This one is going to get some laughs - I know. But coming from one of those venerable old southern families that had a habit of intermarrying... I have a lot of first and second (and third and on and on) cousins that married one another.
Unfortunatelt FTB displays the common grandparents as two, duplicate sets of grandparents - which is just silly.
How about you fine folks consider fixing that so the relationship displays correctly?
I have a family a bit like that. Family Tree Builder allows you to "ATTACH" (instead of entering in the usual way) people who are in more than one relationship. If, say, there are two relationships then a little yellow disc with a '2' in it appears in the WEB site against their name (each time).
But that is not what you wanted, is it? Although it does identify that the person is in two distinct relationships.
I guess it comes down to the basis of the system's display method, it shows discrete groups it calls 'families' in which (often fairly small) groups can be displayed with lines joining them in traditional relationships; and you have to click on the two coloured markers above the name in the web site to show a different 'family' (a different grouping based on the name you clicked, but still usually showing within the larger tree); and if you do that you will not see groups that cannot be included in a traditional manner with those lines that join them.
And if anyone can explain that more clearly and in a less confusing way, please do!!
But I am not laughing, in my family there are lots of these relationships, which involve cousin marriages, double cousins, and marriages between (unrelated) members of my mother's family and my father's family. Including at least one cousin (and her sisters) with six separate relationship pathways to me!
So I would like to see a tree with (say) different coloured lines showing each of the multiple relationships.
This is a challenge for the Genealogists and the program developers at MH. They might even, once they work out some of the computer program possibilities, be able to offer 'custom consulting' in particular cases.
Another product feature I would like to see is as follows:
- When a SmartMatch is presented, the source info for that match SHOULD BE provided along with the details of birth, death, and other notes that are currently provided.
I really do not trust the current practice of referencing another family tree as the difinitive source for the details. How do I know their data is correct - or whether they copied it from some erroneous source?
I know for a certain fact that I have played around with building fictitional trees for writing projects I am working on, so who is to say that others are not also "making stuff up" that just happens to look - initially - like one of my authentic people?
I love the ability to add good source material... books, church records, published material that has been fact-checked to at least some degree. I don't think I'll be using the Smart Match feature anymore until there is a verifiable Source field that I can check against.
I think many other geneologists would also appreciate and use such a feature.
I would also like to be shown soure info (even if the field is blank). I have run into the problem of seeing a huge number of matches with an incorrect birth or death date, because all of those different trees just copies from another tree as the source and not one of the 12 or 13 different trees had ANY source data.
It's gets tiring writing every person. I have used this, writing to ask a source, but rarely get an answer. If I write on Ancestry.com, on the other hand, I nearly always get an answer.
But at least prioritizing matches that include source data (OTHER than another My Heritage tree), would be a big help.
I'm making it a personal rule now that unless I have verifiable source info, nothing goes in my database. I have too many people that I have no idea where the heck they came from. I'll spends YEARS trying to verify them...
I hope the good folks at MyHeritage will pay attention to this. I have to believe they will based upon what they say. We'll see.
Thanks! Me too. I have started NEVER adding smart match info to my tree with source info. Our family history was compiled by an uncle who is now dead, and most of it with no source information. So I also tons of people in my tree unsourced.
I've been starting by trying to verify birth and death dates (the easiest to find sourcing for) and then marriage and other info. I'm adding source materials slowly, as I find it.
Thank you for writing yet another useful idea in the forums!
There will be some future changes for the smart matches that may help you find the sourced smart matches (they will be given priority) easier than the unsourced information which may be of help here.
However unsourced information should help in the research as well - especially if you contact other site managers and ask them about where did they get the information. They may be reluctant to add it to the family site out of privacy concerns. Communication is key in successfully managing the Smart Matches.
I've added your suggestion to our system and made our developers aware.
Hi, Here's an interesting product dev suggestion that I think a lot of people would benefit from.
I have about 2200 individuals in my family tree and when I am working on some far flung branch, I often have no good way to visualize how I (or another person in the tree) is connected to that person.
I have often thought how nice it would be to have a little "thread" that ran up the line (or down the line), across the siblings and over, jumping a marriage, and then descending down to me (or another person I designate.)
I could make a comp in photoshop of what I am envisioning if it would be helpful.
The neat thing is, is that I don't tink it would be all that hard to do - b/c you already track that detail in "relationships", where you state that So-and-So is "Your seventeenth third cousin, twive removed". The data is there - it's just giving it a graphic representation that is new.
But before you go to the trouble to do this - FIX THE BUGS ON SITE MANAGER. I STILL CAN'T UPDATE MY FAMILY TREE WEB SITE!!!
The feature you ask about was standard in Family Tree Builder until fairly recently and yes, it was fantastic. I believe it can still be accessed (not sure if that applies to FTB v7) if you know the address (for your own language).
You are right, a visualization of the connections would be very comfortable.
We have something that resembles what you are looking for, however, they are not that visually attractive as your idea:
1) On the Family Tree Builder, if you right-click on a person on your tree you have the option to select Relations > Relation to... > Choose a person from the list and you will receive a reporton how they are related to the person.
2) There's another function on the family site to view the path of which you are related to a person if you are associated to the tree:
Once you associate yourself to the family tree, you will notice that every time that you click on a person and view their full profile page it will show on the top a blue strip that details the relational steps that needs to be taken in order to find the person.
I know this suggestion is going to sound very strange to most folks, and even distatseful to some who would rather we all just conveniently forget that Slavery existed in this country (the US), as well as most European countries well into the 19th century.
I'd REALLY like the ability to "attach" individuals, and entire families, to my slave-owning ancestors. Where there are records that exist, it's now very difficult to track who "belonged" to who and how these people were passed on as property.
If I could add a single new feature to the FTB, it would be one that gives me the ability to attach individuals in much the same way that I now attach a child or a sibling.
For anyone who is possibly offended by this request, please keep in mind that there are thousands of African-American and Europeans of African descent who are extremely interested in tracking their family histories. It's very difficult for these geneologists to do their work b/c so many records were destroyed or lost, and so many slave owning families tried hard to distance themselves from the shame of this crime. I feel the time has come for us to accept the facts of history and make it much easier for everyone with an interest in this info to get it out there, and get access to it.
I think it is a great idea. To me, Genealogy is about recording what happened, without the record being affected by moral judgements. The only exception might be comparatively recent events (less than a hundred years ago?) to avoid distressing people.
Certainly slavery is not a part of my family's history (from either side) so far as I know. But there is the great uncle (I think) of my wife who was hanged for murder...
Details of which I have not included in the tree because it was only around 1926 and some are still sensitive about it. But if you can help to make the information available to those who may be seeking it, many would be grateful.
As to how it could be done, I don't really know, but "Attach" sounds hopeful.
I'm probably getting greedy here... but one lovely additional (related) feature I'd like to see is some way to indicate the Race of the individual. This would be great for me in regards to my research on my family's past... but in future generations I think this will be an invaluable data point for geneologists researching families with mult-cultural heritage.
I'd like to see...some way to indicate the Race of the individual.
A reasonable suggestion, I guess, and political correctness be damned in the face of historical fact. Race was often recorded on US census records.
This field really should go on the Info tab on a person's detail record along with Religion and Nationality.
Anyway, there is a clumsy workaround right now in FTB. Simply open the detail page for any individual, choose the Facts tab. Enter a New Fact, and in the resulting dialog where it says "Or enter a custom type", type Race. This will be stored in the Custom Facts list. You could then put whatever racial descriptor you want in the Description field.
It's clumsy because the fact wants a date and place (as though a person's race changes with time and location), which you can ignore, though you could also include the date of any census that specified Race.
Having it as a fact would allow you to run a custom report listing, say, Black and White individuals from your tree.
I was just about to make the same suggestion. But, in my case, for instance, this could sure take up a lot of computer space because I am English, Welch, Scottish, German, Danish, French, and American Indian (Huron tribe). And, I have only traced the family back as far as 1535! Try fitting all that info in a column!!!
As far as I know, I had about seven different ancestors who owned slaves in Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina and Louisiana. One, after his wife passed away, actually freed and married a female slave and they had 20 children together in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. I also had many ancestors who fought on both sides in the Civil War, including two brothers who fought against each other in the same battle. My point is, that we cannot ignore history just to be politically correct. Still, MH is a family tree builder and I believe facts like these should remain under comments section of site and not on the actual FAMILY tree. Just my opinion.
I am English, Welch, Scottish, German, Danish, French, and American Indian (Huron tribe). And, I have only traced the family back as far as 1535! Try fitting all that info in a column!!!
That's nationality or ethnicity, I think, rather than race (an outdated concept anyway). I'm Canadian; my dad was Canadian; his father a naturalized Canadian; his father American... and back to Scottish. My mother was English, and so back... Only one or two needed per individual.
Not as colorful a history as yours! But that's the fun of family history.
Come to think of it, you're right, of course. However, if there were some way to trace us ALL THE WAY BACK, we are ALL really only one race, right?...and with the same pair of ancestors! Or, if you're more into Science than Religion, from the same cell or cells. By the way, to the point of slavery in America, did you know that the first person in America to own a slave was an African-American? How about that for shaking up the establishment!
Humm... I'd like to know your source for that bit of information.
This is a subject I know a good bit about... having studied the subject for years and amassing a pretty substantial library on the history of the matter.
I guess it depends on what you are calling America - and when...
- if it's New Orleans (the largest Slave Market in the continental New World), then perhaps it's possible - but would be very difficult to prove - barring some source information I have never come across.
- if it's South America, where the Spanish and Portugese imported slaves by the thousands to work in the 15th and 16th centuries, then it's unlikely. The "owners" would have been Spaniards... and these slaves were imported to work until they dropped. They were never emanicipated. They were considered subhuman.
- if it's in South Carolina... well, again...Charleston was French for a good while, and slavery was hugely popular there during the Hugonot period...so technically this was not "America".
- now getting to Virginia... Jamestown was started in 1607 and the first slaves were brought there about ten years later (give or take)... and it was actually an accident that they came there at all - a French Slave ship (if I recollect correctly) was in distress and needed to offload her human cargo... nevertheless... there were no African American's at Jamestown in the 17th century that were not slaves, and therefore it was not possible for an African American to own a slave. Slavery as an institution in North America, is considered to have begun in Jamestown.
- Splitting hairs a little bit further... "America" or the USA didn't actually exist until 1776 - 1780... and by then slavery was a going concern in every single "state" (former colony.) So there's really no way to say who the "First Slave Owner in America" actually was - becuase there were hundreds of thousands of them created the moment the Constitution was ratified.
This is all probably more information that anyone (but me) really wants to know... but my point in providing it is with purpose.
It's this: When a "white guy" makes an uninformed comment like"the first person in America to own a slave was an African-American?"... that sounds incredibly quippish and it diminishes the subject matter to something that sounds like justification and victim blaming. It's true that there were many continental African's involved in the European Slave Trade (the Atlantic Triangle), and it's true that there was a very small percentage of emencipated blacks who themselves owned slaves (but this number is a fraction of 1% of the enslaved population.)
Just don't make light of it... it's a really sore spot for about 40% of the US population... about 10% of the UK and French populations who are descended from the ranks of this ugly institution... and the people like me who study the subject in depth and realize the gravity of it - and how it continues to shape (grotesquely disfigure) the foundations of the nation I call home.
Well, that's pretty condescending! Perhaps you should realize that more than one person might be learned on the same subject. While it's true that I may have oversimplified by saying "the first slave owner", but then none of us really know, since we were not alive in the 17th century. I suggest you refer to "Did Black People Own Slaves?" by Henry Lewis Gates, Jr. He states that "some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so as early as 1654". In 1654, Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life. While it's true that the Union had not yet been formed in 1654, I did not refer to the United States of America. I referred to America, which is correct, since Virginia was in the American colonies. By the way, in the United States of America, we have something called "Freedom of Speech", so I would appreciate it if you did not try to tell me what I may and may not say! Have a good day.
Yes - perhaps my admonition to "Think" was condescending... and for that I sincerely apolagize.
My point, which I think may have been lost in your sense of defensiveness, was that it's a very touchy subject, for people on ALL side of the issue, and therefore it may be a good idea to not dive into the topic with glibness.
Dr. Gates is a distinguished author and lecturer. I respect his work. I suspect that he would rather take issue with entering into the subject of institutionalized Colonial and early American slavery with the justification that Black people owned slaves. His body of work is considerably deeper than that, as you must well know.
Again, I sincerely apolagize for the condescending content and tone of my previous note. No excuses. All I can say in my defense is that I have spent fifteen years on this subject and the more I study it, the less I understand it - and the more I see in my own generation that makes me think that given the right circumstances, we could descend into a similar madness again. The roots of nationalism and racism are like Kudzoo... they just won't go away.
Please have patience with people like me... We "think" too much.
Not a problem. I too have done some pretty intensive research on the subject trying to understand how and why slavery happened. I don't believe I'll ever completely comprehend it. I only know it's been with us since biblical times and as long as human beings are involved we may never get rid of it completely, or the aftereffects. I do, however, believe that we've come a long-long way. I only hope it continues to improve.