Two changes to Forum posting methods would greatly improve things for followers: (1) When an individual poster's Reply button is picked, add the reply post to the end of the thread -- not within the thread adjacent to the point where the Reply button was selected; and (2) Use the most recent Reply time in the initial topic subject line rather than preserving the opener's original post time.
I totally agree with you that the topic order in all forums should be in "most recent reply" order, this might make more people use the forums, which is the excuse that MH use for not doing any changes to these forums.
But until others chime in MH will just ignore their customers, saying that there not any call for changes :@
1. I do support the request to fix post order on the forum "Product suggestions".
2. I am thinking about the threory of changes. We are humans, humand are making changes just in two cases: a) they feel real danger; b) they see and feel crystal clear benefit. I am realistic person, fixing post order does not fit neither of case.
Disclosure: This is not offensive post against My Heritage Inc., this is defensive post of My Heritage Inc. Forum User.
I thought might be interested in this novel idea.
I have two genealogy files (and my friend has 4, sorted by location). One is my complete file of everyone and hints and guesses. And the other one a file I put out on the Internet trolling for matches, a file for those I am especially interested in. So here is what I need: a program where if I make an entry in one file, it automatically makes the same entry in the other if that person is in both files. So if I add a child of a person X in both files, that entry is made in both. If I add a child or parent to person Y in a file but Y is not in both files, then the entry only goes into my big storeroom file. I am happy for the program to only work in one direction (or you could set up in which direction it would work). But I think a lot of people would find this of value. Not sure how this would work with 3 files, but you could think that through.
please let me ask if you are talking about FTB project files, please confirm.
Are you using My Heritage Online ? If not, why not ?
Please let me share my experience. I have one verified tree on separate site. I have research trees (including unverified content) on different research site. I am not willing to put X person to two trees automated way without my control (verification).
My feeling is that appropriate improvements could be:
A. SmartInternalMatch within the site between two or more trees.
B. SmartExternalMatch between the (specified) trees of sites of the same user.
OK Arvidas, I will look into SM Internal and SM External and see what already exists, but your idea sounds a good one. I think people who write software do so with those tables in mind when they sell software, where you tick a box for each different thing you do, even if no one will ever do that thing. I use 4 different software packages for different things, but cannot do what I have suggested.
No I dont use MH online; I find most modern software packages are too hard to learn, they are not intuitive. They are designed to wow new users. I use an old Family Tree Maker which does not have a lot of bells but has what you want near at hand. I would use newer software if you could put bits of it in a drawer, llike you do on a real desktop. I cannot see why you cannot move the things you want to where you want them, and hide things you dont want so you dont have to read through them every time you are looknig for something. It is like cluttered notice boards that no one reads as they are too clutterd. I tried MHeritage when it first came out but my brain is different from that of a computer writer. That's why not.
To add to what you say:
I have research trees (including unverified content) on different research site. I am not willing to put X person to two trees automated way without my control (verification).
When I have something varified, I want to put it on your/my varified tree and also have it automatically entered on the unvarified tree with come comment that it is verified. I never want to the reverse. My unvarified tree will be about 10 times bigger than the varified tree.
I am replying to your text that you do not use MH Online yet.
In your first post I did find your clear wish to collaborate with other family searchers (sharing files). I fully aware that you prefere to stay with your current softwares. The problem (=opportunity) is that the life is not standing in one place. Nowadays we ave great opportunity to work on family trees togetehr with other family members in one platform (online). This is giving number of great advantages and really no disadvantages.
May I suggest you to consider MH ONLINE being "Family tree file droped in the internet cloud for sharing purposes" (what is truth actually). Try this, I strogly beliueve you will enjoy it. MH Help Documentation, Support team and we, MH users will assist you to do this smooth.
Thank you for writing on our Forum and for the suggestion.
In fact, if you have a family tree on your family site on MyHeritage, you can invite other people (friends and relatives) to become part of your site and be able to also edit and add information on that same tree that you work on.
Please, read more about inviting members on the links below:
It would be great if one could tag location on map while adding birth place etc. Different places are called by different names in different eras of time. And because of that, map location shown on profile is often inaccurate.
Also it would be great if one could open Map View which from one could visualize where his/hers family comes from. I know there is such global view, but it would be great to be able to zoom it in. Also it would be great to be able to choose which part of family is shown on map, for example only fathers side.
Jag tror att problemet är relaterat språkinställningar.
I Family Tree Builder är det möjligt att välja ett VISNINGSSPRÅK och ett INMATNINGSSPRÅK.
VISNINGSSPRÅK gäller benämningarna på alla knappar och kommandon i programmet. VISNINGSSPRÅK ändrar endast Family Tree Builder’s gränssnitt och påverkar inte någon information som du har skrivit in manuellt i trädet.
INMATNINGSSPRÅK gäller den information du själv skriver in i trädet. Namn, platser, anteckningar, etc. betraktas som DATA.
Family Tree Builder tillåter dig att mata in data i det Primära Dataspråket och det Sekundära Dataspråket.
Jag kommer att ge dig instruktioner om hur du gör detta.
1. Öppna din Family Tree Builder.
2. Klicka på Arkiv> Hantera projekt, välj ditt projekt, så det är färgad i blått. Klicka sedan på öppna.
3. När du har öppnat ditt släktträd, klicka på flaggikonen Ovest i menyn.
4. I det fönster som öppnas, klicka på Avancerade inställningar. (Se bild för visuell hjälp)
5. I nästa fönster, högerklicka för att få upp menyn Hantera uppgifter språk, klicka på denna.
6. I nästa fönster kan du se dina två språk (engelska och norska) kommer du också se att antalet stämmer inte.
För att datorerna ska kunna läsa all information på båda språken, måste all information finnas på båda språken,
7. Välj språk med flest uppgifter, så den lyser blått, klicka kopia.
8. I nästa fönster kommer du att uppmanas att kopiera från ett språk till ett annat, välja engelska i topp listan, och danska i nästa.
9. Klicka på kopior, kommer du nu se i föregående bild som danska och engelska har så mycket data. Kontrollera båda har så mycket data, kan du behöva kopiera båda sätten.
It is true I should have sent the screenshot 'Norwegian' instead of 'Danish' but I think Tor might have understood what I meant, since on the text I tell him to choose Norwegian and English (step 6).
Regarding the text language, I can only actually write in Swedish. But the Scandinavian languages are really intelligible for their speakers, especially Swedish and Norwegian, and I believe that Tor won't have any much difficulty in understanding it.
If not, he can let me know and I can send him again in English if it is easier for him, or ask another representative to answer him in Norwegian.
Instead of, or in addition to, the existing settings that allow site managers to determine who can edit the site can MyHeritage please give some consideration to a better and more flexible way to manage this.
Perhaps you could consider a rule-based system where the site manager could determine which site members could view branches in the tree and which site members could edit.
Here is an example of simple window with choices to make VIEWING or EDITING rules.
(Open the attached picture to see the suggestions for editing and viewing rules)
Giving us flexible control like this would greatly enhance the usability of the myHeritage Site and it would distinguish this Site form the competition.
From an administrative point of view, assigning rights to individuals is not overly complicated or a lot of work. It is something a Site Manager would normally do once, at the time a new member was invited/accepted on to the site.
The system I mentioned above looks complicated on first glance, but it is not (or at least it is not meant to be). It is just about giving a person 1/. viewing or edit rights and 2/. Selective rights or righs to the whole site. Selective rights cover 1/. their branch of the tree, or 2/. plus generations above them, or 3/. plus generations below them, and 4/. branches of partners (associated families).
There have been several suggestions to improve on this area of the online software. Each proposal is about giving Site Managers better control over how invited members contribute to Extended Family Sites. The current system is not very user friendly because it is all or nothing - everyone or no-one. In the current system the only way to select some members to be editors (as opposed to all members be editors) is to promote selected members to Site Managers and just allow site managers to edit. Having multiple site managers is not always desirable.
I'm sure it would be possible to devise a simply system to assign editing rights to individuals and this would be better than the current system.
If one chooses to assign rights with a role based system, like yours, then best practice would be to allow Site Managers to decide who gets what role. i.e. Allow Site Managers to assign a role to each invited site member. Four or five well chosen roles might be sufficient.
I hope MH will look carefully at this areas of their software and include some improvements in the next round of upgrades. Unfortunately the requests date back nearly three years and there has been no changes made by MH in that period.