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

When is a Dismissed not a Dismissed Hint?

Looking at some work done by someone else on an ancestor (appeared on the watch list) . . . refers to a hint that was dismissed - probably quite correctly by the the other person - but the view of Hints does not make sense . . . claiming there are no dismissed hints - yet showing one in the list.

Any explanation . . . or have I mis-interpreted what I am looking at?

2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • Looks like the count on dismissed hints isn't working correctly right now. If the software engineers have not been aware of this bug, they will be now when they see your report.

    I do see the same problem. (macOS 10.13.6 with Safari 12.0.1)
  • (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

  • Same problem using Chrome (current version) on Windows 7 (all updates current).
  • (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
    This was reported back quite a while. It looked as though an attempt to fix it actually broke it in a different way, and then nothing else happened. The totals were weird and the meaning of the Hints fields were ambiguous as well. For example is "Hints" the TOTAL hints including "Dismissed Hints"? Or would "Hints" more properly be labeled "Undismissed Hints"?

    In the example above The Hints and Dismissed Hints should show "1" and "1" respectively for the former, and "0" and "1" respectively for the latter. Obviously "0" and "0" is always just plain wrong.

    Note that the Data items and Research items were being included as Hints in the counts as well. For some discussion on all of the inconsistencies see:

    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    (note that the hint counts were working better when this was originally reported)
  • (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

  • And unfortunately they, the *hints* do not go away until you attach them to the person, in my experience. Then you end up with the same record attached to the person multiple times.
  • (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
    Julie Kay McCauley,

    The hints only “go away” when you either 1) agree that they really are for the person the hints were suggested for by attaching them, or, 2) you mark them as “not a match” to flag to the search engines that they do not belong to the person that they were suggested for. All hints need to be dealt with one way or the other (because, of course, they can only ever be one or the other). This is necessary for the search engines to function effectively.

    The issue of “the same record attached to the person multiple times” that you referred to is not exactly what it seems. You are NOT actually seeing multiple instances of the same record. What you are usually seeing is different CITATIONS of the same source that refer to the same individual. These may or may not have obvious differences.

    The formal separation in the discreet concepts of “sources” and “citations” at FS can be confusing because they are not at all presented very clearly, especially when indexes are introduced. Consider the following:

    If your grandfather showed up in the 1930 US census, you might document it in your personal records something like this:

    John Smith, 1930 US census, Iowa, page 387 (and maybe include an image of that page from the census for reference)


    Note that the above is not really a source. It is a Citation of a source. It is possible for multiple citations to exist referencing a given person in a given source.

    When an index for a source such as a census is placed into the Family Tree database, each index point (i.e., each indexed person) is documented as a separate citation. If a source (e.g. a census) has been indexed more than once, or indexed from different archives/repositories, multiple different citations for the same person will exist, even though they refer to the same original source. And if provided, images of the original source would look similar.

    When you receive a hint, it is one of these CITATIONS from the archived indexes (i.e., not the original source itself which FS doesn’t normally have) that the search engines think might be related to the person it is being suggested for. There frequently is multiple citations referencing the same original sources for the same people, but these are DIFFERENT records.

    To prove this to yourself, under your sources where you think you have duplicate records, open the sources and compare the URLs. They should be different (see attached).



    The system is designed to PREVENT the same citation being attached to the same person more than once.

    Note. Rarely you CAN actually find true duplicates due to bugs in the system. There are procedures for getting rid of those.
  • (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

  • Jeff, thank you so much for clearing that up for me!! You have really given several good points in your comment. And it makes sense, especially when indexed from different sources. I honestly hadn't thought about that.
    • That's great!

      The final twist in all this is that since these citations from indexed sources are all formally archived in the FS database (i.e., Family Search is the repository) that means when you are looking at those hints from the indexes, from YOUR point of view, those citations would be classified as sources! (although they would be secondary sources)

      Frequently also, the same set of sources (e.g., a book of Ohio County Marriages, 1789-2013) may have been photographed/microfilmed twice. As a result, you now have two "sources" from the original, each of which has been indexed. Compare the following noting that they are each a citation from a different source (FS microfilm number) because the original Ohio document was filmed twice.

      https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...

      https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1...
  • (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