct line, why can't the search start with me and search out from there, so that the John Smiths that it finds are most closely related to me. It could even ask how many generations back I want to search and stop there so it is not trying to find every John Smith back to Adam. I could also tell it how deep I want it to search, so it's not looking for kids of kids of kids of kids.

    There hasn't been a lot of action on this thread over the years so I wonder if there are just a few of us that find the search function so hard to use. If so, we may need to start a support group to learn how to deal with a frustration that may never have a solution.
  • (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

  • If you use the Watch feature - to "watch" all the ancestors in your direct line or any branches you are particularly interested in - set the Watch feature on for each individual - and they will appear under "Lists" which can be searched, sorted and filtered in various ways that I am sure will give you what you want - giving you direct access to any selected individuals person card and person page.

    There currently appears to be a limit of around 3,000 individuals who can be on any patron's watch list.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • There have been been a lot of topics about this and there have been answers from Family Search employees that they would like to institute this kind of searching at some point, but that what appears to be a very simple request is actually a very complicated algorithm requiring huge processing requirements. So apparently we just need to be patient.
  • (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

  • That's a good answer, thanks. When you live in the age of google where you can get 800,000,000 hits in .79 seconds I guess you expect more out of everything, but not everyone has the processing power of google.
    • It is not a case of processing power, although Google has that, it is a case where Google does not have to do ancestral, the descendant searches. Web crawlers have already created an index and that index can be searched very quickly.

      FamilySearch FamilyTree, while having an index, cannot set the index for the individual who wants just their part of the tree.

      Google doesn't care and their indexes reflect the language and the site location (by IP).

      No such index currently exists within FamilySearch, or else it would be very easy to isolate an individual's tree. As a suggestion, a background "web crawler" (i.e., a "tree crawler") type of algorithm could build user indexes that could then be accessed by the user. The advantage is that such a crawler could index (for the user) the person's in their private space. This would be very useful and hopefully, someone has this on the future enhancement list.

      Beta testing by a select group of persons would be needed before the tree crawler was turned loose for each and every login account.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Ancestry has the option to search within one's own tree. Frankly, if I've connected someone from my own page, THAT'S MY TREE. To say, "we don't really have our own tree" is to fail to look at how we work. We may be connecting everyone together at some point, but at the moment, we can go to the tree view and see only the people we've worked on. Why can't we search within that list? The last 50 people? Please, that assumes I haven't gone off on a tangent over the last 6 months and worked on other lines, then come back.

    I have notes on my To-Do List for some ancestors that I have no way of finding without wading through literally dozens of recods with the same name. Until today, when I decided to clean up the list, I had no clue that I needed to list each person's record just so I could find them again.

    This is sloppy software engineering at its worst. I'd have been fired from my job had I presented something so unfriendly to the user. This is basic information that should be easily findable.
    • view 3 more comments
    • My recent list shows 5 names. To get more, I need to hit "Show More" for another 5, then "Show More" for another 5 and so on and so on. If I'm looking for a name that is 70 names back that's a lot of time wasted on. Can I at least search my recently viewed ancestor list?
    • Yes. It's right on the home page.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • If you have a list of some of your ancestors you can go to "Find" under "Family Tree" or the "Find" and type in their name and data and wife and find them in the FamilySearch "Family Tree."
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Carol, Don is correct. You can expand five dates/places and three relationships to narrow your search criteria.


    Expanded dates/places and relationship:


    Checking the boxes next to the place or name(s) will search for the exact match. The search is performed against the standard dates and places, and all the names, which includes those in the Other Information alternate name area.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Carol

    As has been stated earlier in this thread, fully utilizing your Watch List should solve most of your problems, You can now search up to 4,000 individuals on "your tree" using this. If you have more than 4,000 you want to keep an eye on, include your direct ancestors and those with more common names on the list (like the John Smiths) and use FIND to locate the more unusual names. Please follow the good advice provided above by Don, Tom, Stewart, etc. and you shouldn't have much difficulty.

    Incidentally, I am surprised that you are having these problems when (looking at the threads you have contributed to here) you must have been using Family Tree for at least two years. Generally it is only the less experienced users who don't get the ethos of FT and request more from it than should be expected.
    • view 3 more comments
    • I do ALWAYS include PIDs on my to-do list - which is usually filled to the max.
    • And you are right that I am not a novice - I started Family History as a freshman at BYU 1973-4.
      My biggest problem is with descendants (who will not show up on the fan chart) of my Scandinavian ancestors, who do NOT have a constant last name. Thanks to Patronymics, the name changes every generation, and the same surnames shows up in nearly every line.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • The point here is that FamilySearch FamilyTree is one single world tree. There is no changing that fact because it is designed that way.

    We have tried to supply workarounds to the dilemma of wanting to find persons in "my tree" on this site.

    Here is the final suggestion.

    Obtain one of the three certified family tree management programs in the App Gallery (link is at the bottom of this page) and with a new (empty) database, you can load all the ancestors into it. Then you have a copy of your ancestral database.

    I use Ancestral Quest, but after loading the ancestors, it can also load x generations of descendants of those ancestors. I control the number of generations back (from me or a selected person) and forward from each ancestor.

    Then, I have an isolated tree that I can quickly search through the list of names. Once the person I want is found, I can open the person in FamilySearch Family Tree. The free versions, I am told, have the ability, but the cost is fairly low -- Ancestral Quest (full version) is $29.95.
    • view 1 more comment
    • My mention is and was as an option, one that may not have been considered.

      The thing is you will not be doubling your work. All three of the certified programs make synchronizing your records from a local database into FSFT easy and painless. There is no entering of data, only the transfer, validating the standard place, and writing a reason statement for the conclusions you are providing.

      That's it and it is not only easy, but the programs have features that you are asking for, something that other sites like ancestry do not offer. For instance, I cannot get a straight list of names in my tree in ancestry, but I can with AQ -- the other two programs have similar features. I can quickly move the slider down the list and locate the person I am searching for. In addition, I can add columns that provide many features, such as dates and places for birth, death, marriage (and the spouse), and the list goes on. I can search on any of those columns.

      As I mentioned, you can load AQ from FSFT and let it do all the work. You don't enter anything, except the starting point for what you are downloading into the local database.
    • I tried using a machine-resident program AND another online tree (I actually have two - one is static, one is used some). Machine-resident has two difficulties:
      1. It is not available when I am at the FHL doing research. (And it took too long to open and close to use while a FH missionary.)
      2. Syncing is faster than copying everything, but it still takes time.
  • (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 have an observations and a couple questions.

    This is a fairly old thread and this feature request has been posted many times. Thanks.

    Users are used to working in their record managers on their own private tree and those may have a few thousands Persons in them. That's pretty easy for a computer to sort through. The FamilyTree has over 1.1 billion Persons, and the largest connected tree is over 300,000,000 (Corrected) Persons. But a "Find" would have to work against the full set.

    How many Persons are in your current Watch List? Knowing this helps FS know if the resources need to be applied to bump it up.

    I would like to know what Persons you would want returned from the Find. Would you want all direct Ancestors from you for all generations of only 1,2,4...? Would you want their spouses to be returned?  Would you want siblings returned? Would you want their children returned? Would great children returned? How many generations of children would you want returned? Next what fields would you want this Find to work against, the same as today with Relationships or more?

    This can become a computationally expensive operation and it has to be scaleable since I'm guessing users would expect an immediate answer. It took years and a whole new technology to implement the Relationship viewer. But it was constrained to two Persons, you and the relative and the path is computed using "shortest" path. But some users would prefer not shortest, but most direct meaning not through 3rd cousins..., or want biological parents...

    This idea is being considered so I'm interested in this groups answers to the above. I've asked this one before and always get different answers. 
  • (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

  • imachiro,
    I'm not sure what list you are talking about if it only shows 5 at a time. Your watch list under "List" can have 4000 names and you can search that by typing in the filter. 


    If you're talking about the recently visited history list that can have 50 and there you can type in the box to filter as well:
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe Many people just want a fast way of search through their own lines like in ancestry. that is a easy way of Putting it, since the tree is all one big thing.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m distusted and frustrated
    Joe, the Recently Viewed Ancestors list is what she's referring to. 5 people in the list, but it's a finite list. You can't go through it and find every name you've worked on. Just a search through the names in our history would be useful, but that's not even available.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I'm confused by this question (and it has been answered before) - surely the answer is comprehensively covered by:

    Either:
    1. the "recently viewed" list . . . which is 50 names and not the "5" mentioned - which can be "filtered" by name to find exactly who you may be looking for amongst the last 50 entries.

    2. switching on the "Watch" flag for everyone you consider to be in "Your" tree - people you have made a contribution to . . . can include up to 4,000 entries at the moment - using the "Lists" menu option this can be sorted by name (first, surname or both), sex, date of birth . . . and can also be filtered to find an exact name of interest.

    (Note - I do appreciate that most people have not considered (2) and find it a burden to have to go back through all their worked-on ancestors and set the Watch flag on - as happened to me. Is most easily fixed by using the Descendancy Tree View of each end of line ancestor and dropping down through all the descendants switching the flag on from the "Person Card" for each individual - a boring few hours - but well worth it . . . . and then "always" switch the flag on for new individuals that you work on.)

    I cannot think of anything easier to do. I can recommend and use both of these all the time - it works fine.

    The additional bonus is that when anyone else makes a contribution to any "watched" ancestor - you get a weekly email report of the changes made . . . or can be inspected any time for recent changes via the "List" option.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Ah! The speed of searches and the speed of computers comes up again. I haven’t thrown in my two cents on this topic for a while so I guess it is about time. Several of you have stated you have software design or programming background or have family members that do, so please excuse me when I over simplify things.

    Currently Family Tree and all genealogy programs that work with family trees, both online and desktop, work the same way when searching for people in a tree. You enter your search criteria: John Smith. The search program scans through the entire database to find all entries that have both John and Smith. It’s amazing that when you press the Enter key, the screen immediately fills with the results whether the database has 10 or 10 billion entries. But in any of these databases, the underlying programming is probably pretty similar - just start at record 1 and scan through all of them.

    It is vital to keep in mind, that when requesting that the search be limited to just our relations, we are asking the FamilySearch programmers to develop something that has never been done before. We are asking for a completely new step in the search routine. Now we want to enter our search criteria: John Smith and limit the search to “just our relations,” whatever that means.

    I can think of two different ways to program this.

    One approach would be to first find all the records that contain both John and Smith, as is done now, then to take each record, however many hundreds of thousands that may be, find the relationship between that record and the account holder doing the search, then see if that relationship falls within whatever artificial boundary was set to define “relative.” Basically, after completing the search routine, the “view my relationship” routine would have to be run against every name in the list of results.

    The other approach, probably less efficient, would be to start at the account holder and trace out every relationship line encompassed by the “relative” boundary to see how many John Smiths could be found. This type of routine is kind of what Puzzilla does when drawing a descendancy diagram. I had Puzzilla start back on a 6th great grandfather and draw 10 generations of descendants. After about half an hour it was about a third of the way done then froze completely. Family Search might have to do that type of routine for every 6th great-grandparent to find everyone someone considers a relative.

    However, since this board is a about presenting new ideas and making requests for new features, and since Joe asked about what we would like to see, I would suggest the following for the Find page:

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

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

  • Thanks Gordon. That's pretty comprehensive. THat will be one mean search algorithm.

    I still wonder what most users will want for the number of generations for each of those checkboxes. That will dictate how complex the algo has to be and how much computing cost will be incurred since data and compute is not free and open ended. More generations and more relationship type to search costs more to scale and compute. 
    • view 1 more comment
    • rosawoodsii, you can search the your history list today: type in the "Go to:" field.
    • I've found the "Go to" field to be useless. If it contains only the last 50 names, it's of limited use in searching for someone who have haven't looked at for months. If it searches only direct lines, it's useless to find side branches that I may have been working on.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • (A plea for proper semantics: Since Family Tree is a single tree, it will help in this discussion to be as clear and precise in terminology as possible since computer programming, even when the results look fuzzy, requires clarity and precision and due to that, computer programmers tend to think that way, also. Please avoid the term “my tree” and use instead something that more clearly states what is being referred to. I prefer the term “my relations” or “my relatives” meaning “those people in Family Tree to whom I can draw a line from myself to them by following only child to parent and parent to child connections without crossing any marriage connections.”)

    A History Search is an intriguing concept. First, the idea assumes there is a user history kept. Currently, it would appear that the only user history is the 50 individuals kept in the recently viewed ancestors lists. I’m sure it would be possible for them to expand that as far as needed to 500 or even 50,000. That would be sufficient for most of us except the gentleman who recently stated on this board that he considers “his tree” to be 1/3 of a million people. The size of the history list would be limited only by the amount of storage space linked to each of the millions of user accounts. In order to have the history list show just our relations, it would either be necessary to run the “view my relationship” routine every time we opened a person’s detail page, or be asked every time we open a detail page if we wanted to add this person to our history list, or be able to manually removed someone from the history list every time we visit that page, or have a little star at the top of the page that we could click on to manually add the person to our personal history list.

    There are two main difficulties I see with using a history list to limit searches. First when a new user first opens an account and enters Family Tree for the first time, they have no history. If they searched for their relations, there would be no results. They would have to physically click through their entire set of relatives once before the search would do much good. Secondly, if my 10th cousin has a breakthrough on a line I gave up on long ago and added a branch of 5,000 relatives, I would never know that until I stumbled across it years later, because that would not be included in the search until I had visited all 5,000 of those people myself.

    However, I do think there is a way to create a practical list of Relations that would not strain the system too badly and would give an index of relatives to search against. I think a list of going back eight generations from me and then ten generations forward on each line and including all spouses would be sufficient for most people. I can pretty well keep four generations in my head. Going beyond that is when I start getting confused. This list could look like this:



    After this list was first generated, I may only need to refresh it once a year or less. It would cover not only all the people I already know about, but also those I never knew had been added. By having this be a low priority background routine that only progresses when processing time is available, it’s computational expense could be minimal. Scaling needs would be minimal if people were informed ahead of time that generating this list will take a long time.

    Searching for people on this list could be done either by the simple filter on the list page or by having a single checkbox on the FamilyTree Find page labeled “Limit Results To My Relations List.”

    How big would a list potentially need to be? Taking my eight up and ten down suggestion and estimating that on average each couple would have four children, all of whom grew up, got married and had four children, then doubling that amount to include all spouses for a theoretically full family that allows for that fact that real families have anywhere from zero to a dozen children and have branches that die out or can’t be found would give:

    128 5th-great grandparents eight generations back having
    64 X 4 children in generation 7
    64 X 4 X 4 in generation 6
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation 5
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation 4
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation 3
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation 2
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation 1
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation 0
    64 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 X 4 in generation -1
    X 2 for spouses.

    The Relations List for this family would contain about 44,739,328 people. For most people, the list would be far shorter due to infant mortality, unmarried children, famine and other disasters.
    • view 5 more comments
    • Thanks, Stewart. I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and start switching the flag on for everyone there. I can see how my genealogy time will be spent this week. (groan). The good part is maybe I'll find that elusive ancestor whose search brings up pages and pages of people unrelated. And the other bright side is that once done, it's done, and you can be sure I won't forget on new additions.

      Perhaps, since this seems to be a solution, the default should be an "on" flag for watchlist.
    • I also use the Watch list for all the living people I've created in the Tree. It is very quick to go the the Watch list and filter on "living" and sort by date - then I can see who the oldest living I have recorded is and then search for death info, etc.

      I also use the Watch list feature to filter on "deleted" to see if anyone has been merged out and I missed the notification. And I also filter on any location.

      It is a great tool ... not just for getting notifications on when records have changed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • The user's history list of visited Persons is downloaded to the browser and that filter is working at the browser level. It's just filtering based on the data in the list. 

    BTW: I missed a few zeros above: the largest single tree is 300 Million.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Let the computer Engineers design a Patron Search, starting with the patron in the first position of their pedigree in the FamilySearch "Family Tree" and going out so many generations. Going out so many generations vertically, and so many generations horizontally, from the patron in the first position of their pedigree.

    Is cost the reason this idea has not been developed?
    Is getting patrons to think of the FamilySearch "Family Tree" as a One Person, One World, "Family Tree" for ALL of humanity another reason that this idea has not been developed?

    Related "Feedback."
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I typed a long reply yesterday, but it is mysteriously gone today.

    We should have a feature to "autowatch" any record I create or modify. This would be useful for multiple reasons, but for the purpose of this enhancement request, I could then search the watch list easily for records I have touched over time and care about. The ability to turn off watching should also be enhanced to quick stop watching bulk records based on a filter.

    This idea is borrowed from the Atlassian JIRA product with offers a similiar feature and is essential to stay in sync with issues.
  • (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

  • IMHO, if family tree can show me my own tree, along with non-ancestor spouses and children, they already have the ability to search within "my" tree.

    Yes, I do have my own tree within the whole world's family tree.

    Saying that it's really just the whole world's tree is bogus and, actually, false. I have my own lines and familysearch knows those connections.

    I should be able to search within what they already display for 'my' genealogy. I often cannot find a particular ancestor without going to 3rd party software. I end up expanding level after level and it's usually, like right now, futil. I don't know the lineage between me and my 3rd great grandfather. That's why I went to familysearch - to use the relationship finder to see which line we connect through. But, I sadly cannot find him in familysearch. So I'll have to go elsewhere for such things.
    • In order to find your third-great grandfather, all you need to do is go to the pedigree chart, set it the the fan chart, and pick 6 generations. He will be one of the men in the outer ring.

      I don't know if you have read through every comment above, but this topic is pretty well covered as to why FamilySearch has not developed this feature in terms of complexity of the needed routine and computational resources it would use every time someone did such a search. Maybe we will see such a routine some day as those barriers are overcome.
    • The fan chart approach is useless when looking for a colateral descendant when patronymics are used.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Douglas

    Firstly, "Welcome" to this "FamilySearch" ( "GetStaisfaction" ) 'Feedback' Forum.

    Secondly, "Official 'FamilySearch' Representatives", do monitor; and, sometimes, participate in, this Forum.

    Thirdly, I am just another User/Patron, just like yourself (and, happen to be a Member of the Church).

    Many Users/Patrons who regularly participate in this Forum who have a great deal of knowledge and experience with "FamilySearch", like to assist/help other Users/Patrons like yourself.

    Finally, there is NO, "Your" 'Tree"; or, "My" 'Tree", it is ALL "Our" 'Tree'.

    Sorry, your claim that "... Saying that it's really just the whole world's tree is bogus and, actually, false.", is just wrong and false, in itself!

    'Yes', you are correct when you say that "... [ You ] have [ your ] own lines" in "Family Tree"; and, that the "System" (ie. FamilySearch) "... knows those [ your ] connections ..." (I, would hope; and, know, that it does!).

    You have "Branches" in this "One" World 'Tree' where you are more directly linked/connected to your Ancestors and Relatives; and, those "Branches" in turn link/connect to other "Branches" in this "One" World 'Tree'.

    There are 'too many competing priorities' in "Family Tree" and "FamilySearch"; and, 'far too limited resources' available in "FamilySearch", to squander resources on what you are requesting; particularly, with as you have already intimated, there already "Third Party" Applications that do what you request.

    And, I would suggest that the relationship finder that you are looking for is a free programme through the "Family History Technology Lab" of "Brigham Young University" ( BYU ) that is, partnered with; and, certified by, "FamilySearch", called, just that, "Relative Finder" ( https://www.relativefinder.org ), give it a go; and, enjoy.

    I hope this helps.

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

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

  • The fact of the matter is that I have my own line and you have your own line. Do they join somewhere? Yes, at least at Noah and Adam, if not before.

    Is there a 'world' line, also? Yes. And it is really nice to think of familysearch that way, at leasts from a provider point-of-view (versus a regular patron). But, as a regular patron, I'm not interested in your line unless I volunteer or am hired to do your genealogy.

    I just want to find which line my 3rd great-grandfather goes through. So, I tried going to "MY" tree and finding him but it brought back a regular record search result set.

    Another fact is that you (that is, famiysearch) already can display and navigate within "my" line. You know all my ancestors and their other children, etc. You can display a tree of just "my" portion of "your world" tree.

    In addition, the family search iPhone has a feature called "Relatives Near Me" in which you can search the lines of two people in hopes of finding match. (BYU's Relative Finder doesn't return the information I a m looking for, unless it was updated since I last used it.)

    So, it is quite obvious that you can already search an "individual's" tree and you are not really limited in doing such a search.

    Being a software developer and a senior software architect for much of my 30 year IT career, I can tell that you already do a DB search for "my" tree. You look up and display all my ancestors. That is obvious.

    To say you can't do something in one place while it is obviously being done in another within the same system, is disingenuous.

    I kindly request that you add the feature so I can work more exclusively in familysearch rather than having to switch between to ancestry applications as much.

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

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

  • Douglas

    'Yes', it is true that us 'lowly' Users/Patrons, both, Members of the Church; and, non-members, are not really interested in individuals/persons with whom we are not directly linked/connected. As it is, we have enough trouble just finding and working on (ie. documenting/sources/etc) those individuals/persons, let alone working on everyone else.

    But, you still do not seem to grasp the concept that in "Family Tree" that there is NO, "My" 'Tree; or, "Your" 'Tree', it "Our" 'Tree'.

    Whether you are, a Member of the Church; or, a non-member, as a User/Patron of "Family Tree", you should be aware that the reason that the Church went with this "One" World 'Tree' concept; as opposed, to the having our own private and personal 'Tree', like many other "Third Party' applications have, is that the programme (ie. "Family Tree", formerly "New.FamilySearch") was created by the Church, principally for Members of the Church; and, was created BECAUSE there was so much "Duplication" with the concept of these private and personal 'Trees'; and, much of the Work that Members of the Church do and believe in, with regard to their immediate (direct) Family lines (Ancestry), was being "Duplicated", right around the World; hence, the concept of a "One" World 'Tree'.

    'Yes', "Family Tree" (ie. "FamilySearch") can "... already can display and navigate within ..." your ancestry lines to which you are related and connected [ie. provided that those links/connections already exist]; and, knows all your "... ancestors and their other children, etc ..."; and, can follow those links/connections of your ancestral lines of the "Branches" of that "One" World 'Tree'.

    And, 'Yes', the "Mobile" Application (of "Family Tree") has "Relatives Near Me"; and, both, the Web version; and, "Mobile" Application, of "Family Tree", have "View My Relationship".

    And, 'Yes', "Relative Finder" from the "Family History Technology Lab" of "Brigham Young University" ( BYU ) is only as good as the existing links/connections already established in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

    And, 'Yes', "Family Tree" (ie. "FamilySearch") "... can already search [ a User's/Patron's ] tree and [ "FamilySearch" ] are not really limited in doing such a search ...". But, ONLY if those links/connections are already there/established.

    I agree with the premise of your suggested enhancement that it would be great if "Family Tree" could "Search" within the "One" World 'Tree" for only those directly linked/connected to us; and, ONLY "Display" that search result; and, that premise has been made in a number of previous post in this Forum.

    And, as was proffered by an "Official 'FamilySerach' Representative" towards the beginning of this post, some 5 Years ago, "FamilySearch" does "... have a desire to have search with an option to just search your line ..."

    But,

    That all said ...

    Due to all the 'too many competing priorities' in "Family Tree" and "FamilySearch"; and, the 'far too limited resources' available in "FamilySearch", I would not like to this suggested enhancement request of yours be put too high on the list of the 'many competing priorities', there are far to many more important 'priorities' that need fixing/addressing.

    Once, again, there is nothing 'bogus' about the concept of the "One" World 'Tree', in "FamilySearch"; and, that concept was established in "FamilySearch" for a purpose.

    I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that there were 'many competing priorities' in "Family Tree" and "FamilySearch"; and, there are 'limited resources' available in "FamilySearch"; plus, the reason that that concept of the "One" World 'Tree' was established in "FamilySearch".

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

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