In english, when the parents of two people are siblings they are called 1st cousins (niece/nephew).
Further down the tree relatives can be called 2. cousin, 3. cousin and so on. This is well explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin
However, in countries like Norway and Sweden there are different terms for the very same relationships.
As example, what is in english called a "2. cousin" is in Swedish called "Tremänning" or a "Syssling". In the same matter, Norwegians would call a 2. cousin, a "Tremenning". The swedish wiki has a good overview over this at http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusin
Now here is the problem with Family Tree Builder, there are no way for us to translate this properly. The strings that can be translated looks like:
"Cousin F", "%2 is a %3 cousin %4 of %1"
It will as example look like
"NN is a 2nd cousin of NN"
For us, it is simply the wrong term. We would call this person Tremenning
"NN is a Tremenning of NN"
Without proper support for these translations, a very basic part of relationship terms within Family Tree Builder are simply missing.
I hope this issue will be adressed now that the 7.x version are released and development of this are developed.
Hi there, is there any chance that I could export events in calendar (birthdays, marriage, etc.) into a file that I could import into Outlook - or even better - get it as a "live link" showing in Outlook (so that when someone add any data such as birthday these will automatically show up in my desktop calendar)??? Now I have to do it all manually... Thanks in advance for your reply!!!
Sometimes ago I had asked if it was possible to add a live online chat and Video conference option just like the Facebook have at the moment. Any idea when you are going to add this option on the MyHeritage Family website? All the members on my Family website are asking me to have this options available so they can chat and see each other while talking about the family and working together as team.
Looking forward for Live Chat and Video Tool as soon as possible.
Thanks for pointing this out for us, we already saw a few comments about this subject and we are working to improve the functionality in our system regarding the privacy of individuals. I'm sorry for the inconvenience that this might have caused you or still does.
Just to let you know, there's an option to make specific facts for the individuals as private, so you wouldn't have to mark the whole profile as private. I do not know what your individual wanted or how he wanted his privacy to be kept but it might prove to be useful to just mark all the facts related to him as private rather than the whole profile. So atleast his name would appear.
You can do this by going to Tools > Advanced Privacy Settings... > Add > Add Person's fact.
...there's an option to make specific facts for the individuals as private, so you wouldn't have to mark the whole profile as private...just mark all the facts related to him as private rather than the whole profile. So at least his name would appear.
While this works, the "Advanced Privacy Settings" is cumbersome because you have to repeat the entire process fact by fact. If you have seven facts for the individual, you have to repeat the action seven times. It would be so much smoother to select the person then be able to check (using select boxes) the fact(s) to be made private.
Lots of room for improvement in some of these features.
There is so much room for improvement for so many tools that we can't do all of them in the short period of releasing a new version. And so we will need to prioritize these improvements which is quite hard for every company, I hope you understand that it might take some time before some features make it to the new versions due to their importance, complexity or just time consumption from our developers.
I wrote down your improvement in our system as well.
I apologize for the inconvenience and hope that you still enjoy our software!
I totally agree with you! When I saw that I wanted to go back to version 6 but to my dismay I had already entered more than 200 people to version 7 and I would have lost them if I had returned to version 6. Maybe, in time, the emails telling me the information for the unknown people will stop.
I posted this in another thread before seeing Product Suggestions.
Like the Merge checkboxes (eg Merge data from that tree to my tree for these people) Facts need to be transferred from one person to another and you could use a similar checkbox approach. Most often, these are needed between a parent or spouse and the other spouse and children.
It is the most tedious part of your software to manually redo the facts for everyone who shares them.
As far as Search goes, you should allow a date range to be searched for.
Often, the same citation will apply to several facts for one individual. A short quote in a local history might give the date of birth, occupation, date of marriage, list of children or known number of children, date of immigration, and date of death.
My custom is to put this into the Citation tab for the individual and then later painfully one by one copy the citation into each relevant fact. How often have I wished that I could just click a checkbox to apply the same citation to each fact (if there's a good reason not to do that, will the expert genealogists in the audience please speak up!)
I can do this easily at ancestry.com -- if I cite a census record, it automatically applies the citation to each family member listed on the census. More and more I find myself working there rather than in FTB because it's so easy.
I TRIPLE "YES!" this! It is so tedious and time-consuming. I'm on the brink of leaving MyHeritage for this reason. I'd rather be researching or reading the historical documents than doing data entry for hours for a few documents. I have run into situations where I found a historical story and notated it as a fact to a particular person. Down the road, after more researching, I figure out that I have another family member from another branch involved in the same story. Instead of just tagging/adding them to the story, I had to go to the fact at the original person ....copy... paste.. cite.
It is great that the census records are now available, but you have to go through every single person in the family and manually enter in the data. I don't even know what the point of the matching document indicator is other than to point you to a matching document. It doesn't sync the data with the person - let alone all applicable info for any other relatives on said document. Ancestry does have the advantage there! My husband's family is "Latino" and they have HUGE numbers of children. His great-grandfather had 28 children! Imagine going through 3 decades of census' and manually inputting the data for all of that. Blech!
I'd also recommend allowing the search for individuals to recognize the married name OR maiden name.
I also agree with the cite tab or something to that effect. There has to be an easier way, and I cannot think of a reason not to do it.
EDIT: I thought of another one. Allow one parent to be listed as a step-parent (etc) and the other to be biological instead of only natural, adopted, or foster by the SET.
We are on the brink of developing our search function even more. We have recently changed it so you would have the option to use the "Exact Search".
We are also releasing new technologies such as the Record Detective which should tie the same record to more individuals on your tree (in the case of a census record for example) or even to other records which might be relevant.
Anothe release would be the ability to extract the information from the record straight into your family tree which will resemble the smart matching system a lot, and will also let you to include the record as a note or citation.
We will note your suggestions and write our developers of changes that you wrote us.