We are not talking about the same thing here. I was talking about SmartMatching in Family Tree Builder, and using the Merge function available there, in particular to add new family members (or further details) from the other tree to my tree.
Say I had a married couple in my tree and wanted to add children who were in the other person's tree, I click in the Merge box; check the people I want to add (or add details of) to my tree, and then click in Step by Step Merge (NEVER Automatic Merge; I want to look at every detail).
But your idea, what you do now and especially the way you would like MH to set it up, is fantastic. It ties in with a recent suggestion of mine for comparing trees.
I want a simple way to get an idea of whether membership in another tree would be helpful to me; and to the other site holder.
A way to compare trees!
At present I have no real idea of whether we share names in our trees; trying to do this with just a look at another person's tree is a lost cause.
And I would feel lost with the way you do it now, besides the effort would not be worth it for what I need.
I collected my documents, photos etc in a shelf. I gave each of the persons a specific number. This is, as a lot of people do have the same name over generations. As a reference numbering system I'm using the Kekule system. Somebody else would like to have another numbering system.
This help me to find the related documents to a person much easier.
I assumed I can misuse the field 'EMAIL' as I don't use. Problem is that it is checke if the content of the field follow the email rules. You need to have an @.
For me it would be helpful to have such a field. Could be that not all of the users of myheritage has the need of an extra field.
In a similar fashion I would like to be able to group people together. For example I would like to be able to easily find everyone in the family tree who has military sevice records.
I know how to add additional fields and custom fields. In the full profile >edit profile > all facts > add another fact > enter a fact type = add a custom field. Here you can add any field you like. Custom fields will show up on the Details Panel for each person.
However, once you have create a field, or used one of the many available fields, there is still no way to search for everyone in the tree with that field. You can only use the PEOPLE search to search names and places.
Werner, have you tried adding a custom field this way? Would this help you?
MH, can we please have better searching added to future upgrades?
Did you know that the MacFamilyTree uses Kekulé numbers? I wonder if MH could include this in a future upgrade.
As for your idea of using email addresses - you can't search on the email field either. You can only search on place and name. I don't know much about Kekulé numbers - would it be possilbe to integrate the kekule number into the place field?
I know it would be a big job to add a Kekulé numbers field to every person in your tree. But the advantage is that you will see the field on the details panel and can easily edit it from there.
It would be a good idea if MH allowed searching of other fields.
My Great Grandmother had 9 children. Unfortunately only 3 lived into infancy. I wanted to print a family group sheet to send to my grandfather so he could fill in the names of his siblings. However, when I created the group sheet it only had spaces for his parents and his brother and sister. It would be nice if FTB filled the page with boxes for children. What would also be nice is if, when printing the family group sheet you could designate how many children boxes you wanted to print. In my above example you can not fit 9 children on a page so it would have to print another page with the boxes for the rest of the children on it. Of course I could create Unknown children in my tree but I hate having to upload unknowns to the web tree. It just takes time and unnecessary space.
When I use the PEOPLE choice on the FAMILY TREE menu to search for a person in my family tree I have to type the person's name exactly. e.g. The search for John F Kennedy, I can't type John Kennedy, or I wouldn't get any results.
However, when I am adding a relative to the family tree using the EDIT box options, for example adding a father for John F Kennedy, I can type any part of the persons name in any order. For example I could type Kennedy Joe and still find a list of suitable people.
My question is why can't the second style of searching be made available when using the PEOPLE choice on the FAMILY TREE menu. The second search algorithm is obviously much more advanced than the first.
The suggestion is - can you please improve the search algorithm for searching for PEOPLE on the online site.
The "What's new" (front page summary) and the weekly report summary only summarise the additions to the site. e.g. Stephen added Blah, Blah, Blah and 20 other people to the family tree".
Would it be possilbe please to improve this listing in the weekly summary and provide a fuller list of people who have been added to the site.
Alternatively, would it be possible to provide a link to a page that provides the full list of additional names.
A purpose of the weekly summary is to garner and report the latest additions, but too much of the interesting information is lost in the very brief summary. When people subsequently visit the site there is no easy way to deternine what is new or the extent to which any branch of the tree has been increased or decreased.
This makes life especially difficult for site managers, who can see (say 23) people have been added, but can't easily determine who they all are. The larger the site and the larger the number of contributors, the bigger the problem.
Please consider helping with this. Especially please consider any improvement that would make collaboration between multiple contributors easier - (for family sites like mine that have a number of family members collaborating and contribution).
Thank you for your support. It might not be hard to implement a simple version of this idea. As a starting point it might only be a matter of making the "PEOPLE" listing sortable by "date added". This would give us a simple listing from youngest record to oldest record. This way everyone could see the latest editions.
Showing this list with the actual "date added" shown would be a bonus. But I would settle for just the ordered list if that could be implemented quickly and easilty.
Improving the weekly mail out list to report ALL additions - or a much fuller list - would still be a welcome and very nice addition when time permits.
The much bigger dream would be to know who make each update or correction. I imagine this would be a bit harder to implement. It would be ideal to know "last modified" and "by who". That would be the complete deal.