Op de familiepagina wordt de verwantschap tot de ouders weergegeven met de keuze: natuurlijk kind, geadopteerd of pleegkind. Wat ontbreekt is de mogelijkheid dat er een donorvader in het spel is en die kan bekend of onbekend zijn. Dit is natuurlijk belangrijk in verband met erfelijkheidsvraagstukken. Graag dus de mogelijkheid voor een donorvader toevoegen, met de mogelijkheid om een bekende donor met naam en toenaam te vermelden. Er komen dan dus twee mogelijkheden bij:
Natuurlijk Kind van de moeder en onbekende donor
Natuurlijk kind van de moeder en bekende donor >>vermeld gegevens donor
De partner van de moeder blijft natuurlijk gewoon de feitelijke, opvoed, vader!
Thank you for suggesting this valid point of including donor fathers in relationship.
Unfortunately your request in a nonEnglish language gets lost as there is no translation. I know of at least one MH representative that could have replied to your product suggestion or translated it for all of us to see. Many topics in nonEnglish writing are valid topics and are probably never pursued.
After living almost fifty years in English speaking Canada, I can still understand the Dutch language. I guess you only learn it once.
Being a touch typist, I frequently encounter programs and/or web sites which are mouse centric and very annoyingly so. The online MyHeritage.com is better than a lot of sites, kudos to the staff behind the curtain.
However, just two tiny little changes in the confirmation of smart matches would be, in my humble opinion, welcomed by many. I typically confirm smart matches of more than one by scrolling down the entire list and doing ONLY rejections singly, leaving all the confirmed until I'm at the bottom of the list, even if there are multiple pages which you have if there are over 50. Then I scroll all the way back to the top....
and here is one suggestion for staff (Please add a link to the bottom of the list to confirm all, like you have at the top)
Anyway currently, after scrolling to the top of the possible 50 person list, I click the "confirm all link"
A popup window appears telling you that you are indeed confirming nn number of matches on such and such tree and giving you a box to enter a message to the manager of that site. This is all fine, but as far as I can tell, NOTHING has focus except the popup itself. Please give the "Confirm Matches" action button the focus so all I have to do is hit ENTER.
I agree the SM interface could use a total rework to make it more efficient for us.
When we have many matches and viewing matches by people, allow to filter on one match by clicking one of the matching data elements so you can approve/disaprove that one instead of scrolling down a long list and looking for that one profile.
Please give the "Confirm Matches" action button the focus so all I have to do is hit ENTER.
Excellent idea, and probably something the developers could implement fairly easily.
But tell me, why do you spend time confirming SMs? Rejecting them prevents them, one would assume, from ever turning up again, but what does confirming them do? Whenever I look at a smart match, I find that one of the following conditions applies:
The data in the SM clearly was copied from my site, so there is nothing new
The data in the SM matches my own, so there is nothing new
The SM has less data than I have, so there is nothing new
The SM has inaccurate data for which I have already found accurate information and evidence
I can't see the point of confirming any of these.
Help me out, here. Why spend time confirming Smart Matches?
Geoff, I have found "Smart Matches" taking my family history back to around 1000AD and I don't believe a bit of it.
I am seeking links which are documented and supported by evidence. Often I've written to the owner of a SM site saying, "How do you know that A was the father of B?" and the answer has inevitably been, "Oh, I got it from a smart match".
In other words, many site managers are perpetuating spurious trees with absolutely no evidence at all. I don't want to work that way.
If the SMs have given you good quality links with careful researchers who support their work with evidence, you've been fortunate.
But you can MERGE data from a SM without confirming it. When I find a documented fact in another tree, I can add it to my database.
My question remains, why do you bother CONFIRMING the SM? What good does it do? How does it help?
Thanks, Tom, and I certainly share many of your concerns and value your opinions.
Some maybe random thoughts:
I have been researching my tree, and my wife's tree. They each involve large (and often complex) families, in comparatively recent times, mostly within Australia though with mainly English ancestors, usually not that far back. A great many of the events are supported by birth, death and marriage certificate numbers which are no guarantee but are certainly persuasive and can be verified. And most of the matches (except for obvious rejections) come from a pretty much closed group of relations who have a working knowledge of at least the part of the family close to them. I have learned to know the site owners who are likely to have errors in their trees, often they are not good at accurate completion of the details...Frequently when I find an unlikely relationship or detail in a Merge I will e-mail the site owner and often they will reply to thank me and agree that (whatever) might be incorrect. Probably some think me a pedantic, er, person... but it is done with the intention of reducing errors on MH and does help. I do all merges in detail and meticulously so I often find discrepancies.
When I am puzzled by apparent discrepancies they can often be resolved by the purchase of a full death certificate which recounts all children, spouses, dates, former names. In fact I have only purchased about five in two years though I need a few more.
But the other part of the question is the operation of the SmartMatch system, and it simply does not give me the flexibility I need. You ask,'Why bother confirming the SM?' Fair enough, but the only alternative is to reject it, otherwise I have many undetermined SmartMatches remaining on the page, still there when I come again to review that name and I don't remember that I have done it before so review them again; it's a PAIN. In fact I keep a handwritten line log of names reviewed with notes in red pen of matches deliberately left undetermined because of uncertainties or unresolved errors, also whether I have allocated a TASK for further investigation.
So, how can I NOT confirm the SM when there is no provision to designate it (say) 'Hold', with or without the ability to also insert a one or two word 'Note' to help when I come back to it??
What happens within the system if I simply reject anything that is basically right but where I have some small query or reservation?
In fact I keep a handwritten line log of names reviewed with notes in red pen of matches deliberately left undetermined because of uncertainties or unresolved errors, also whether I have allocated a TASK for further investigation.
How ironic that you sit before a computerized database yet you need to keep a handwritten log.
MH people, pay attention. Something is seriously wrong with your software!
I gather, Geoff, that you confirm SMs so that they go away and are no longer in the list. Rejecting them serves the same purpose. The only advantage I can see in the confirmation is that it adds a link to the tree where you found the match, which I guess is of some value. I did a few when I first started using FTM but stopped after I realized that none of the matches had any supporting evidence. I recall once chasing a date down, "A got it from B who got it from C who got it from D who got it from E who got it from...I dunno." And in the entire chain, not a shred of documentation as to where that date came from!
These links don't seem to match any GEDCOM standard; when I exported to another system, the SM links weren't imported and turned into annoying gibberish.
I guess that once I have run through every census record, marriage record, death record, probate record etc. that I can find (I'm still a long way from exhausting primary and secondary sources) maybe I'll start looking at smart matches to break down walls or suggest alternate lines of search.
In the meantime, I'm tired of finding a bunch of matches that say one ancestor died in Hugbenden, Alberta (It's Hughenden, as you could easily find if you'd google the location!) or that use a date from an incorrect tertiary source--without even citing the source!--when primary sources are available. And I've long since tired of suggesting corrections (and citing my evidence) only to go back and find that the error has not been corrected.
No, I'm afraid that Smart Matches are not a big selling feature of FTM for me.
For the last few months, I've done most of my research at another site where their equivalent of StupidSearch and Record Defective work and work well.
Problem is, I really like the FTM GUI and home page (liked it better in V6 when the horizontal lines worked!)
I have read through your reply and will read it again a few times. Your comment 'How ironic that you sit before a computerized database yet you need to keep a handwritten log. ' ...
It's not all that silly; I have FTB on the left screen, four copies of the web site on the right screen. Home, Family Tree, SmartMatches [which I use just as an alpha index for the FTB SmartMatching/ merging on the left screen] and Forum/Inbox, so I can swap between them with tabs.
And on the desk on my left the handwritten log, one line to a name, takes under ten seconds to write and is always visible. It would take me longer to bring a list up onto the screen and it would not always be visible.
Rejecting matches would also cause them to go away but I am inconveniencing another site member who will receive a rejection and try to work out what is wrong with the match. Not fair. Not so?
And I am putting in my own system a misleading or even incorrect record for at least as long as they DO stay on the matching page; seems to be a long time sometimes.
Links or sources or whatever that other word is I have never bothered with, which will probably horrify you; though as I said I rely somewhat on BDM numbers and certificates, and I will make a note if a reliable persons attests to an event. Other documents I love but do not have a lot; I will do more when the tree is more finished and I can concentrate more on accuracy and confirmation; my wife's ancestry subscription will help.
Again thank you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable comments. Geoff
I miss a function associated with the menu item places, where I can enter information about the place. This may be earlier administrative affiliation, a short description of the location or a link to another website.
You are right, there is no option to add a description for a place currently in our family tree builder.
Thank you for suggesting this feature as I've wrote to our developers about it and hopefully we will see it in our future products.
I apologize for the inconvenience, and in the mean time you can add a fact note to the fact that you are adding the place for, or even adding a source with the place's name incase you have more than one fact or individual who live in that area.
I keep having to sift through literally thousands of my own entries from find a grave and wikitree. While they are both valuable resources, they are free and I can search them on my own. I'd like to see an "exlude" feature that can omit results from various sources. especially when I have a common name!
I can't see a field for putting the name a person was called. I'm from Southeastern USA and most of us have two names (Betty Claire, Margaret Ann), and often the person was called by the second name or even a completely different name than their "official" name.
So Heritage notified me that "Betty" will turn 65, but I've never known this person as "Betty" but "Claire".
Often, even on tombstones the "called by" name was put with the last name, especially in past. So it helps to be able to have a field for the name the person commonly was called.
We do have an option in the profile page where you can enter a nickname, maybe that can help. To do so go to the profile page and edit the profile. Under the prefix field, click on 'additional names' to enter the nickname.
I see in the FTB there is an option for displaying names (options->Names). Is there a way nickname could be added to this, i.e. [First Name "Nickname" Last Name] so it would give the result Elizabeth "Betty" Ford or any combination the user wanted.
Or is there a way to have nickhame displayed in the profile boxes?