First, I'd like to thank MyHeritage for providing this great online genealogy service. I've been doing a mini research to find the best online genealogy service. So far, MyHeritage.com is the easiest to use, the feature is the most complete, and the price is the most affordable. Or simply said, MyHeritage.com is the best online genealogy service. And the mobile app is great and very helpful for mobile data entry!
Second, as anything in this world, nothing is perfect. I still have a major complaint about MyHeritage. Other than that, everything else is good to great. It's about the family tree member access and privilege management. Currently, MyHeritage manages this simply by setting a family member as site manager or not. Nothing else. Of course, this is not adequate to accomodate some access privilege scenarios.
So, here I'd like to propose another solution for that problem. I believe my solution is pretty simple yet able to cover most of family tree management requirements. I propose there are 4 kinds of family member, they are:
1. Site manager: S/he owns the highest and widest access to the family tree member. S/he is able to view and edit all of the information of every single person in the family tree. It's exactly like the current site manager.
2. Family manager: S/he is the second rank of the family tree manager. S/he is like the site manager except s/he has limited access to only a part of the family tree, instead of the whole tree. S/he is assigned by the site manager to be the manager of a specified family tree. You may say s/he is a site manager assistant. Her/his scope is defined from (any) single person on the family tree (not necessarily her/him-self) then goes down to all of that person's decendants, plus that person's spouse. Outside of this given scope, s/he only can view all of the information of all persons in the famiy tree. Plus, s/he is not allowed to delete change log entry.
3. Family maintainer: S/he is on the third rank. S/he is like the family manager except s/he got more limited access to only her/his own direct and immediate family. S/he is automatically only able to edit her/his own spouse(s), parents, siblings, and children, or any persons with direct relation ("line") to her/him. S/he is not allowed to edit any persons out of her/his direct and immediate family, not even her/his own grand parents, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, cousins, nor grand children, nor any persons with no direct relation to her/him. To other persons out of her/his own direct and immediate family, s/he can only view.
4. Family visitor: S/he is on the bottom of the rank, before public guest. S/he is like current regular site member but with slightly better access. S/he is only allowed to edit her/his own personal information, no other else, not even her/his own spouse(s). And this will also to make sure that any site members are truly part of the family tree, no outsiders are allowed. To any other persons on the family tree, s/he can only view. In my case, I need this for the teens or unmarried on my family. They need to know her/his family tree but s/he doesn't (yet) have enough privilege to modify the tree. :)
In addition to this family visitor member, a site or family manager can further limit her/his view access. If the limited view option is enabled, a family visitor can only view two levels from her/his own position on the family tree. So, if I'm a family visitor with limited view option enabled, the farthest person I can view on the family tree are:
- my grand parents (parents of my parents),
- siblings of my parents (with spouses) aka my uncles and aunts,
- my cousins (with spouses) but not including their children,
- and my grand children (with spouses) but not including their children.
To any persons further than those, the family visitor is treated like a public guest. This limitation is very useful for teens of the family who doesn't quite understand the importance of personal data privacy. So these teens can only view her/his close family members, in order to prevent potential privacy violation to any other members of the family.
And, of course the last is the public guest which is already available, if allowed by the tree manager.
So, there is my proposal for better family tree access and previlige management. I do hope MyHeritage.com to consider and implement my proposal because I need this to manage my family tree. I can't work on it alone since my family tree is quite big, I need help from other members of my family. But I can't let them all to become the site managers, I need to limit their access to the family tree.
This problem is the only complaint of mine as a new happy user of MyHeritage.com service.
Again, thank you for this great online genealogy service. I wish MyHeritage luck and success.
PS. I apologize if my english is pretty bad because english is not my first language. :)
Have started using record matches page and really like the tick and cross boxes for selecting confirmed or rejected. How about putting the same sort of thing on the smart matches page?
Also, for those of us with poor visual acuity, a brighter green on the tick button would be appreciated - the current green is hard to distinguish from the fefault grey, even though the fact that the "review match" button goes grey instead of blue means that it is not hard to figure out which have/have not been confirmed.
I am scanning old Slides from 80 years ago and putting them in family Albums. Now on these slides my Grandmother wrote down the exact date, place and family group at a family reunion in the Photo back in September 1935.
I'm having other Branches come in and tag there ancestors within that photo.
What thay are doing besides tagging persons, is changing the date and Place. OR deleting origional infromation entirely.
If we are going to "share" photo's The person with the origional documention should be able to "lock" fields based on the facts from the person who took the photo, not to be modified by a great-great-grand child born 50 years later.
Site Supervisors are in essence profile Managers who are sharing historical facts. If somebody tries to alter a known fact they should have to be able prove an alteration. Not just go in and delete or modify the data from the photo.
What I mean is on Photo's or ducuments assigned to an individual, a closed or open paddlock should be assiged to the field, date, place, individuals. And when the field is shown with a closed paddlock, it just can't be modified, unless there is discussion and a presention of facts to justify a change.
It would promote discussion among the family, and make use of your message boards. Which aren't being Used.
My grandparents took these photo's 80 years ago. They wrote in the margins of the slide, DATE, PLACE, and Title. Sometimes mentioning all the people in the slide. When there wasn't enough room for the the people, they would say the millers and hogles. Like the Family reunion photo I refer to above.
At that point that photo becomes a historical document. Like a marriage license or birth certificate. Proving these people at this place at this time. I don't mind sharing photo's with other family trees. So as it is they too could alter those "known" facts along with my own family site members which should also not be possible.
It's a cluster F waiting to happen after 50 years. Heck, I"ve only had some of these photo's up for a couple weeks and they are already being modified by people who weren't even there, don't know when it was taken who I only asked to tag their relatives, their great grand mother and changed the facts of the photo.
I am having to migrate my family history site to this site from my family.com, which is closing. I can see that there are some interesting facilities for research here, but I am feeling dismayed that there seems to be no way of having a proper discussion with other site members - or am I missing something? We are already well-researched becasue of work done by past family members over many decades. We have vast amount of data: photographs, documents etc, and, although we are not averse to new information about family links, the prime object has always been more to share and to make sense of the data we already have. We have worked at uncovering more of the stories around the (many) people we know about, and it has always been very interesting, with a lot of lively debate and then sometimes someone showing up with a new bit of data which fills a gap in our knowledge. Myfamily.com allowed us to start a discussion thread about anything, any time we liked, and to go on for as long as we liked. Sorry, but at the moment this site is striking me as a whole lot less sociable - the 'share your news' thingy seems to cut off after a mere two lines - useless!!! (And no, I don't want to tell people if I am 'feeling weird', thanks, it is not about me, but rather (for example) that I have made a new discovery about Great-Great Aunt Somebody's Will ... or maybe I have overlooked something? Or is this something which could be considered?
I have come across several cases (in the concensus page of smart matching on the web) where I know for a fact that the most common concensus data is wrong. This has included spelling of names, and dates that I have confirmed via BDM websites. When there are only a couple of people, I sometimes "do the right thing" and select 'contact' to send an e-mail with the correction etc. But when there are lots - and recently I found 9 at once, I don't bother, because it would just take too long.
Now what would be great is a way to send a message to everyone with a smart match on the concensus page - a small message of course something like "Fred Nurke's date of birth is definitely 1977, not 1974 - see Qld BDM reg 1234".
This would greatly assist everyone to get the most accurate trees possible, even if only a few people take advantage of it.
I go to the smart match overview page on the website. I select the "People" tab, which takes a while to load. I then click on the "view matches" button for a person, which takes a while to load. I review the matches to delete or confirm them, which reloads the page, which takes a while, then review the "concensus" panel - great option, by the way - and copy or edit as appropriate, and click "save changes", which reloads that page, which takes a while. Then I have to reload the smart match page, which takes a whlie ... and start the whole thing over again.
(1)- It would be so much quicker to have a button on the "concensus" page (and the smart match page that shows all matches to a tree) that would go straight to the next match, without having to reload the smart matches overview page.
(2)- I'd like to set an option so that I automatically went to the "people" page without having to load the smart match page of trees first. It annoys me that there is no way to avoid the wasted time/download.
(3)- This is probably not possible, but it would be good to avoid the repeated refreshing of a page. By this, I mean can it be done that I could confirm or reject, copy and edit, etc, and then click a "refresh" button which does the whole lot at once, rather than having to spend more time waiting for the page to download than it does to review and make the changes?
By the way, I have a fast conmputer and high speed broadband, so I don't know how people with a slower system can afford the time it must take!
Check box to indicate a person or couple has never had children, so you know that is the end of that family line.
Add fact description, cause of death, nicknames and aliasis to the output criteria on the custom reports. If I keyed it in, I want to be able to retrieve it. All data fields should be listed on the custom reports.
If a person has multiple marriages, can the custom report be changed to show that name on each line with the spouses when exported into excel? This would end my having to scroll thru the list, copy and pasting the name several times before I can run a sort in excel.
Add more query/search options, I want to be able to generate a list of missing birthdates, marriage date or death dates. Another one that would aid me in locating people that have no spouse and are not labled as single. I manage over 5000 names and growing. Tools that help me locate missing data or "holes" in my data are very important to me.
I have spent a great deal of time working in Access databases, and have been spoiled on writing my own queries.
I never plan to add my data to the web, so the upgrade holds little interest for me. Maybe some of my suggestions would interest me in purchasing the Premium product over using the free one....
I'd like to have the ability to vote on other people's suggestions, similar to a 'Like' button on FaceBook. This would give the developers feedback from a larger spectrum of users on various feature suggestions and help them prioritize program improvements.
I really like the SmartMatch merge function. It saves me so much time when I am adding people to my tree!
I would like to suggest an improvment to the function of checking for someone already in the tree before adding another person. When I am adding children to parents already in my tree it isn't helpful to see alerts on people already in the tree who already have parents, also already in the tree. The likelihood of this person being a duplicate is very low when I have that much information on them already. What would be helpful, though, is in cases where I'm about to add someone who is already in the tree because they married someone else in the tree, but I had no parents for them. In this case there is a much higher probability that this could be the same person.
I love the compare feature of the smart matching (on the people tab) of the web. The copy and edit function is particularly useful, BUT, often I get five or six different formats for an address, for example : Marrickvile, sydney, australia ... sydney, australia ... Marrickvile, sydney, nsw, australia ... Marrickvile, sydney, new south wales ... and so on. Is it right that the only one I can copy with the merge button is the most common one? Several times I have wanted to copy the more complete address when the most common data is actually an abbreviated form that I do not want, and I can't. It would be so much better if I could check the one I want before compying. The same goes for names and dates too - sometimes I get 20 matches with the year obnly, and only a few with the complete date, and again I cannot copy the one I want, and have to retype it.
I believe you are talking about the Consensus Page of a match. If so, then yes, the only information you can copy on a Consensus Page is the one that has the most incidences. That's the logic of the Consensus Page feature.
It conveniently displays a summary of the different name spellings, birth and death dates and places, marriage info, etc., for any particular relative, indicating the number of times each piece of information has been used in other family trees.
You can then copy the most commonly used data as you see fit directly into your own family tree, complete with photos of your choice, and optionally add a source citation on the copied data linking back to the original family tree. Please note that this option is only available for trees that were created online, not published from Family Tree Builder.
If, however, you want to copy a specific piece of information that is not the most common one among the many matches for that one person, then you would really have to go to the single match page, and copy it from there. On the bottom of the Consensus Page you will still be able to see a list of each of the matches so you can review them individually, and then you can copy them.
I glance at the consensus Page for a general oversight, then ALWAYS go to the single matches and review them, always bringing the relatives into view. They can tell you about people and stuff you did not know, and are helpful in deciding whether for example people with exactly the same name are actually the same person; often enough they are not.
Also the web page does not seem to allow for new relatives to be entered except manually, I often use SmartMatches in FBT, via the Merge function, for that. It is handy to have the two screens with the web page on the right and the same person in FBT Matches on the left!
Ich betreibe seit einigen Jahren Ahnenforschung und weiß daher, dass Hausnummern oft sehr wichtig für Zuordnungen sind. Ich vermisse daher im Familytreebuilder die Möglichkeit die Hausnummer beim Geburtsort oder beim Sterbeort zu erfassen. Schreibe ich die Nummer einfach beim Ort dazu - wird dieser Eintrag bei der Plausibilitätsprüfung mit "Schreibweise des Ortsnamen inkonsistent" ausgewiesen.
Weiters wäre es praktisch, wenn ein Datenfeld für die Erfassung des Taufdatums und des Beerdigungsdatums zur Verfügung stände (in den jüngeren Kirchenbüchern werden oftmals beide Daten angegeben). Ich weiß schon, dass ich das über "Ereignisse" hinzufügen kann, aber die standardisierte Aufnahme dieser Datenfelder bei den Geburtsdaten und Sterbedaten wäre sinnvoller.
"There is one other thing I wish FTB had and that is a box below the BURIED AT box on the MAIN Tab of the person card to put the "FindaGrave.com" memorial number. Find-a-Grave is a most valuable resource for information. It would also be great if, when you click on the memorial #, a new tab would be opened in your browser and that memorial would be loaded."
I would like to make a correction (addition).
Below the Buried At box, there should be another box where you can add the Plot Number. The Plot number and cemetery name (Buried At) should be on all Reports for those people like myself who go out on grave sightings.
Then, below the Plot number there should be another box for the FindAGrave.Com memorial number. When you click on the memorial number your browser will open and the memorial will be loaded from FindAGrave.Com.
FindAGrave.Com is a tremendous resource for genealogy information.