Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I'm assuming this means you're able to see living people in my family tree. If you find Paolo Celestini you'll be able to see the problem. In Family Tree Builder the couple is set as engaged, however when you look at the family tree online in "Classic view" there is a normal wedding ring between the two when selected instead of an engagement ring. You should be able to see the issue by doing this.
We do not have the release date of our new view as of yet because we are still improving it up, some members already got to test it out, we collected their feedback and now we are working on implementing their comments.
My grandmother's sister had seven children. I only have birthdates for some of them but in the Family Tree Builder I have them in the right order. However, when I view the family tree online they appear in the wrong order. The ones with birthdates appear first and then the ones without come after. If I put in a "date within range" or an estimate it doesn't work either. Either no date comes up or it does come up but still in the wrong order. Can someone look into this? It's really irritating.
Thank you for writing us and we appreciate your patience regarding this matter.
I would be glad if you could give me the name of the person this has happened for so we could investigate further, unfortunately we can't find this error on your family site nor we were able to reproduce this.
OK, if you look in my family tree for William James Govier (1854-1915), one of his children, Henry Govier, is down as having been born "Between 1884 and 1887". The online family tree in both classic and modern mode (which really seem like they're the wrong way round to be honest, but that's another issue) can't make sense of this kind of inexact date. In classic mode no date is shown unless he is selected, in modern mode the right date range does appear. However in both modes it forgets that he should be the 6th child and moves him to the end, making him the last child.
The same issue can be seen in my family tree when only one sibling among many has a known date of birth. Lucia Recinelli should be the second child of seven after her sister Rosaria, and is specified as such in Family Tree Builder, but in the online family tree in both modes she appears as the first. When dates of birth are not known it seems to prioritise male children first as it has placed Alessandro second online when he should be third.
I'm glad to tell you that the first issue that you presented with the children of William James Govier, we fixed. We now consider the earliest date when specifying "Between 1884 and 1887" in the new family tree display (which is not yet available to the public).
Regarding the second issue, if the dates of birth is unknown then the family site would not know how to prioritize. We would recommend you to do as you've done in the first issue to specify a range of dates and organize them by the ranges.
I hope it makes sense, when the new display will come out you will have much less consistency troubles with the family tree.
Good one, Noam; not exactly what I had in mind, but good one nonetheless ;)
Here's the deal: "There are 2,121 Smart Matches™ you confirmed" says MH. You bet I didn't check each and everyone to see what info I could drag over to my tree. I did check them overall to see if they were talking about the same people, and duly rejected the ones that weren't. Now, what'd be great to have is MH to say: "Hey, you've already confirmed matches for these people (and so have their tree managers), but what do you want to do about all this info that you don't have or doesn't match with your tree? Do you want to copy it over or leave it as it is?"
What would be also great is for MH to tell me the info on the people I matched has changed in other trees, so I can choose to update mine. Theeeen you'll see some consensus building across your family forest ;)