Do you plan to add the ability to scroll the page with arrows instead of dragging the page with a mouse? This feature is available at Geni.com (which I believe you recently acquired) and it makes it very easy to move around on the page. When you move your mouse to the edges of the screen an arrow appears that you can click on and hold for as long as you need instead of continually draging the image with your mouse. You can move left or right, up or down.
First of all this is my first post on the forum so sorry if this is in the wrong area.
I absolutely love the program, but I rarely use it for my own family tree - I mainly use it when studying history and in particular the royalty and nobility of (mainly medieval) Britain.
What really frustrates me though is that I can't easily show the greater context. I mean, for example, that there are often a greater variety of deaths, mistresses of nobles/royals (for which there is no option under family status) and titles and roles that don't seem best suited to the 'occupation', 'suffix' or 'prefix' features and which would be good to include alongside the main name (e.g. Monarch/Prince/Duke/Lord of___, etc, often with a number to indicate which one they are) - information that seems quite important in understanding who they were and how they related to hierarchies, wars, roles in history, etc. I also often wish I were able to show their histories a bit better and how they link in with their contemporaries and events of the past - perhaps a time line feature and the ability to tag certain information as being important and to be included on any charts could help with that.
Also, the naming conventions of, for example, Wales are quite different to the general options (generally with a lack of last name and the inclusion of 'ap' or 'ferch' the fathers name) - it would be really good if one could choose which naming system they could use for a particular family/person quickly and easily.
I could also be really useful to have an option to display an individuals or families coat of arms in addition to a profile picture
If any ideas for new features come out of these difficulties I've mentioned that would be brilliant.
The way I do it as an example would be to put "King" in the Prefix box. "Henry VIII" in the name box. And "of England" in the suffix box. If you want to include the last name, I would put "Tudor" in the last name box. For someone of lower rank, Say a Duke, I would put "Duke of Norfolk" in the suffix box. People do it all sorts of other ways, and it looks ridiculous, and makes no sense at all. This really is the only way to do it with MH and make it look accurate. One different way that I do it that other people don't which simplifies things for me, is that I put names in the way they are said in a standard High School/College classroom. Like "Eleanor of Aquitaine" or "Kaiser Wilhelm" Some of the titles and names get translated and some don't. I guess probbaly in the easiest way for a teacher. If the main personage is known by a last name, but the married partner is not known as having the same last name after marriage, I put the name she is known by historically in the married name box. For example, Catherine of Aragon is never known as Catherine Tudor in history. I don't know if she legally was or not, but anyway, I put "of Aragon" in the married name box, so that the system will make it look right. Even though we could use "Emperor William" we don't. It's also "Tsar Nicholas", but it's Emperor Franz Joseph. It's King Frederick "the great" of Prussia. Oddly enough, these translation differences usually get worked out by SM in the end. Somehow I am inclined to think that two trees using the same pictures helps for some reason. I could be wrong.
I have been using this program for over 4 years and I, too, on the whole, love it. I have managed to do almost everything you are asking for by creating my own work-arounds within the capabilities of the program, being careful to hold to internal consistency as much as possible. Selected historical events pertinent to my family's ancestry are in the biographical notes. My methods may not be genealogically correct or convenient to other myHeritage users or genealogists in general, but they are not my audience--my family is. I even managed to publish my Family History in 7 chapters by means of the article attachment capability.
I guess this is a matter of control and personal preferences, but I find the opening of a new browser window a bit annoying when FTB starts. Even if i already have Firefox running, it opens a separate window, instead of just a new tab in the already running window.
I wonder, is there a real reason why FTB has to open the web browser? If not, can you guys disable this feature, or even better, add the possibility to disable this feature from the Options menu? That way users gain more control over what the software does, which is always preferable.
I understand that a basic (free) use of the software has it's limits and cons, but this one doesn't seem to have any real function. If it's needed for some technical reason, then at least make it open in a new tab of the running browser, not an entirely new separate window :)
JM, I'm not sure this has anything to do with FTB. In FireFox, click the Tools menu and select Options. In the Options dialog, select Tabs in the top row. Be sure the first option, "Open new windows in a new tab instead" has a checkmark. If it doesn't, click the open box to set a checkmark there.
I'm not trying to be smart, but I have always questioned why people worry about this sort of thing??? Who, except family members, would want to copy your "private" pictures in the first place??? If it's family members, do you simply dislike them??? I have had distant family members make the same sort of complaint about pictures of our joint relative being used, when I got the picture from the obituary in a newspaper! How can they possibly consider those as private property when the plastered them all over the newspaper????? I just don't understand the problem??? Happy hunting!
OK, so I'm clueless and asleep! There's absolutely no need to get nasty. I'm allowed my opinion, too. Put the information in a book, instead of in a public area, or, use the tools available to you to keep your pictures private. Are the persons copying the info and pictures trying to claim that they are the ones who did the research or snapped the pictures??? Is it costing you income??? I know, in my case, the whole purpose of my hours and hours of research and posting of my family tree is so that my relatives and descendents can have the enjoyment of knowing and sharing who they are and where they came from. I can see no need to hide anything??? You guys have a great day.
Honestly, if documents/pictures are that private, why on earth do you share them with others in the first place. It's pretty simple, if you don't want others to know, don't tell.
Both the site and the software has options that will restrict others, why not use them?
The software industry world wide are still fighting piracy, despite the fact they have put the word copyright on each and every product they have, yet piracy exist as if nothing has happened the last decade. What makes you think people will stop running off with your private pictures? Next, how do you intend to follow up anyone who steals your pictures? We have laws about copyright here in Norway as well, but nothing can stop me in publishing for example ten lines of text from a book having a copyright. It's called fair use, and is quite normal.
As for a picture, let's say you have a copyright stamp at the bottom. It's very easy to edit this, and remove such a stamp. How do you plan to stop others from editing the copy? Put a copyright stamp across the face so that the picture is ruined?
I honestly don't understand how you want this to work. If you share something, allowing free access you have to deal with it. If you dont want others to peek in, don't share.
I can only say that just since others steal copyrighted materials does not make it acceptable practise. Neither am I talking about people 'peeking' at things, nor am I speaking of 'fair use', which, by the way, does not include the stealing and publishing of copyrighted photos that you do not own.
I enjoy sharing much of what I have accumulated and discovered in the 20 years of my genealogy work, but just because I like to share means that others are free to steal it. I have often shared copyrighted materials with others, when they asked.
I can only say that just since others steal copyrighted materials does not make it acceptable practise.
What you say is true. For three years, I wrote non-fiction articles online (click here to read some of my work) and had to set up a google alert to watch for plagiarism. In this case, if somebody copied my article, I lost money.
If this is important to you, simply use photo manipulation software to put the (c) watermark on your photos before you post them.
Having said that, I tend to agree with JM Steen. I'm not making any money from any photo I post to my family tree site, so if somebody wants to use one of my photos in their family tree site, that's fine. I'd really like if they'd cite my tree as their source, but FTB doesn't seem to have that ability. At best, you can get a link via a Smart Match, but that's optional.
It's a source of some amusement to me when I check a Smart Match and I find a photo (and data) that came from my site. I'm not going to contact the site manager and ask them to take remove the photo because it's mine and it's copyright. If you were to do that, I think you have a reasonable expectation that they would remove your photo.
For what it's worth, at every family reunion we've held, people bring in their photo albums and we all scan and swap photos. We're doing exactly the same thing online. Those of us who do research pencil on the back, "Original in the possession of... " with the name, contact info, and date.
You are totally missing the point. Yes, I scan old family photos. Yes, I post them online. Yes, I like sharing old family photos for my relatives to see. Yes, I expect that they will be lifted by family members. What I really hate to see is my family photos on other people's trees with no source from where it was stolen. Do you not see how this affect family research and connections? No? Let me explain it.
Joe steals a family photo of MY Grandparents from MY web site or MY family tree. He posts it on his site or family tree. Sure, we are related. Joe is very distantly related to my spouse, like a fourth cousin. MY cousin Bill sees MY family photo on Joe's tree and assumes that Joe woud have more information about MY Grandparents. Nope. (In fact, Joe has a typo or two with a bad date and misspelled city.) Joe has no memory of where he stole MY photo, so there is no way for him to help Bill find ME to find out more information on MY line. This is just one of the many issues, not even delving into the legal and moral issues.
As for copyright issues specifically, it would behoove you to read up on and educate yourself on the topic. Just because it is on the web and can be stolen, doesn't mean it is legal or moral to do so. See:
From that web page:
"Taking a hard line on copyright isn’t an easy position for a genealogist to take. As a group, we are and we should be sharers. But there’s a difference between sharing facts (which, by the way, can’t be copyrighted anyway) and having what we’ve done stolen. When we do important work of our own, we have the right to keep control of that work, and it’s important to draw the line and say no."
Genealogy is about documentation. Without documentation you have nothing....nothing but your own gut feeling and a suspicion.
On the internet and here on MyHeritage as well, you will find many fake trees, trees without citations and documentation. One of my ancestors lived in the year 800...if I would belive this family page. Of course, I don't.
I can see why some fill their trees with nonsense, there's an indication somewhere that say Sam might have been the son of John. Now, where to make such a note? Well obviously, within FTB. You simply add Sam as son of John, surely you will remember to look for documentation later on.
Then the tree is published. Guess what happens. The 10 next persons who found that tree online will read this as a fact and continue from there.
I want an easy way to tag and set the relationship between two people as unconfirmed or something similar to that. You can say "just make a note of it". Sure, but you make a note like that, it's not exactly easy to find later on. Nor is it easy to see this note for other people who view your tree online.Imagine you have 1000 individuals to keep track of. 3 relationships are not confirmed...how do you find them within seconds? You can't, unless you have some sort of system to seach for them.
A relationship tag, maybe with and additional note, will be very helpful when looking for and smart matching people, at the same time gain more control over a larger number of individuals in my own tree.