Family Historian User Group

Agree forum should cover all aspects, but we should note the strap-line at the top of every page - “Helping Family Historian users since 2002”. IMO, that is the core purpose of what we do.

The more open-ended discussions tend to be limited to a hard core of around a dozen or so users (including me at times, so I’m in the tent as well), so I think they need their own place on the forum. And for me, that doesn’t necessarily equate to “technical”. A very technical answer may be required for a particularly complex or obscure use, and that is part of the helping remit.

Interesting reading Helen’s comment, which came in as I was composing mine.

Do we have two different forums? Helping general users with the mechanics of FH, and a much more loosely defined discussion forum?

There is room for both, but it is the mixing up of the two that seems to create tensions and cause problems for newcomers.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 13:27

Interesting reading Helen’s comment, which came in as I was composing mine.

Do we have two different forums? Helping general users with the mechanics of FH, and a much more loosely defined discussion forum?

There is room for both, but it is the mixing up of the two that seems to create tensions and cause problems for newcomers.

Two forums would be a nightmare -- two different moderation approaches, confusion for newcomers about what to post where, the inevitable protracted discussion by the usual suspects about whether their contribution is intended to 'help someone' or whether it's 'just a discussion'....

I'll repeat: we cannot insulate everyone from content they don't want to see. We can just make it easier for them to reduce the amount they see. If the usual suspects want to discuss something 'just because', and it came up in the course of another topic, just create a new topic with a title that makes its nature clear and get on with discussing.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 13:10

Agree forum should cover all aspects, but we should note the strap-line at the top of every page - “Helping Family Historian users since 2002”. IMO, that is the core purpose of what we do.

I think if one of our users has something they want to discuss then we are helping them, even if it doesn't interest 99% of other users. These discussions are not just random ones, there is a particular reason that the discussions start. For example, if someone wants to try to understand why a particular aspect of GEDCOM (that FH uses) works in a particular way then they should be able to discuss it here without having others moaning when the discussion on this leads to lots of posts and arguments (as long as the arguments are constructive and polite). I also suspect there are actually quite a lot of other people who do find these interesting but don't particularly have anything to contribute. Definitely a small minority but we should be helping those Family Historian users too - and we have been "since 2002" but in recent months it has felt at times like these discussions are no longer welcome.

I mentioned the same thing. From time to time, I do enjoy reading the in-depth discussions, but in the middle of a thread, they can be a bit off-putting. But, I do understand why those with advanced programming skills/tech knowledge would want to engage in those kinds of conversations. A clearly marked forum would be the best solution - that way no-one can say they were surprised by the topics there.

I am sorry if I offended with my comments about techie discussions being off-putting to newcomers. The forums are meant for everyone. Managing everyone's expectations isn't easy - I know that from my own time managing email lists. It can be frustrating, though, when looking for an answer to scroll through long involved discussions that are way above one's understanding. Hopefully a dedicated forum would help with that as long as conversations moved there as needed...or just started there in the first place.

NickWalker wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:27

I think there needs to be a decision as to whether this forum is just for asking questions and getting responses or whether people are allowed to have discussions about things which are perhaps more technical in nature and perhaps do ramble on and will only be of interest to a minority of the users. I've always seen this as a 'User Group' catering for all levels and I've often found some of the more philosophical discussions quite interesting, even though I'm sure lots of people won't. If those kinds of discussions are allowed then please can people not jump in and say that it is too technical, too pedantic, off-putting to new users, etc. Perhaps there does need to be a sub-forum for this, e.g. 'Family Historian Discussions'.

Could it not just be a clearly-labelled sub-forum?

I understand you'll never stop people from seeing threads that confuse them etc., but if the sub-forum's description clearly says "this is for discussions about the mechanics of using Family Historian - very technical for more advanced users", I would think that would be enough to warn off those who would be lost there. When first mentioned, I had imagined it sitting at the bottom of Using Family Historian, under New Wish List Requests.

I'm one of those in the middle - most of the time I need a basic answer, but I have also learned from some of the more in-depth discussions. It would be a shame if those who engage in them feel they have to censor themselves.

A sub-forum also allows those who use FH over a long period of time to learn more as they get more comfortable with the ins and outs and want to progress to more in-depth knowledge of its workings. The only issue I can see is members wanting to move from a basic to a more advanced discussion, not doing so in time, and how frustrating that would be for the moderators. It would take self-discipline to remember to say - "Let's take this to the _____ forum".

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 13:47

Two forums would be a nightmare -- two different moderation approaches, confusion for newcomers about what to post where, the inevitable protracted discussion by the usual suspects about whether their contribution is intended to 'help someone' or whether it's 'just a discussion'....

I'll repeat: we cannot insulate everyone from content they don't want to see. We can just make it easier for them to reduce the amount they see. If the usual suspects want to discuss something 'just because', and it came up in the course of another topic, just create a new topic with a title that makes its nature clear and get on with discussing.

NickWalker wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 14:16

...
I think if one of our users has something they want to discuss then we are helping them, even if it doesn't interest 99% of other users. These discussions are not just random ones, there is a particular reason that the discussions start. For example, if someone wants to try to understand why a particular aspect of GEDCOM (that FH uses) works in a particular way then they should be able to discuss it here without having others moaning when the discussion on this leads to lots of posts and arguments (as long as the arguments are constructive and polite). I also suspect there are actually quite a lot of other people who do find these interesting but don't particularly have anything to contribute. Definitely a small minority but we should be helping those Family Historian users too - and we have been "since 2002" but in recent months it has felt at times like these discussions are no longer welcome.

Quite agree with every word, Nick. (I couldn't even trim down what you said, other than removing the quote to which you were responding).

The trouble with the separate sub-forum for "Philosophical musings" is that's not how they generally originate... Someone asks about citations, say, someone else then mentions Elizabeth Shown Mills and then we're into the philosophy of citations and what did the GEDCOM committee really mean when... I have no objection to using such a sub-forum if I want to start with such a question but, as I say, that's not how I believe it works in most cases.

And, as has been already mentioned, if you pick up stuff from the URL for Unread messages, you're still going to see the "Philosophical musings" whether you want to or not. Unless, as Esther Rantzen said, "You know better..." (Old British TV program).

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 15:01

The trouble with the separate sub-forum for "Philosophical musings" is that's not how they generally originate... Someone asks about citations, say, someone else then mentions Elizabeth Shown Mills and then we're into the philosophy of citations and what did the GEDCOM committee really mean when... I have no objection to using such a sub-forum if I want to start with such a question but, as I say, that's not how I believe it works in most cases.

The other trouble is that it's a subjective judgement: is this a philosophical discussion about what the GEDCOM committee meant, or is it fundamental to answering a question about, say, the way names are handled in FH? And at what point does it need to attract the label 'Here be Dragons' if the beginning of the topic is 'standard-level'? And which lucky moderator is going to get the job of disentangling the 'advanced stuff' and creating a coherent new topic?

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 15:10

The other trouble is that it's a subjective judgement: is this a philosophical discussion about what the GEDCOM committee meant, or is it fundamental to answering a question about, say, the way names are handled in FH? And at what point does it need to attract the label 'Here be Dragons' if the beginning of the topic is 'standard-level'? And which lucky moderator is going to get the job of disentangling the 'advanced stuff' and creating a coherent new topic?

Compare with learning to drive a car: You don’t need to know how a car engine works to know how to drive a car. But some people want to know about the engine anyway because it helps them understand why the car behaves in certain ways.

Likewise you don’t need to know much (anything?) about Gedcom to learn how to use FH. Many users just want to know how to do something in FH. But some, particularly those migrating from other software whose ‘cars’ behave differently, want to learn what lies underneath.

If the user is happy with an explanation of ‘how’ the discussion doesn’t need to go into ‘why’. It’s the ‘why’ part which might need moving to a new topic. (I know, it won't be as easy as that! )

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 16:51

Likewise you don’t need to know much (anything?) about Gedcom to learn how to use FH. Many users just want to know how to do something in FH. But some, particularly those migrating from other software whose ‘cars’ behave differently, want to learn what lies underneath.

If the user is happy with an explanation of ‘how’ the discussion doesn’t need to go into ‘why’. It’s the ‘why’ part which might need moving to a new topic. (I know, it won't be as easy as that! )

I would be delighted if the term Gedcom never turned up again (except under the Importing and Exporting buckets.) Too often IMO we blind people with science by using Gedcom to "explain" or justify why things work as they do, rather than advise on how things work in FH and how a user can achieve a particular end. We all know that FH has introduced custom extensions that are technically Gedcom compliant (Source Templates, Place Records and Research Notes for example), and we don't need Gedcom to explain or justify those; why do we not adopt the default assumption that a user doesn't want to look underneath the bonnet until they let us know otherwise?

So yes, moving the Why part into a new topic would be the way to go... but Gedcom is only one subject that might end up in this category.

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:21

I was once part of a (Facebook) forum for a well-known commercial FH website. But not for long. Someone had asked a question "The parish registers for XYZ didn't appear to be available on the site? Why not?" (Exact wording not guaranteed).

The mods said "Ask the site's support team" and the thread was closed. ...........................

If the question was asked as you show it, then I think that the given response is perfectly reasonable. The questioner has been directed to the only people who could provide an answer - the site's support team (the Primary Source ). Also, if it is a site issue, they need to be informed so that a fix can be made.

There is no need for any other response, which could only provide suggestions - not answers.

Little.auk wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 18:11

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:21

I was once part of a (Facebook) forum for a well-known commercial FH website. But not for long. Someone had asked a question "The parish registers for XYZ didn't appear to be available on the site? Why not?" (Exact wording not guaranteed).

The mods said "Ask the site's support team" and the thread was closed. ...........................

If the question was asked as you show it, then I think that the given response is perfectly reasonable. The questioner has been directed to the only people who could provide an answer - the site's support team (the Primary Source ). Also, if it is a site issue, they need to be informed so that a fix can be made.

There is no need for any other response, which could only provide suggestions - not answers.

1. I agree that the given response was perfectly reasonable.

2. However, my wish was to add information on the basis that having a little extra knowledge is never a bad thing, especially if the extra knowledge was able to be used in other circumstances. I was not allowed to do that.

3. I've led a 2nd Level Support Team and know how 1st Level Support works - they have scripts that they work through. That's not a complaint - it's all that they can do. I have no idea what response that particular website's 1st Level Support gave, but what I do know is that if you feel short-changed and want to get past them into the 2nd Level, then you need to understand a bit more so that you can phrase useful follow-up questions.

To give a concrete example - we have asked FamilySearch (who were not the site in question) to explain why certain stuff isn't available in their Historical Records. I believe that every time, they respond "Because our commercial agreements don't allow us to publish those images." The problem is - nobody else has similar images, so what agreements are they protecting? Unless you have that extra knowledge (that there are no similar images) and provide it, you'll never get past that first response.

Basically, the point of my strategy is that if the Record Office doesn't have the register then (unless it's a modern register, etc, etc) the chances of the genealogy website having the images is basically zero so I can accept whatever they say.

The relevance of this particular post is to demonstrate my concerns, not about 1st Level Support, but to demonstrate that closing down threads quickly is a bad idea as it terminates the possibility of adding knowledge.

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 12:26

Ron Melby wrote: ↑

11 May 2023 11:34

Exporting, wouldn't Importing/Exporting be the functional area?

The existing 'Importing and Exporting' forum will be just for Importing. This is because most of the issues encountered by migrants from other software are not relevant to ‘General Usage’ of FH. Exporting is likely to be of wider interest so will become one of the sub-forums of General usage.

The other issues you have raised have been considered, but Helen explained:

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.

so, there is a bunch I don't see, and I suppose many more people want to leave fh for other good softwares, but I see no distiction between import and export than immigration, emmigration, they are paired. My brain says why even bother when I find some queries on this forum ( in query language)

fID = fhGetRecordId(fhGetValueAsLink(fhGetItemPtr(lnkWIFE, '~.FAMC'))),

where that can be written as...........
Anyway, I defy you to ignore what is called datarefs, either in fh_lua or queries. How does anyone not see a query and its aftermath as 'programming'?

so, functional areas.......

Those discussing their desire for discussions appear to be mainly long-time users of FH, but, a high percentage of posts seem to be generated by new users trying to get to grips with the complexities of FH. Discussions that go off topic do nothing to help an already confused poster.

As a recent example - I recently posted a question (on query syntax) a simple question with a simple answer, which was given in the first two replies. I responded, thanking the senders and confirming that the solution worked (i.e. my question was satisfactorily answered).

Regardless of this, others picked up on supporting information I had provided, and created a 30 plus post thread discussing the pros and cons of what I was doing, that could largely be categorised as "trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs"!

I have no issues with a good discussion and exchange of ideas - in the right place. The middle of a "newbies" cry for help is not that place. It only serves to confuse and to obscure the wheat from the chaff.

Perhaps we need a "Chat Room" section in the Forum.