Family Historian User Group

This arises from a recent discussion on trying to make the Wish List process more fit for purpose, and rectify the apparent paralysis in the system at present.

I have reviewed all the current pending wish list items (61 in total) and attempted to categorise them according to how they could be progressed. It was interesting looking at all the proposals together, as there are certainly a number of common themes that crop up time and again, and often it is difficult to see the wood for the trees when just confronted with a large unsorted list of threads.

Thanks to a bit of Excel copying and manipulating, the attached spreadsheet has three separate tabs listing open items by related groups:

Priority for Wish List

These are 12 proposals that I would recommend as the first priority for progressing to the Wish List. They are either virtually complete already, or a very simple and clear-cut proposal that could be drafted very easily. I suggest that the list moderators either finalise the proposal themselves, or request that the original proposer does so.

There appears to be a pattern across many of these proposals, where the list moderator is active in challenging how the proposal should be scoped, but may lose interest when agreement is reached, and has not progressed it to the actual Wish List.

Close

There are 33 open proposals in total (some over two years old) that I would recommend for closure for one of the following reasons:

• It is no longer required or agreed to be covered by an existing item (so why hasn't it been closed already?)
• Insufficient detail, and neither the original proposer nor a supporter of the proposal have clarified exactly what is required.
• No support from other users, either as indifference (no follow up comments) or active arguments against.

If any of the original proposers feel hard done by, they can always ask for it to be reopened (and develop the case for retaining it).

Require Further Refinement

Once the lower hanging fruit are picked off, that leaves a group of 16 proposals that look like good candidates for the list, but require further refinement.

• Multiple potentially overlapping proposals (particularly covering charts and diagrams)
• Good idea, but needs refining to a coherent proposal that can be voted on
• Inconclusive discussion that just fizzled out (so perhaps should be closed?)
• Popular suggestion, but nobody has written the actual proposal

I suggest that if you have a proposal in this group, you indicate whether you are prepared to lead the work on refining it. If not, and nobody else steps in to champion the idea, it dies by default.

Wish List process

As well as these broad groups, I think better documentation of the Wish List process would be beneficial. Both Jane's near-20-year-old introduction and the brief KB description give the impression that all users have to do if they have a good idea is raise it in the forum, and somehow it will magically be converted into a detailed proposal for the list.

The current list moderators have made it clear (rightly in my view) that their role is one of light-touch editor, not author. IMO, it should be made clearer that the onus is on the original proposer (or somebody else chipping in to support the idea) to describe why the proposal is being made and what the benefit is (NOT how to implement it). We all benefit, so we all have to contribute.

Is anyone doing a review of the wish list itself? As some of the items on there are very old it may be that the direction on which FH has developed means the wish list item needs reviewing or updating. Also there may be items which have been fully or partially implemented by CP in subsequent FH versions (I spotted and reported a couple recently).

jelv wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 16:31

Is anyone doing a review of the wish list itself?

IMO, that's a lower priority. CP will know what they've implemented and not implemented, so won't be confused by items that should have been marked done, and it's more important that we get new items onto th elist for their consideration.

I will say again: the Wish List process end-to-end worked better when there was a dedicated volunteer managing it.

So, to summarise - essentially the Wish List is not being managed. You do what you can on a best endeavours basis, but judging from forum posts over the past year or so, none of the other forum moderators get involved with the detailed management and oversight of the process.

The present rather moribund state will not change unless and until a new volunteer steps forward to take ownership of the overall process.

Is that basically where we are?

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 21:17

None of the other forum moderators get involved with the detailed management and oversight of the process.

For some years, there was a volunteer who took care of the wish list (Sprucing Up The Wishlist (5596) is relevant -- history does repeat itself). When they ceased to be able to do so, Mike T stepped in (alongside all his other activities). A couple of years ago, I stepped in to help Mike (again, without giving up anything else I was doing). But frankly, the squeaky wheel will always get the oil, and the Wish List tends to sink to the bottom of the to-do list because most of the time nobody (except my conscience) makes a lot of noise about it.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 21:17

The present rather moribund state will not change unless and until a new volunteer steps forward to take ownership of the overall process.

Whatever process we have, it will need volunteers with the time to make it work. ( I say volunteers because very few people will have the breadth of knowledge of the product to handle every single proposal. For example, I so rarely use Diagrams/Charts that I'm not confident to judge whether a proposal about Diagrams makes sense and/or is ready to move to the Wish List.)

An interesting read. Many of the themes still ring true today. I was particularly struck by the concept of a shorter, much more focused list, aimed at today’s needs. Two thirds of the current list dates from FH5 or earlier, so if it hasn’t been implemented yet, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.

The big unknown for me (and it’s probably unanswerable) is how much influence the list actually has on FH7 development. Yes, CP look at it, but I suspect their own evaluation of competitor products, what comparative reviews say, and their own in-house brain storming on where to take the product are much more influential on the big decisions.

Perhaps we should (wherever possible) highlight in the wish list where a competitor product has an equivalent feature.

I found a morning to do a bit of work on this.

Of the Priority Items, I have moved 3 to the Wish List, and will also handle Field codes for Source Template Definitions (20743) and Allow citation fields in bibliography on sources (21318) and add search and replace to notes. (21347).

Of the Require Further Refinement items, I have closed one (at the OP's behest) and will handle Export to Markdown (21793) and Possible Research Note enhancements (20832).

Of the Close items, I have closed 6 items and moved 1 to the Wish List after the OP explained why it shouldn't be closed.

Looking through the wish list itself I've just come across https://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldisp ... lwlref=373

It's description is headed "CLOSED - Lack Of Interest", but is still included in the list of current (non-completed) items.

I wonder if assigning a fake "Released in version" (0.0 or 99.0?) could be used to remove such items from the current list.

To make the wish list work better, it's not just having someone administering it, but it also needs users to engage with the process more, hiding some of the "dross" would make it easier for people to do so.

Given the number of active users on these forums, every item in the wish list should have at least 10 or 20 votes, even if those votes are 0 to say of no interest. I'm as guilty as anybody else as I've voted on very few and using the where filter it's easy to pick up/check for items you've not voted on.

jelv wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2023 23:01

I wonder if assigning a fake "Released in version" (0.0 or 99.0?) could be used to remove such items from the current list.

"0.0 Drop" is used for this purpose -- that one was missed in the dim and distant past and has been fixed now.

To make the wish list work better, it's not just having someone administering it, but it also needs users to engage with the process more, hiding some of the "dross" would make it easier for people to do so.

And whose definition of dross do we use? There's stuff on the Wish List that frankly I think is barking mad, but that's no reason to remove them. There's also very old stuff -- like this, requested in 2006, released in version 7. Should that have been classified as 'dross' because of it's age? And what about this, requested in 2006 (or earlier) and not yet implemented...

Given the number of active users on these forums, every item in the wish list should have at least 10 or 20 votes, even if those votes are 0 to say of no interest.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Why should being an active user of these forums predispose people to vote on Wish List items? Most people who aren't interested in an item (or the whole process) will simply not vote, rather than go to the effort of voting 0. And votes of 0 aren't counted in the vote count or used to calculate the rating.

Rich text is always trotted out as a justification for keeping old items in the wish list, but that comes back to the question I asked earlier. Was it implemented in FH7 because it was on the wish list, or because FH6 was looking increasingly dated compared with the competition?

After all, there were many additions in FH7 that I don’t remember ever seeing in the Wish List.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2023 10:16

And whose definition of dross do we use?

I'd class something as dross if it was raised some time ago and has attracted a minimal number of votes and/or a very low rating. For example raised in 2016 and has attracted only two votes (there's three of those). Or raised over 10 years ago with only four votes and an average rating of 2.0. If they are not dross and are worthy of of staying on the list, why aren't people voting for them? If something is old but has attracted a lot of votes it should stay.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2023 10:16

jelv wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2023 23:01

Given the number of active users on these forums, every item in the wish list should have at least 10 or 20 votes, even if those votes are 0 to say of no interest.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Why should being an active user of these forums predispose people to vote on Wish List items? Most people who aren't interested in an item (or the whole process) will simply not vote, rather than go to the effort of voting 0. And votes of 0 aren't counted in the vote count or used to calculate the rating.

1. My thought is that if a lot of people are actively engaging with FHUG through the forums (I assume there's a lot more who read them and/or the KB but either haven't registered or never log on) but are not engaging with the wish list, something is fundamentally wrong. What the solution is I don't know, but making the wish list more focused on realistic proposals would be a first step.

2. If votes of 0 aren't counted in the vote count or used to calculate the rating I'm struggling to understand the logic of having that as an option.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2023 10:54

Rich text is always trotted out as a justification for keeping old items in the wish list, but that comes back to the question I asked earlier. Was it implemented in FH7 because it was on the wish list, or because FH6 was looking increasingly dated compared with the competition?

After all, there were many additions in FH7 that I don’t remember ever seeing in the Wish List.

Nobody is under any illusion that the Wish List drives CP's development plan:

Jane wrote: ↑

25 Jun 2008 10:17

As posted in response to a question on new versions on the FHU mailing list 24 June 2008.

I do of course understand why you ask, but I'm afraid we don't give out that kind of information. I can say that at any give time, we are always working hard on the next release and are doing so now; and that when deciding what goes into any given release, we always look carefully at the Wish List and try to respond to it. Whether or not a feature gets included though is not just a question of how many votes it may get. We also have to take into account how much time and effort it will require to implement, and how well it fits in with other things we want to do.

Simon Orde
List Administrator & Family Historian designer

but it is the means by which the user base can make known what enhancements they would value. Of course it includes things that CP will have thought of independently, but it probably also contains things that hadn't crossed their mind.

Given that we can't know what CP are working in, I can't think of any objective criteria we could use to remove so-called 'dross' from the list. The age of an item isn't an indication of its value. "Things Helen/Fred/some random person on the Internet thinks are nonsense/unlikely to happen" should definitely not be used. So what criteria would you suggest?

jelv wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2023 11:31

I'd class something as dross if it was raised some time ago and has attracted a minimal number of votes and/or a very low rating. For example raised in 2016 and has attracted only two votes (there's three of those). Or raised over 10 years ago with only four votes and an average rating of 2.0.

So, anything that is a minority interest is dross?

If they are not dross and are worthy of of staying on the list, why aren't people voting for them?

Because they don't care, which is absolutely fine. I don't care about the vast majority of of diagram related wishes, because I make very little use of diagrams, so that's 32 items I haven't voted on. Many wishes are only relevant to one or a few ways of working -- that doesn't make them invalid/less worthy of consideration.

1. My thought is that if a lot of people are actively engaging with FHUG through the forums (I assume there's a lot more who read them and/or the KB but either haven't registered or never log on) but are not engaging with the wish list, something is fundamentally wrong. What the solution is I don't know, but making the wish list more focused on realistic proposals would be a first step.

Could you define a 'realistic proposal' and how you'd identify them?

2. If votes of 0 aren't counted in the vote count or used to calculate the rating I'm struggling to understand the logic of having that as an option.

It does make it easier to distinguish items you've reviewed and dismissed from items you haven't reviewed yet, if you're the kind of person who works that way.

Part of it might be linked to the list credibility. If you open the list, nearly two-thirds of the top-ranking items are 15 years old or more. IMO, that’s a terrible first impression for new users, and doesn’t exactly give them a great incentive to vote.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2023 13:01

Part of it might be linked to the list credibility. If you open the list, nearly two-thirds of the top-ranking items are 15 years old or more. IMO, that’s a terrible first impression for new users, and doesn’t exactly give them a great incentive to vote.

I suspect new users mostly follow a link to a specific item to vote, rather than scanning the list.

If we remove the 'date added' column, we remove the ability for people to see new items at a glance...

And if we did remove those top-ranking 'old items', I can guarantee they'll crop up again in the New Wish List forum.

I have handled:

• 6 items from the 'Priority for Wish List' category (leaving 6 outstanding)
• 3 items from the 'Require Further Refinement' category (leaving 13 outstanding)
• 10 items from the 'Close' category (leaving 23 outstanding)

Thanks for that Helen. It seems to be just you actively managing the list, so a good step forward.

OK, treat me like I just walked in off the street as effectively I have, I am not a seasoned FH user but I do understand development visibility and needs very well. As regards the benefit or influence of the Wish List I can say CP should be very interested in user opinions and difficulties, the later is often the factor which prevents trial users progressing to purchase and use.

In my days of Systems Analyst there was nothing more revealing than watching operators use long winded finger twisting methods just because the direct programmed patch was far from obvious.

I welcomed the categorisation split in the General Usage forum but I do wonder why there is no category for Queries, the very topic which tops the Wish List, maybe just a miss on my part. I would also welcome the same categorisation split for New Wish List requests. New requests being grouped eases the path of users to their area of current focus where they may easily discover an existing or very similar discussion they can learn from or contribute to.

Sub categories would also help CP quickly gauge the opinions and difficulties being experienced around any feature with a view to refining the workflow. I dismiss learned muscle memory as a valid reason for not refining workflows to be more intuitive that is akin to a “we have always done it that way” attitude, simply learn the new more efficient way.

I agree with Mark1834 regarding the first impression given to new users when they see very old and possibly credible Wish List items. I say possibly credible as I am personally not in favour of Android, iOS development, that’s what Ancestry and MyHeritage etc. are for out in the field in my opinion.

There will always be ‘dross’ and ‘barking mad’ suggestions but sometimes ‘barking mad’ suggestions may not be well framed but touch on another important issue, true ‘barking mad’ topics will naturally die and perhaps some rule of involvement/support should be implemented.

As regards highlighting competitor offerings this completely necessary and I do this frequently in videos which are mostly in favour of FH. However all developers need to be aware of attractive competitor offerings and CP do not have the time or resource to keep abreast of the complete market, neither do dedicated one platform users.

I have highlighted the Wish List and FHUG a couple of times in my videos to help encourage watchers towards getting the right help. I was a very prolific contributor to the Wish List in my previous software before that Wish List was removed and not replaced.

If it is possible for me to Help in any way with the Wish List then I am willing to offer some time to that task, just let me know how I can help?

Vyger wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023 12:54

I welcomed the categorisation split in the General Usage forum but I do wonder why there is no category for Queries, the very topic which tops the Wish List, maybe just a miss on my part.

As I said when I proposed the current set of sub-forums:

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

02 May 2023 14:17

I am not proposing sub-forums for 'Searching and Querying', or 'Functions and Data References', or 'Facts and Fact Sets' because those topics will inevitably crop up all over the place, as they're fundamental to the way things work in FH.

Vyger wrote: ↑

21 Jun 2023 12:54

I would also welcome the same categorisation split for New Wish List requests. New requests being grouped eases the path of users to their area of current focus where they may easily discover an existing or very similar discussion they can learn from or contribute to.

Sub categories would also help CP quickly gauge the opinions and difficulties being experienced around any feature with a view to refining the workflow.

The Wish List proper already categorises items: . I'd welcome views from others about whether categorising the New Wish List forum would improve the process for moving things through onto the the Wish List proper.

I dismiss learned muscle memory as a valid reason for not refining workflows to be more intuitive that is akin to a “we have always done it that way” attitude, simply learn the new more efficient way.

You and I are (I suggest) in the minority in being willing to modify our workflows when the opportunity arises. If you're an experienced genealogist who has a workflow that suits you, however 'unintuitive' somebody else thinks it is, the learning curve to change it eats into precious research time and to be honest probably delivers little of value, unless there's a compelling new feature.

I agree with Mark1834 regarding the first impression given to new users when they see very old and possibly credible Wish List items. I say possibly credible as I am personally not in favour of Android, iOS development, that’s what Ancestry and MyHeritage etc. are for out in the field in my opinion.

Who's to say what's "possibly credible"? You have your list, I have mine. And I can see very little on the front page that would not be asked for again if we dropped it, so we'd just be making work for ourselves. It might be possible to vary the initial view of the list to show the most recent items, but would it be helpful.

There will always be ‘dross’ and ‘barking mad’ suggestions but sometimes ‘barking mad’ suggestions may not be well framed but touch on another important issue, true ‘barking mad’ topics will naturally die and perhaps some rule of involvement/support should be implemented.

It's an important function of the New Wish List process to weed out the 'dross'/ 'barking mad' suggestions (chiefly identified by the lack of support and/or opposition they encounter once raised. But as you highlight we do need to nurture good suggestions that are simply not well framed.

If it is possible for me to Help in any way with the Wish List then I am willing to offer some time to that task, just let me know how I can help?

Right now, I think the priority must be to progress the current items in the New Wish List forum to completion, so anything you can contribute to that will be gratefully received.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023 12:49

Vyger wrote:I dismiss learned muscle memory as a valid reason for not refining workflows to be more intuitive that is akin to a “we have always done it that way” attitude, simply learn the new more efficient way.

You and I are (I suggest) in the minority in being willing to modify our workflows when the opportunity arises. If you're an experienced genealogist who has a workflow that suits you, however 'unintuitive' somebody else thinks it is, the learning curve to change it eats into precious research time and to be honest probably delivers little of value, unless there's a compelling new feature.

Introducing more intuitive and productive methods does not automatically mean the old methods disappear, if you don’t want to adapt then you don’t have to.

I am relatively new to FH and have seen many more productive methods discovered on Zoom meetings and it would appear to be CP policy NOT to block off old methods. Users going back to FH2 or earlier have basically missed some productivity streamlining which is only natural but importantly they have not been prevented from or hindered reaserching using their personal muscle memory method due to change.

Vyger wrote: If it is possible for me to Help in any way with the Wish List then I am willing to offer some time to that task, just let me know how I can help?

Still willing to help if it lessens the burden on others and helps breathe new life into the Wish List

Vyger, with your permission I'll contact you offlist to take your offer of help forward.

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

26 Jun 2023 19:54

Vyger, with your permission I'll contact you offlist to take your offer of help forward.

No problem, please do.

I don't think categorising the New Wish List Request forum is worthwhile.
The number of postings is tiny compared with the FH General Usage forum(s) where it was needed.

I agree, once the current New Wish List Request is reconciled and resolved more active management in the future will negate that need.