newFamilySearch Pedigree Display Record

[russellhltn]

Wouldn't an even better sort change be to add the (Most Submitted) order to the sort. RE: The version of a name in the folder which has the most contribuitors of that version. See Example.

(Personal Submission) if none (LDS Membership Record) if none (Most Submitted) then (A-Z Sort)

Example Sorts:

Current Sort: (When no personal submission or LDS Membership record exists)
Howard Doe (1) Submission
John (1) Submission
John Doe (1) Submission
John H. Doe (5) Submissions
John Howard Doe (45) Submissions
Jon Howard Doe (1) Submission

Proposed Sort:
John Howard Doe (45) Submissions
John H. Doe (5) Submissions
Howard Doe (1) Submission
John (1) Submission
John Doe (1) Submission
Jon Howard Doe (1) Submission

Sounds like a similar concept to my "averaging" in post #9. However, I wonder how well this could be implemented? It would have to recognize that "Jon" and "John" are misspelled variations while other "words" are in fact different names. Similar issues go with knowing the relationship between "Bill" is frequently short for "William", "Liz" for "Elizabeth", ignore a woman's married names, etc. Not impossible, but a significant challenge. Particularly when we start adding name rules from other cultures. It's something that would probably have to go though a beta test to get working right.

The problem with "(Personal Submission) if none (LDS Membership Record) if none (Most Submitted) then (A-Z Sort) order" is if the "most submitted" algorithm gets it wrong, then we're back to a problem like we have today where everyone has to enter a personal submission to see the correct name.

[garysturn]

With this sort proposal ,the (Most Submitted) sort would not be done on the name, but on the number of combined names of each version in the folder. So like I showed in the example of the sort results, what is sorted would be the number of submissions of each version of the name, you would be sorting: 1,1,1,5,45,1 to 45,5,1,1,1,1 the (A-Z sort) that follows would then only alphabatize all the names with the same number of submissions. In this example the only names alphabatized would be those with just 1 submission each. I can create this sort in Access (that is what I use at work).

The problem with the possibility that the name or event submitted by the majority of the submitters might be wrong, is where we correlate with each other or submit our personal opinion which helps elevate our version of the event. With this method when there is no problem with the name displayed (most popular name submitted) there would be no need for everyone to enter a personal opinion. With the most popular name listed it would be correct most of the time. With the alphabatized top record listed the incorrect name is listed most of the time.

The only programming requirement is to develop the sort, which will require totaling how many of each version of a name or event occur in the folder, then including that number in the sort order. Since each version of the name is already only listed once, when "Multiple" is shown as the contributor, that number may already be in the system.

Sounds like a similar concept to my "averaging" in post #9. However, I wonder how well this could be implemented? It would have to recognize that "Jon" and "John" are misspelled variations while other "words" are in fact different names. Similar issues go with knowing the relationship between "Bill" is frequently short for "William", "Liz" for "Elizabeth", ignore a woman's married names, etc. Not impossible, but a significant challenge. Particularly when we start adding name rules from other cultures. It's something that would probably have to go though a beta test to get working right.

The problem with "(Personal Submission) if none (LDS Membership Record) if none (Most Submitted) then (A-Z Sort) order" is if the "most submitted" algorithm gets it wrong, then we're back to a problem like we have today where everyone has to enter a personal submission to see the correct name.

Originally Posted by GarysTurn
Wouldn't an even better sort change be to add the (Most Submitted) order to the sort. RE: The version of a name in the folder which has the most contribuitors of that version. See Example.

(Personal Submission) if none (LDS Membership Record) if none (Most Submitted) then (A-Z Sort)

Example Sorts:

Current Sort Results: (When no personal submission or LDS Membership record exists)
Howard Doe (1) Submission
John (1) Submission
John Doe (1) Submission
John H. Doe (5) Submissions
John Howard Doe (45) Submissions
Jon Howard Doe (1) Submission

Proposed Sort Results:
John Howard Doe (45) Submissions
John H. Doe (5) Submissions
Howard Doe (1) Submission
John (1) Submission
John Doe (1) Submission
Jon Howard Doe (1) Submission

[garysturn]

It appears that the option to see either your personal submission or a public view is no longer an option in the current version. Instead the two views are combined in to one view and if you have a personal submission for an individual, it is substituted into the pedigrees and details views. If you do not have a submission, you see what everyone else sees without a submission. This is what all the discussion is about. We each see something different which makes it harder to correlate with each other, and because the displayed name is either the (LDS Membership Record) or if none an (A-Z Sort) we often get only a first name as the default person, so everyone must enter a submission to elevate the correct name. We do need to be able to see both a public view and a personal view.

My suggestion would be to have 2 views (Personal and Public) and when ever you view an individual in your Personal View, the name displayed will be displayed in Red if the name you submitted does not agree with the one shown in the public view. If you are viewing the name shown in the Public view the same thing would happen, if you have submitted a name for that individual, the name shown in the public view will be displayed in Red if it is different than the name you submitted. Then you would know that you have submitted a name for that individual and that it disagrees with the public version of the name. The same procedure would apply to dates and places.

The public view should either display the name or event from either the (LDS Membership Record) or if none the (Most submitted version of a name). To change an incorrect LDS Membership Record you deal with Church membership, to change the most submitted version you need to convince everyone that you are right by disputing the name so they will change their submissions.

If I remember correctly from the beta several months ago, there is an option somewhere to select whether the system will display only what I (the current user) have submitted vs. display everything regardless of source. Perhaps a solution to the issue of this thread would be to split the latter option into two: display everything but give priority to my own submissions (the current mode); display everything the same way everyone else sees it.

[russellhltn]

OK, now I understand the "most submitted". However, I think we'd have to check and see what percentage of the time it would come out correct. Would "John Howard Doe" really outnumber "John H. Doe" all the time? Again, what about the married/maiden name issue? Legal name change (such as "Americanization")?

Keep in mind that "submissions" may be "sources". If not now, then in the future. "Record Search" has not yet been added to "new FamilySearch". I know they looking at ways of linking Record Search with the current "Tree View". How often do sources have the best full name on them?

[garysturn]

Right now nFS treats all submissions, submissions with sources, Soruce documents, Temple Submissions and Other Opinions the same when sorting. It is just sorting each record alphabetical after the two priority records (Personal Submission) and (LDS Membership Record). At some point there may be a need for another priority to be added above the (Most Submitted), but the (Most Submitted) seems to be the best choice without some very complicated rating system.

After all, I have seen Indexing errors on Official Documents. My Grandfather was Extracted as "Sesson" when his first name is really "Sisson" on one of the Census Indexes the Church Extracted. At least with the most popular being listed, If we find a better source we can correlate or dispute and get everyone to change their submission to the better source. Ideally we will all correct our errors and all the names in the folder will someday be the same.

OK, now I understand the "most submitted". However, I think we'd have to check and see what percentage of the time it would come out correct. Would "John Howard Doe" really outnumber "John H. Doe" all the time? Again, what about the married/maiden name issue? Legal name change (such as "Americanization")?

Keep in mind that "submissions" may be "sources". If not now, then in the future. "Record Search" has not yet been added to "new FamilySearch". I know they looking at ways of linking Record Search with the current "Tree View". How often do sources have the best full name on them?

[garysturn]

Someone pointed out in another Forum that when you print ordinance submissions the wrong name is printing on the Temple Submission. So until this is fixed people will have to enter another opinion on any name that they plan to print an ordinance card for, or the Ordinances will be done in the incomplete name.

[garysturn]

I have added new slides to my slide show to demonstrate how newFamilySearch displays names and to see the new Combine feature that was added last week, which doesn't require detailed comparisons for combining family members that have already been linked into the family. Comparing in more detail is still required to add (Combine) new individuals into the individual folder. Here is the link.

http://picasaweb.google.com/GarysTurn/N ... 4534870306

There is also a link to this Slide Show from my "new Family History" web site at:

http://newfamilyhistory.googlepages.com/home

You can save this web site in Favorites and use the Slide show for training, along with all the other training I have linked to at that site.

Gary

[russellhltn]

While we can no doubt improve on the automatic method of determining the displayed name, I think we ultimately must have a human input method (opinion) that is given preference in all views. Otherwise everyone will have to enter a personal opinion on every individual that the automatic system fails.

For that reason, I think the answer will take some forms of:

[own Personal Opinion], {trusted sources}, [most recent Personal Opinions of others], {automatic methods}

Your "most submitted" is a good choice of an automatic method, but I'd want to see how well it works in the real world.

I would have to be convinced that a given automatic method is more accurate then the PO of others before placing auto before PO. And I don't think that's going to happen until it gets a solid real-word test.

[garysturn]

The button that you push to create a personal opinion appears to me to just create another submission to the folder, I don't think they are distinguished any different than any other entry in the folder. So unless that is changed (or unless I am wrong) the [most recent Personal Opinions of others] could also be sorted as the most recent record combined and that could be just a first name. I don't think there is a perfect solution. We will see what the programmers at FamilySearch come up with, they are entitled to inspiration for their work, I would think. Sometimes inspiration comes while thinking about the discussions of others. I hope some of them read this thread.

Every entry in the folder is already someones human opinion or input, that is why the [most submitted version] should be displayed ahead of the (A-Z Sort). We can always disput the [most submitted version] and show our source.

While we can no doubt improve on the automatic method of determining the displayed name, I think we ultimately must have a human input method (opinion) that is given preference in all views. Otherwise everyone will have to enter a personal opinion on every individual that the automatic system fails.

For that reason, I think the answer will take some forms of:

[own Personal Opinion], {trusted sources}, [most recent Personal Opinions of others], {automatic methods}

Your "most submitted" is a good choice of an automatic method, but I'd want to see how well it works in the real world.

I would have to be convinced that a given automatic method is more accurate then the PO of others before placing auto before PO. And I don't think that's going to happen until it gets a solid real-word test.

[russellhltn]

the [most recent Personal Opinions of others] could also be sorted as the most recent record combined and that could be just a first name.

OK, so someone puts in just a first name. That will cause others to see just one name so the first person to add a full name will now become default for all. It's like a Wikipedia effect. The problem with the current situation (or an automatic situation that can only be overridden by an own Personal Opinion) is that each person who is interested in that name will have to add an opinion just to get their display to look right. That could create a very large number of records and a slow system. While my idea doesn't reduce it to the minimum, it does eliminate the need for 100 personal opinions to satisfy 100 users of that combined individual.