Another idea related to the email function on the site.
I think it would be a terrific idea to have a copy of the email, when sent to all members, be posted as an update in What's New'. Another way to build visits and return traffic by site members to see what is new.
I send a weekly update and while I can cut and past to News that is cumbersome and not user friendly at all.
I would like to have MyHeritage consider improving the email to members feature by allowing the attachment of photos to emails when sent. Links are ok, but everyone loves photos and it draws readers in so much more that must verbage.
Is there a way to link multiple people's facts to a photo already in an album? Example: My grandparents both graduated from the same high school in 1934. I loaded the graduation program to my Grandfather as an education fact photo. He is linked. I want to link Grandma to. However, I cannot find a way to link her education fact to the existing document. I have to either upload it again in her education facts section or I have to link it to her as a photo of her, which I do not want to do since it is text. Am I missing a way to do this?
Thank you for your suggestion, I will pass it on to our development team.
If you wish, you can tag the second person in the existing photo, so they are both connected to that photo, however if you would like to add the photo to the fact, you will need to add the photo again, as you stated.
I strongly second this request. It makes no sense to have to upload the photo multiple times, edit the information in the photo multiple times, tag the people in the photo multiple times, etc. Then, if something needs to be edited, you have to remember to do it in each copy of the photo. And unfortunately, I have found the face recognition system does not recognized the faces in the second copy of the exact same photo. This is a real problem.
I think its time for myheritage to lift their heads from the sand and relailse that some site managers have not got enough brains to publish their data and overwrite the old. So they just keep adding another tree.
I think it boils down to insecurity that their hard work may be lost. Now wouls that be a shame for some.
But for those of us trying to get on with things the useless habit of having Mytree01 and mytree02 and my tree0111, is just a nonsense and I would like to see the system changes such that a manger can have only one tree version.
I agree that we are entitled to have various trees depicting different "branches" but what I objsect to is multiple versions of the same tree.
I too would like to see an end to multiple trees. Some are done on a monthly basis so a new one is added each month. I have been marking the new ones as "Ignore this tree" when they come up, but that is time consuming too. We don't need to confirm over and over because someone is too lazy or ignorant to work with one tree.
I agree with you. Seems to be a case of laziness or fear, but having multiple-multiple trees is not in anyone's best interest. I doubt even the manager can keep them straight, so most, I am guessing, go dormant after awhile.
Certainly there is a problem. One manager with whom I regularly exchange matches has eight trees and another has maybe six. So if they each have a match with my tree I have fourteen 'transactions' to make rather than two. And until Family Tree Builder and the web sites are synchronised (rolll on the day!) I will be matching in BOTH so that is twentyeight transactions. No wonder matching is a slow process.
I can see value in there being an extra tree, a Master Tree, in each family site. Synchronised to the trees that currently can exist and which in the better sites might each concentrate on an individual branch of the family or families. Or with the ability of the site manager to click on the name of the tree(s) she wants the match to be with. SmartMatching only to be between Master Trees.
Then I would have one match (with each family site) instead of anywhere from one to eight.
It would probably make it easier for managers to manipulate 'people' between their trees. I would be happy I think for matches to be between master trees, and then I could move people around so that I had a tree for my mother's line, my father's line, and the same for my wife's family lines. And put the people I have a record for who are a bit remote for any individual tree, only in the master tree in case their information is useful later in one of the individual trees. We all have some of these people.
I work in a department responsible of user support for a software my company use. The supplier of the software have an Idea solution where users can enter an idea and other users can vote for or against the idea. Users can also add comments. The Idea has a status of Received, Under consideration, Planned, Implemented or Rejected.
If this was implemented we could easily see what ideas are allready placed before we place our own and we could see the vote count, comment and status of the ideas.
To place an Idea, the user would need to place it under categories to make it easy to find them.
thank you for the message. As you know our Family Tree Builder software doesn't have a Mac version yet.
We've received many requests for this, so producing a Mac version is definitely in our plans. In the meantime, you can wait until we have a Mac version, or continue to grow your tree online. We are very sorry, but we can not provide any time frame, when it can be launch.
By the way, did you try/or consider to install Windows version on Mac - it can maybe works for you in that way for Family Tree Builder.
Just mark your grandfather with a click and then right click and you get a popup menu. Then select Spouses and then Handle Spouses. You will now have a dialog window where you have a list of all spouses and you can move them up or down to get the order right. Maybe the texts are different because I use FTB in swedish.
I think it should also be considered that not all of us who married took our husbands last name. Unfortunately, your developers assumed we all did, and my last name was changed to my husband's last name on my tree - which isn't the case. I kept my maiden name in real life, so I would also like to keep it on my tree please! Thx!
In Sweden children started to get their fathers surname in the end of the 1800s and I beleive the wifes started to adopt their husbands surname at the same time. Now when many people lives togeather without marrige they keep their maiden surname and even many married people keep their maiden names. Sometimes it is the husband that change his name if his wifes name is "better". Before the late 1800s people got their surname by taking the fathers given name and added son or dotter (daughter) which they kept all their life. So it is, at least in Sweden, just a short time in history when wifes have changed their name to their husbands name and in our trees there are mayby just 5 generations where this happend. So for the majority of people in our trees the names are not changed.
Another reflection is that when the married name is used there are times when it is difficult to see that matched persons are the same.
Anna Jonsdotter was married to 2 men. 1st Peter Andersson and 2nd to Olof Petersson. If I just know about the first marrage and the matching tree just know about the second marrage we will be matching an Anna Andersson with an Anna Petersson if settings are set to just show married name. This will also be true if we both now about the 2 marrages but dont know the marrage order and pick different order.
So I have my settings set to Show maiden name only.And never fill in Married name except for the few people that actually have changed it.