* Is it time to split the General Forum?

[NickWalker]

I've been thinking about this and I'd be interested in seeing some of these threads where people ask a basic beginners question and then someone answers it in an unnecessarily 'techie' way. Have a look down the 'General Usage' forum and find the conversations where that happens. I've looked through the last 24 posts and that hasn't been the case in any of them as far as I can see.

I don't recall people generally asking very simple questions such as "How do I add a new person to my file", "How do I enter the place where they were born?", etc. This is very rare - I think most people can figure out the basic stuff. People will perhaps ask something they assume might be easy like "How do I make all the males names display in blue writing in a tree and all the females in red" and then because that can't be done without putting some formulas in (I assume - I don't know! ) the reply then seems 'techie'. So the kind person who answered that question will then be accused of giving a 'techie' answer.

I think we're also a victim of the fact that FH has a very powerful plugin programming language. In most family history software the answer to a question will be "Sorry it can't be done" but for FH the answer is often "This can be done with a plug-in. Here's how to do it" and then of course there is a technical answer again! A lot of the questions require what some people might describe as a techie answer which is why it might appear as if the forum is full of techie stuff. Believe me, if the answer to a question can be answered easily without anything technical, then it will be!

[Mxy]

Ok, so everyone took my response the wrong way so I must have written it wrong. I should have filled in some of the blanks in my first post.

I apologize, to all y'all.

I'm 3rd level support myself, so if I am poking you then I am poking me.

Yes you guys have helped me in the past and did a wonderful job of it. ColeValleyGirl and I had wonderful conversations. BTW I am very happy to see you on here. I was very concerned I wouldn't. I didn't have to ask because I was following the forum to see if you popped back on. So no, one doesn't have to ask questions to find answers.

So let's review what I said...

"I would like to work on genealogy, instead I find myself working on FH." That was my experience guys...for at least the first 6 months. I am 3rd level support. Imagine the effort I put into it before I gave up and asked for help. I spent 6 months reading everything you guys wrote about FH. Some articles I reread because I thought this may be what I am looking for.

"I can't find the key words." I am a data miner. I've got certifications, right? No one can hide this stuff on me. Boy was I wrong. Now to be fair and I have said this before, I speak American English. So I figure some of my problems are due to that.

"It is mostly techie." 3rd level support always does their best to speak "user", and you guys do a good job of it the best I can tell. However, please look at the original suggestion and reread the part about..."if I were a new or inexperienced user, I would be quite put off using FH at all due to its apparent complexity." That is what a long time user Superstar said. He isn't whistling Dixie.

"The apps strength is also its weakness." Yeah, it does everything. Because of that it is complex. So, double edged sword and tough for a beginner.

"I suspect the difficulty navigating the forum...". "Suspect" is a qualifier. Most people miss them, don't feel too bad. I don't know but were it me...which it isn't...that is where I would start. Just a suggestion.

"difficulty navigating the app...". Literally my experience.

"I recommend a lite version." It's a thought. I have suggested it before. I have experience developing apps. Without knowing much about the code I could give you several reasons why that might not be a good idea. Nevertheless, it may actually work. Anyway something for others more knowledgeable than I to consider. It's all I've got. Sorry I couldn't help more type of thing.

"Techie folks should be banned." Ok, I misread the audience. I have been told that by the users I support on multiple occasions, only half-joking. Nevertheless, I feel it is a point to consider. Ideally the app shouldn't require 3rd level support folks to explain it. It does at times because of the complexity.

I don't ask questions anymore because I got enough of them answered to do the things I need. My needs are pretty basic.

[ColeValleyGirl]

BTW I am very happy to see you on here. I was very concerned I wouldn't. I didn't have to ask because I was following the forum to see if you popped back on.

Thanks. Almost 12 months to the day after my transplant, I'm thriving.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I've been thinking about this and I'd be interested in seeing some of these threads where people ask a basic beginners question and then someone answers it in an unnecessarily 'techie' way. Have a look down the 'General Usage' forum and find the conversations where that happens. I've looked through the last 24 posts and that hasn't been the case in any of them as far as I can see.

I wonder if we're getting hung up on the word 'techie' when the original post mentioned 'technical', 'bewildering discourse' and 'specialist'.

Those of us who are 'old hands' know there are questions that can't be answered without some technical content (typically data references and expressions); there isn't much we can do about that, other than perhaps to check if the person asking the question is happy with that sort of solution, or would prefer a compromise that's 'out-of-the-box'. Which is more work for the person answering the question, so like all good intentions would probably fall by the wayside.

'Bewildering discourse' is something we should be able to reduce. As a group, we do tend to throw multiple answers at a question: 'You can do this'. 'You can also do this, this, this or this.' 'I do this'. 'I find this works'... And that's before we get into the 'interesting discussions/digressions' about how many angels can dance on this particular pin-head, and whether Gedcom version umpteen will solve a problem the OP doesn't have/doesn't care about.

When I was starting out (lo, these many years ago) I didn't need 6 different ways to do something, I just needed one that let me get on with recording my research. We might want to bear our early days in mind...

Likewise, the vast majority of people couldn't give two figs about the specialist nuances around how something works -- they just want a solution they can use. If somebody really want to discuss angels and pinheads, as a courtesy they might consider starting a new topic. I wouldn't want to see those discussions go away, but do think they can be daunting.

And so to 'specialist', which really means 'stuff I don't care about'. Restructuring the forums will help with this to some degree, by making it easier to avoid certain topics, but we as a group are not going to stop catering to all levels of experience and interest, so inevitably, user will come across discussions they don't understand and can (and should) safely ignore.

Edited to add: apolgies to anyone who feels singled out by my examples. Many of us have fallen into the same bad habits...

[Mxy]

Nick Walker said, "I've been thinking about this and I'd be interested in seeing some of these threads where people ask a basic beginners question and then someone answers it in an unnecessarily 'techie' way."

Hi Nick, that's not the problem. The problem is putting off new users before they ask a question. At least that is how I interpreted the original post. I did experience this before my original post. The sequence of events went something like this.

1) I had a problem.
2) I found the user group.
3) I started searching and reading.
4) Oh man, this is technical and highly advanced.
5) These guys are really smart.
6) Hand wringing. Palms sweating.
7) I decide to look some more because who wants to look like a fool.
8) Still can't find the answer.
9) Guess I have no choice.

I don't remember my first question but it was basic to me. I was a beginner so it had to be basic right? I'm operating from memory but I don't think the system classified any of my questions as basic. Which, as I recall, I felt relief from because I didn't want to bother you with small stuff.

So the angst does exist for a new user. At least it did for me. It happens before any contact with a "techie". So, not about you, the others or your responses to a particular question.

I think the original question is valid...is it time to split the General Forum? I'm not sure how to do that or even if it would help. I tend to think the app is necessarily complex which drives the tone of the forums. Given that, I come to the conclusion, granted with little forethought, the only way to make the technical answers unnecessary is to change the app to something less. To me, and I suspect others, that is unacceptable. So, perhaps, a separate version? With its own forum?

Of course a cost/benefit analysis would be in order. And I'm sure it has already been considered and dismissed but what the hey, you never know until you ask.

Someone mentioned a zoom group to address the need. Perhaps that is the place for a new person to start. Less technical and therefore more inviting. The reason it was right to mention it is because it is a potential solution and this is a users group which is supposed to help. Sometimes the answer is not us.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Someone mentioned a zoom group to address the need.

https://fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php ... 25#p137067

The Zoom group is a great idea, for somebody who learns that way, but doesn't obviate the need for us look at what we can do to make FHUG more friendly for newcomers/non techies etc.

[jelv]

I don't remember my first question but it was basic to me. I was a beginner so it had to be basic right?

It was on merging and the first paragraph is very relevant to the current discussions: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=19674

[Gowermick]

May I add my tuppence worth as a long time genealogist. (my, English equivalent of US phrase 2 cents worth )
I have used many genealogical programmes over the years and find they fall into two distinct categories.

1. Easy to use, but inflexible, I think Family Tree Maker falls into this category. It was fine for basic genealogy, but was rigid and inflexible in use, with all underlying data hidden from the user, which I found infuriating. I knew what I wanted to do, but it lacked the ability to accommodate my wishes.

2. Harder to use, but very flexible. FH definitely falls into this category. IMHO, it has a very steep learning curve for those coming from other software, but once over that hurdle it is a joy to work with. Whatever I want to do, there is a way or ways to do it. For those of us with more than a passing technical knowlege, it ticks all the boxes.

As others have already stated, the forum does its best to answer users, be they novice or experienced, and to my mind does a pretty good job of it.

However, I do wonder how much genealogy gets done by the admin, as they are always on here, ready with a quick answer - Thank you all.

[tatewise]

I tend to agree that genealogy products tend to fall into those two categories.
I guess TMG, RootsMagic and TNG fall into category 2 with FH.

IMO it should be possible for those category 2 products to initially appear like category 1 products for new users.
They just need enough predefined capabilities to avoid needing technically advanced features to start with.
That may need initially 'hiding' some commands and options but with an 'indicator' to show more is available.
FH already does that to some extent in some areas but could go much further.

[NickWalker]

I may get tagged as an 'advanced user' but in actual fact I am a very basic user. I never answer questions here on most topics because I don't use them very much. I have never dabled with plugins, I've rarely written queries, I rarely use trees and certainly haven't ever customised them. So I'd argue it already does a good job of hiding this stuff - if you don't look for them, they're not there. My brother uses FH too (he is not an IT specialist) and when I saw him recently and we were looking at some family history with FH on my PC, he said it was like looking at a different program. He only uses the tree view to view and add individuals whereas I primarily use the Focus view. So I was navigating through the family using the focus window and he'd never seen that before. I think that's quite impressive that it can be used by beginners in two totally different ways. I expect there are others who just use the record window! So it is difficult to know how a 'new users' view would be any different to what we have now. Which of these modes would you hide? The focus window seems very similar to how FTM used to do things years ago when I used to use it.

[BillH]

My usage is similar to NIck's in some ways. I too only use the focus window, never diagrams (I removed them from the toolbar). I don't use templates. I don't use rich text except for census grids. I don't write plugins. I don't use witnesses. I don't use Internet Data Matches. I think that FH can be pretty simple and easy to use if you want it to be. If you delve in to more complex functions of the program then it does become more technical.

Bill

[Gary_G]

One can find videos on how one "typically" uses FH7. However; when one comes from outside the FH community, it's REALLY difficult to know just where to look to see an example workflow. "Newbies" just aren't yet familiar enough with how to find their way around. The issue is compounded by the concept of "Splitters" and "Lumpers", which seems to be more highly visible (and relevant) in the FH community discussions than in some other forums.

Perhaps a "Getting started" section would be useful to recent "refugees", if it were referenced in the board introduction. It might have subsections like; "Common FH7 tasks", "FH7 for Splitters" and "FH7 for Lumpers". In those sections there would be curated links to a sequence of videos that show "newbies" how to get "on their feet" with FH7. Videos are so important, as I believe they are more easily understood by newcomers to FH7. The most important thing about each section would be that it illustrates a consistent approach, built up over a particular set of videos (perhaps using the test database?). It should be stressed that no set of videos is a mandatory way of doing things, but that they are solely intended as a workable way to start. As newcomers are likely to be overwhelmed by the basic FH7, alone, I would suggest that add-ons not be part of the basic set, but be in a section called "Advanced Workflows for FH7".

[Jean001]

A level of hesitancy before making a first post to any forum is to be expected, especially when asking for help. Even if someone has been a regular reader of a forum's posts and has developed an understanding of the characteristics of regular contributors, the first-time poster is the newcomer to an established group.

Likewise, being a contributor/responder for the first time can be daunting.

It seems to me that those used to working 'behind the scenes' with software have the skills and expertise in analysis, description, problem-solving, etc. to quickly get to the point of the matter. The rest of us may take some time 'to get it', whatever it is, at that point.

Maybe a separate section for first-time posters would make them feel more comfortable.

There are areas of using FH where individuals can choose to use the style that suits them, often questions concerning these do bring up a raft of posts with differing opinions/techniques. To some people it is 'bewildering discourse', to others it is a 'range of options/something to think about'.

I have recently posted of how I handle certain 'style' aspects of using FH. My intention was to help the poster but perhaps I didn't. It is impossible to judge how other people (the OP and all the other readers) views one's posts.

I've not posted any replies on Queries, Expressions and the like because, although I am comfortable in using them, writing about how to use/write them is a different skill. I do test my own knowledge by working out my 'own answer' and then I check that against the one posted.

I think FH can be used in a 'simple' way, using the standard facts, generic sources, and default versions of charts, reports, and queries. When the basic understanding is established then the user may be ready to take on customisations. Perhaps the changes to FH Sources has caused some people to feel overwhelmed.

As others have posted above, I pick and choose which parts of FH I use regularly. I rarely use diagrams, and reports (apart from a few highly customised to my taste). I do not use narrative reports, all 'sentences' are set to a 'non-sentence; style that suits me. As has been written elsewhere, FH is highly adaptable to its users' styles which means that it can seem complex to some.

[ColeValleyGirl]

One can find videos on how one "typically" uses FH7. However; when one comes from outside the FH community, it's REALLY difficult to know just where to look to see an example workflow.

You do realise we'll need a committee and several years to decide which example workflow ?

[Gary_G]

You do realise we'll need a committee and several years to decide which example workflow ?

Helen;
I know you're trying to be somewhat humorous with your response. But...

My first impressions of FH7 were; "Well it sounds like it should be a good tool, but where in the world do I start?" By your response; you seem to be implying that even experienced users would have substantial difficulties in suggesting videos that show at least a basic workflow that would get people started. If that's the case; I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that many new people flounder about the board/knowledge-base and perceive most responses to be "too technical".

As for there needing to be agreement by a committee...
Someone once said that; "Software designed by committee is bound to fail" and same is true for workflows. The workflows that I'm suggesting don't have to be developed by a committee. They don't have to please any existing users. They just need to help people feel that they are starting to get a handle on how to use FH7, to build some confidence through exposure to the tool and to form their own ideas on where they want to go. Having done that, we are usually able to figure out what to look for in the forums and to better frame our questions. Soon; the "techie" stuff is no longer so confusing or such a problem.

[AdrianBruce]

... By your response; you seem to be implying that even experienced users would have substantial difficulties in suggesting videos that show at least a basic workflow that would get people started. ...

I may be putting words into Helen's mouth, so feel free to regard this as my view if so, but I interpreted that as "even experienced users would have substantial difficulties in agreeing videos that show at least a basic workflow"

... The workflows that I'm suggesting don't have to be developed by a committee. They don't have to please any existing users. They just need to help people feel that they are starting to get a handle on how to use FH7, to build some confidence through exposure to the tool and to form their own ideas on where they want to go. ...

Aren't there basic work-flows implied by the Help File? For instance, https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help ... entry.html and https://www.family-historian.co.uk/help ... entry.html? Any videos would surely do well to build on stuff in the Help File?

[ColeValleyGirl]

Gary,

For newcomers to FH and genealogy at the same time, its not an impossible task to come up with a simple example workflow although there would still be questions about souce driven data entry versus fact driven. We could probably avoid the lumper versus splitter debate by defaulting to the Essentials templates. And default to source driven data entry as FH has added more support for it. Maybe a video based on the textual getting started material that's available already (although i wish there was a 'Getting the most of family historian' available for V7.) All we need is somebody with the skill and time to undertake the huge amount of work for free.

How much value that would have to somebody migrating from another program i couldnt say. It would only scratch the surface of whats possible and couldn't address customising fh to implement a workflow known and loved in the old product.

I will also add that its my understanding that the majority of new users take the product out of the box and use it without any customisation, and without using the mailing list or fhug. (Maybe they take a look and decide they dont need customisation or advice on how to do anything that isnt basic.) But i think we need to be careful about assuming that we are a representative cross section of the total user community.

[Jean001]

I will also add that its my understanding that the majority of new users take the product out of the box and use it without any customisation, and without using the mailing list or fhug.

That was certainly the case for me.

I became a regular reader of the FHUG and KnowledgeBase because its content (all its content) interested me, not because I needed help. Soon after acquiring FH I did start to make customisations. Some five years or so later I did require help, usually in connection with a request for a change to a Plugin to suit a particular requirement that I had. Alas, I do not have the skill to write a Plugin so I asked. If the kind Plugin authors did not exist I could still have carried out the tasks in FH but it would have taken more time and effort on my part to achieve my, rather esoteric, objectives.

[Gary_G]

Helen;

I note that you've used FH for quite a few years, so your caution in making assumptions about whether new FH users need help or advice is prudent. There just isn't enough information out there on which to base an opinion.

Being new to FH7, I was asked to jot down and contribute my impressions. As in this thread; I've continued to try to present my viewpoint in as clear and courteous a manner as I can. I recognize that it may not be everyone's, but just echoing another's viewpoint would not really help the discussion.

I am very aware that trying to come up with a basic example workflow would take some effort. My point is simply that without that effort, I feel many new users will continue to find FH7 confusing and somewhat "techie"... until they essentially figure it out on their own or give up. One doesn't know how many have simply given up, though I hope not many. Personally; I like FH7, simply because I persevered and "think" I've more or less figured out how to work with it and not against it.

When I joined, I asked MANY questions with an eye to finding out where to begin and how best to work "with" the tool. The existing videos, when I could find them on my own, didn't really introduce the software particularly well overall. I found them interesting, but often of little use in helping me get started. Most of all; I didn't understand "FH-speak" well enough to pose clear questions in the forum. However; perhaps I was just "pig-headed" enough to ask them anyway and "take my lumps" for doing so. I'm not sure the average user would take that "social risk".

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen;

I note that you've used FH for quite a few years

I still have version 2 around somewhere, and anyone who remembers my old ID can probably find posts going back before my current incarnation -- however, like Jean001, I lurked for long time because I am constitutionally averse to customisations and will always approach a data reference like a vampire approaching garlic.

Being new to FH7, I was asked to jot down and contribute my impressions. As in this thread; I've continued to try to present my viewpoint in as clear and courteous a manner as I can. I recognize that it may not be everyone's, but just echoing another's viewpoint would not really help the discussion.

We need to hear all opinions on how well FHUG works. We may not be able to fix everything.

I am very aware that trying to come up with a basic example workflow would take some effort. My point is simply that without that effort, I feel many new users will continue to find FH7 confusing and somewhat "techie"... until they essentially figure it out on their own or give up. One doesn't know how many have simply given up, though I hope not many. Personally; I like FH7, simply because I persevered and "think" I've more or less figured out how to work with it and not against it.

I still think that 'migration from another product' is a use case with particular challenges. Not all migrants as as willing as you to consider workflow changes. And those new users who aren't migrants may find getting started easier.

[fhtess65]

Like Gary, I'm a migrant from RM (who has also used Legacy and FTM) and also one who was determined to learn how to use FH effectively and create a new workflow. While I'm not "techie", I do enjoy exploring new-to-me software and making it work for me whenever possible.

Your point about new users may well be right as they have no expectations of how family tree software should work. Had FH existed back in the early 90s when I first started my tree, it would likely have been the ideal software for me, given that I started with my English maternal side based on a tree from my mum's cousin. Instead, I found FTM and entered said tree by hand, learning as I went.

I know for certain that part of my early struggles with FH (which I used for smaller projects, rather than my full database) was based on my pre-existing knowledge of how I thought genealogy software should work. It would be interesting to get the perspective from someone for who FH is their first family tree program.

<SNIP>
I still think that 'migration from another product' is a use case with particular challenges. Not all migrants as as willing as you to consider workflow changes. And those new users who aren't migrants may find getting started easier.

[LornaCraig]

I still think that 'migration from another product' is a use case with particular challenges. Not all migrants as as willing as you to consider workflow changes. And those new users who aren't migrants may find getting started easier.

I think this is an important point. Users migrating from other software have a particular set of challenges.
These could be summarised as:

• “My old software did such and such. How can I do this in FH?” The answer might be that it can be done but it requires some ‘techie’ customisations (hence ‘techie’ discussions), or it can be done but you will need to change your workflow (hence you need to un-learn some old habits) or it can’t be done and you shouldn’t expect FH to behave in the same way as your old software (so consider sticking with the old software).
• “How can I adapt my existing data to fit FH better?” For example, can I switch from my imported source templates to FH templates? Should I stick with my existing ‘lumped’ sources? Or should I try to convert my lumped sources into split sources, and if so how? (More ‘techie’ discussions). Or should I start over and re-enter most of my data from scratch?
• “ I have imported my data from other software. Most of it looks OK but I can’t find xxx” or “… FH has put this a such-and-such place, how can I move it to somewhere else?” (This sometimes involves ‘techie’ discussions.) And because these questions arise after the data has been imported the questions are often posed in the General forum, rather than the importing forum, even though they are problems which only affect users migrating from other software.

The proposed new forum structure would include a forum specifically for importing to FH (the existing forum covers both importing and exporting). If users and/or moderators try to keep the above categories of discussion in the new Importing forum a lot of the ‘techie’ posts and long discussions won't impinge on users who are starting with FH as their first genealogy program. Those users don’t come with the baggage of existing data structures and expectations about what FH will do and, as Helen says, they may find it easier to get started.

[BillH]

Lorna,

This sounds good, but how long do you wait before posting in the general forum rather than the importing forum? My guess is that the majority of FH users used a different program before FH (although this could be incorrect). I used Reunion before FH.

Bill

[LornaCraig]

Bill, It's not really a question of how long you wait, but questions which arise specifically as a result of importing from another program would go in the Importing forum. In practice I know some people spend several months doing trial imports before they feel they have got things right, and they would continue to use the Importing forum during that time. If a queston arises later it might not be obvious whether it has anything to do with the import, so it would go in the General forum (or one of the new sub-forums). If it turns out to be related to the import the topic would be moved, perhaps leaving a link from the General forum.

[BillH]

Lorna,

OK... thanks for the clarification.

Bill