Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m SAD

Users/Patrons. FYI. SOURCES. Be Aware. SOURCES are being AUTOMATICALLY Attached to PARENT-CHILD Relationships when Parents NOT on SOURCES

Users/Patrons.
[ Participants in this Forum ]

FYI.

Attaching "Sources".

Warning.
Be aware.

Some of the "Sources" (ie. "Census" Records) that we are attaching are "Automatically" being Attached to (against) "Parent-Child" Relationships of the "Principal" (as a Child) for whom we are attaching the "Source" when, in fact, the Parents of the "Principal" (as a Child) DO NOT even appear on "Source" [ie. For the "Census" records, the Parents are NOT even Members of the Household where the "Principal" (as a Child) resides].

I have just submitted this for your information, in case you have situations like the aforementioned; and, may not be aware; but, would like to check.

Brett

ps: I raised a post on this matter in the Forum last night that was "Removed".

.
1 person likes
this idea
+1
Reply
  • Brett,
    I'm not aware of any automatic attaching. Do you have an example record id that we can review to investigate this issue?
    Thanks,
    • I attached a marriage source to an individual PID from source linker a couple of days ago and was surprised to see that it was automatically attached to the marriage relationship with date and place entered without any notice to or action required on my part. There was no marriage entry previously. I don't know the PID now, but will watch more carefully in the future.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Brian, attaching sources to children in a family is something that is relatively new. It takes place under certain circumstances, but I'm not sure it has been thoroughly tested.

    Brett will need to provide an example of a census record that has been attached to a family and where the child has received a source that is listed in the Family Section for the child's parents. It will be part of the flyout (modal window) that is displayed when clicking on the note next to the child's name.
    • Tom

      I do not need to provide an example (especially, here in this Forum).

      You should be able to find an example yourself in your own Ancestral lines, if you have any "Sources" that are "Census' of England and Wales" that you have attached recently or can attach now.

      I had recently previous noticed such with the 1901 and 1911 census'; but, last night was my first such experience with the 1871 census.

      As I indicated to 'Brian' below ...

      Basically:

      [ Last night ], I attached a "Source" that was a "Hint" for the "1871, Census of England and Wales" to the "Sources" 'Tab' of an individual/person, a Female, who was 20 years of age and a Servant in the Household; and, where she was NOT related to any of the other members in that Household - all good. I DID NOT attach the "Source" to any other members of that Household.

      Then, I go and check the "Parent-Child" Relationship for that aforementioned individual/person to her and her Parents; and, WHAT did I find ...

      'Lo and Behold' ...

      I find that that "Source" for the "1871, Census of England and Wales" has been AUTOMATICALLY and ARBITRARILY, by the "System", on its own accord/volition, through the "Source Linker", attached to the "Parent-Child" Relationship for that aforementioned individual/person to her and her Parents, WHEN in fact (or, should I say that DESPITE the fact) that her Parents are NOT even included in the Household for that Census. And, more importantly when I DID NOT, nor, did I want or desire to do so. But, worse, the "System" did so in/using my name.


      I am certain, that despite my recent previous posts being, either, unnecessarily 'Shut Down' or 'Removed', other Users/Patrons will find the matter disturbing and concerning.

      Brett

      .
    • Brett, you do realize that by not providing us with details, you are denying us the opportunity to help you get this resolved.

      Personally, when you do post something like this, have an example, and then will provide it only directly to a FS person, it is a waste of our time and calls into question the validity of your concern. In those cases, I would not bother to post to this forum, but open a "problem" case with support, providing the details you refuse to post here.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m SAD
    Brian

    'Thank You' for joining in on this post of mine.

    I thought that you would, in fact, be aware; as, you appear to have been 'following' two (x2) of the recent previous posts of mine, on the matter, that were 'Shut Down'.

    I again raised the matter last night, with a NEW post with an "Example" (situation ONLY); where, that post was "Removed" unnecessarily by the "Moderator".

    Perhaps, you have access to that "Removed" posts.

    If you do not have access to those "Removed" posts, perhaps you could contact me directly via E-mail for the PID; as, I will not post PIDs in this Forum, due to the fact that other Users/Patrons take it upon themselves to make "Changes" that they feel should be made to individuals/persons (from such posts) that are not directly related to their Ancestral lines.

    Basically:

    [ Last night ], I attached a "Source" that was a "Hint" for the "1871, Census of England and Wales" to the "Sources" 'Tab' of an individual/person, a Female, who was 20 years of age and a Servant in the Household; and, where she was NOT related to any of the other members in that Household - all good. I DID NOT attach the "Source" to any other members of that Household.

    Then, I go and check the "Parent-Child" Relationship for that aforementioned individual/person to her and her Parents; and, WHAT did I find ...

    'Lo and Behold' ...

    I find that that "Source" for the "1871, Census of England and Wales" has been AUTOMATICALLY and ARBITRARILY, by the "System", on its own accord/volition, through the "Source Linker", attached to the "Parent-Child" Relationship for that aforementioned individual/person to her and her Parents, WHEN in fact (or, should I say that DESPITE the fact) that her Parents are NOT even included in the Household for that Census. And, more importantly when I DID NOT, nor, did I want or desire to do so. But, worse, the "System" did so in/using my name.


    'Thank You' in advance

    Brett

    ps: Recent previous posts on the matter:

    FamilySearch. WHAT'S going on? Attach 1911,England&Wales,Census to Family (Individuals). FIND it attached to Couple & Parent-Child R/Ships!?
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    FamilySearch. WHAT'S going on? Attach 1911,England&Wales,Census to Family (Individuals). FIND it attached to Couple+Parent-Child R/Ships!?v2
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    FamilySearch. WHY I suggested its NOT a good idea for SYSTEM, on its own volition, to attach SOURCES to COUPLE or PARENT-CHILD Relationships
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

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

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

  • Brett

    I'll check this out later but, as you should have read in my responses to your other posts, I have not experienced your problems, in spite of my attempts to replicate.

    As stated previously, you are doing little to help solve the problem(s), especially in constantly refusing to provide any examples. Unfortunately, sample URLs, etc. ARE what the engineers (and rest of the community) require here if you want this matter resolved. As I have said before, privacy does not come into this - as I illustrated in another post, you can select a random, unrelated person and illustrate the problem from that example.

    Obviously, this could be an intermittent problem - always difficult to deal with - but, although I am regularly attaching E&W census records to different IDs, I have just not encountered any of the problems you are meeting: especially relating to the 1911 set.

    If there is a serious problem here, someone else should soon confirm this: hopefully, with a detailed example of what you are steadfastly refusing to give. Meanwhile, please keep calm over this issue, as surely you do not want a moderator to shut the thread down, as has been the case with your other posts? In particular, your constant use of capitals has not helped matters, as it can be construed as a sign of aggression instead of pure emphasis of the point being made.

    As I say, I will make a genuine effort later to try to identify the problem you are experiencing.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Paul

    I hear you.

    'Yes', it DOES NOT appear to be every occasion, I cannot put my finger on the 'why'; but, I know it is on the increase.

    I am more than happy to give the "Details" to 'Brian' directly; but, just NOT through this Forum.

    I have seen too many occasions in this Forum when some of the Users/Patrons in this Forum take it upon themselves to make "Changes" that they feel should be made to individuals/persons (from such posts) that are not directly related to their Ancestral lines - without being asked by the posters. I have done so; but, only upon the request of the posters; and, only, the minimal amount required to help the poster, leaving the real work to the poster. I will not have my Ancestral lines altered, 'hijacked', 'suchly'.

    I could hardly say that this is a serious problem/issue; as, I am certain that some User/Patrons most likely could not care less. Personally, I just do not like my 'Name' applied to a reference/action that I personally did not make or want to be taken on my behalf. As I indicated my last post on the matter was unnecessarily removed.

    On the matter of my 'style', I am sorry, that is just me, that will NEVER change.

    'Thank You' for continuing you efforts to identify and experience the problems/issues, my concerns, yourself - good luck, good hunting.

    I was just attempting to raise the problems/issues early enough to be 'nipped in the bud', 'no skin off my nose', either way. At least, I know the problems/issues exist; and, are dealing with them each time - I just "Detach" the rouge "Source" that was attached, by the "System", in my 'Name', to the, "Couple" Relationship; and/or, "Parent-Child" Relationship, with the "Reason" that I DID NOT do so and DID NOT want to such done - no big deal.

    The case as I referenced above was the most concerning - as, the Parents were not even included (members of the Household) in the 'Census' that was attached to the "Parent-Child" Relationship - an experienced User/Patron would not have made such a MISTAKE, that the "System" did.

    Brett

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

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

  • Phew! At last I managed to repeat your actions, Brett - but read on...

    In the 1871 census I found a servant in an unrelated family, attached the census source to her, but no sign of that being added to her parents's records. So your example certainly doesn't seem to be the "standard" way FamilySearch is working, at present.

    Obviously, I will keep a look out for your problem being found when I add further census records with similar circumstances. However, just as with your report of the middle names disappearing from 1911 census records, it appears these problems do not seem to be affecting other users.

    As I have taken the bother to spend around two hours of my time trying to replicate this problem, I do not believe it should be too much trouble for you to find another example (involving an individual not connected to you in any way) and detail it here.
    • Responding to your earlier response to me, these intermittent problems (this, as with your "missing middle name" post) must be very difficult to investigate. Let's hope they disappear as fast as they have cropped up. Believe me, I can empathise with you, as I have reported problems here over the years that don't seem to have been experienced by other users, but they have eventually resolved themselves.

      More recently, see my post at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... This issue is really annoying me, but if others ARE affected it doesn't seem to be worrying them much!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • This was explained in previous threads cited.  When you use Sourcelinker it will create and attach Sources to the PID and Relationships attributed to you, like when you create a new Person via the Sourcelinker. This may depend on the data in the record.
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/familysearch-whats-going-on-attach-1911-england-wales-census-to-family-individuals-find-it-attached-to-couple-parent-child-r-1a6xfltwmskqx
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • So right now I'm clicking on multiple Parent-Child Relationship Sources sections, relating to IDs from various branches on the Tree. I can't find a single source under Relationship Sources in any ID I've looked at. Obviously, I've got sources like "William Brown in the household of John Brown" attached to children, but they are not appearing here.

    Have I got to change some setting to get sources to populate this area, or is this feature just being rolled out for certain sources, as I believe Joe might be suggesting?

    Incidentally, I've found sources listed in the Couple Relationship section (under Relationship Sources) for, well, only one (so far) of the IDs I've checked, but further clarification of how sources get into these "Relationship" sections would be much appreciated.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • From a previous post about this same thing :
    "Some records have extra meta-data that allows them to be attached to the relationships as well, say for a marriage, or birth. In those cases that Source is also attached to the relationships. This has been requested for years and has been slowly being carried out. It is not available for all such records. 
    If you believe that these tagged Sources don't belong to the relationship you can remove them from the relationship or from the PID. But that seems counter to the desire to provide evidence of the relationship."

    "When you use Sourcelinker it will create and attach Sources to the PID and Relationships attributed to you, like when you create a new Person via the Sourcelinker. "

    Take a census for example. You get a hint for a persona in that household - say father. The father PID already exists and in the SourceLinker you attach the source to him. Still in the SourceLinker you add new PID's family members. A Source is attached to each new PID you create. But since the SourceLinker might know the relationship in the record, and now the relationship through the PIDs it can also attach the source to the relationship when that child is created. The information must be there for the attach to work the way it does. THis has been happening for probably over a year - but again depends on the Sourcelinker having PID relationship and historical record relationship data.

    This has been requested for years. This way if a the relationship changes, you aren't dependent on that source being only on the Person. But is available on the relationship too. 

    I'm not sure why this requested feature is "disturbing and concerning" and why this has to be a all users. We all recognize there are always new things to learn, and defects in systems. Again, please read through the previous threads for more background. 
    • Thanks, Joe. I'll carry on looking but it does seem strange I'm unable to find even one source in the Parent-Child Relationship sections of IDs I have checked - especially if, "This has been happening for probably over a year". Maybe it has been applied more to sources relating to the USA, rather than England.

      Naturally, it would be quite happy to see illustrations to contradict my views - perhaps, in time, I will find I already do have some attached to "my IDs", after all.
    • Joe Martel, what you say has been my experience with the SourceLinker and the census. And, it has worked wonderfully for me, especially when most or all the family members have already been added and all you have to do is to attach the missing record(s). It also works well in attaching probate records to all the family members, if you have already added the family members to the parent's record. The process of attaching is more complicated, but, it works. It just takes a little, sometimes a lot, of time to figure it out, but, in the long run worth the effort.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Joe, A potential problem with automatic attachments is that the Meta data may not be correct. For example I had a source automatically attached AND data written to the marriage relationship with the marriage place as the county and state the license was issued, but the marriage certification on the same document showed that the actual marriage place was in a different county. This is common in Oklahoma and elsewhere I assume. I think one should be given the option to affirm that you want that data written to in the marriage relationship fields before it does it automatically.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • This reply was removed on 2020-04-27.
    see the change log
  • This reply was removed on 2020-04-27.
    see the change log
  • This reply was removed on 2020-04-27.
    see the change log
  • Chas, incorrect info is always going to be a problem, whether that info was created by indexing, a computer (obits), or a human (Person info). So the balance is between making the user retype, pull it all over, or something in between where the user can tweak stuff in-transit. All of these are user requests. The latter requires a lot more complication and user interface and does make the transaction a little more weak "You attached this record/Source that shows a birth of Jan 12, but the data came over as Jan 21. - that's a bug ..."

    So for now we have to go in a fix any conclusion we as humans don't agree with.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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