2 topics here - 1 about what Rangers do & 1 about profile policy/style

Question

One of the things Rangers do is to offer assistance when we see something being done in a profile that could (or should) be done better or differently.

I recently saw that someone had done a beautiful job of cleaning up the biography after a merge, except for one thing.  The sources section started with the ones that were not footnoted and, under them, there was another section named "Footnotes" where these were displayed.

I left a comment on the profile of the person who had done that, complimenting him/her for the good work done and suggesting how the style guide specifies that sources should be listed.

He/she promptly responded by sending me a private message.  I think the well thought out message raises some excellent points and wish that he/she had posted that as a G2G question to open up a discussion here about his/her points ... so... I decided to quote the private message here (removing anything that might identify the sender):

I think the guidelines you mention are great for adding sources to a profile.  They are easy to understand and will help to encourage more people to add sources.  However, the current guidelines don't address the methods WikiTree uses when importing your family tree.  It also doesn't address the problems caused by merging profiles, and how to fix them.  These are more difficult problems, that will not be understood by most people on WikiTree.  The technical description of how WikiTree builds profiles with sources and footnotes are described here:  http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/146810/technical-discussion-about-wikitree-syntax-and-footnotes.  I think you will agree that most people will not be able to understand this description.  This is probably the main reason more people are not cleaning up their profiles.  On the other hand, I have seen people clean up their profiles by simply deleting sources or deleting source information.  Sometimes I think they are deleting source information so that they can better conform to the guidelines you mention.  This certainly makes it easier, but it is definitely not the intention of the guidelines. The solution you are suggesting (described in the guidelines) is possible, but this introduces another problem:?  bloat.  This problem is described here:  http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/145135/editing-porofiles-that-use-inline-references-for-sources.  With a small profile, with just a few sources, this is a minor problem that can be ignored.  With a large profile, and many sources, this is a very big problem.  When a profile has been created from multiple GEDCOMs/mergers, bloat becomes such a big problem that most people will not attempt to clean up the mess.  I think the only long-term solution is to stick with the method WikiTree has always used, and continues to use when importing a family tree.  This uses a separate source section for source information (span id) and reference tags.  This allows us to reduce the size footnotes (bloat) and make it easier to manage a large amount of information in a profile.  I hope the guidelines can be expanded someday, to include both this method and easier methods of adding footnotes.  I've struggled with creating a description of how to clean up messy profiles, but it is just too complicated (although I haven't given up).

Answer 1

Gaile, Part of the problem is when a new profile is created the system only partialy follows the style guide.  For example it leaves out the See also: line that is recommended.  The other part of the Style problem is that there are so many older profiles that use <span> and not<ref> so that when merging a newer user may not understand that the only recommended "fotnote" tag is <ref>.  The only solution is to have the profiles edited only using WikiTree recommended codes, and with the very large number of profiles on here that gonna take a little time.  But I try to "fix" at least a couple each day.

Comments

I forgot to mention that the sources following the See also: line are those that are not directly referenced in the naritave section of the biography.

---

You're preaching to the choir, sweetie pie -  I'm with you 100% on this!!!

I do have an idea that will mitigate the "bloat" effect so that it is not onerous to have lengthy content enclosed within the <ref> ... </ref> tags, but am not ready to suggest it because I need to break down the technobabble first to be able to explain it in plain English in order to post it here.

---

The "bloat" is not visible in the finished profile and to help keep it straight I list all sources after the See also: line and then later, after I have "completed the biography I cut and paste them into the proper place so that I don't get confused myself, and that aint hard anymore.

---

I believe the "bloat" refers to how much extra space is used on the editing page to include lengthy source statements.  I also believe the problem is that it makes the profile very difficult to read on the editing page with everything all smooshed together there.  My idea is to be able to use spacing on the editing page to visually separate biography content from source content while still having the "<ref> source info </ref>" inline with the narrative content.  Right now, if you leave blank lines before and after the <ref> ... </ref> sections, it puts the footnotes in funny looking places on the profile's view page.

When it all looks like one big run-on paragraph, it can be very confusing, especially to newer members who are then likely to mess it up if they try to edit the biography at all.  The result is either that people unintentionally foul up the profile or are too intimidated to try to improve it.  Both are not good things!!!

What ain't hard for you or me may well be hard for people less comfortable with coding.

---

WeRelate.org does a variation of what you're describing, Gaile. They have source fields that can then be referenced from the narrative (as well as from each data field). Uploaded GEDCOMs are converted to this format. I wish that there was a way Wikitree could adopt such technology/coding but I'm sure it would be a massive undertaking.

---

Jillaine,

That would be a very elegant way to do it.  The thought had not occurrred to me because it would involve changing database architecture, although not a major change.  The massive undertaking would be to move all the sources in all the existing profiles into the new data fields (actually, it would be a new data table - a child table, if you will, that would have multiple records, 1 per source, that link to a single record in the parent table, namely the one that has the profile data).  This is not something that would have to be done - the ones that are there would not break in any way - they could still work exactly the way they currently do, but new ones could be done the new way.

Y'all may have noticed that anytime I comment about potential technical improvements, I always consider the "cost" (in programming effort and resources) that must be weighed against the "benefit" (the impact of the change to the user experience).  In this case, it seems the drawbacks of the current system are major issues for many people, while the amount of programming effort to make this change is not a real show-stopper.  The resources part has two pieces - drive space and processing time to produce a page every time one is requested by a user.  It would take more drive space, but not a significant amount because the data itself is already taking up space in the current table.  It would also slow down response time when producing profile pages for display to users.  We're talking in the order of less than 2 milliseconds here which users don't notice, but that's a "per page" number.  With the scale of WikiTree (I don't know how many hundreds - maybe thousands - of people are using WikiTree simultaneously) that could multiply to appear to take longer after you click a button before the page appears on your screen.  Considering the variable monkey wrenches thrown into the mix by all the ISPs diddling with download speeds (and vehemently denying that they do it when you complain, which is an outright lie), in this case my opinion is that the benefit is great enough to warrant doing it - please note that this is ONLY my opinion, which doesn't count for much - others may well disagree and, also, may have additional reasons for their opinions that I have not thought to consider!!!

THANX for the really great idea!!!

PS - what I had been "teasing" about before done not invlove any changes other than style recommendations to alleviate the confusing appearance of the bloat effect.  I'm still trying to beat wiki code into submission to allow me to find a means of visually separating the sources from the biography content on the editing page without impacting the view page, after which I need to create an explanation of it that does not include any technobabble.  If and when I solve it, I will post it here, but it will be more like a workaround than a solution.  Jillaine's suggestion represents a very real (and very slick) solution that is not overly cumbersome to implement.

---

Gaile I sent you a PM with a possible easy workaround and then put my idea into my profile just to see the result.  The bad part of that test is there is only one source that is not a photo so it really does not change much but the theory works and I might try it with a profile that has more sources that are used as footnotes in the near future and then put that profile on G2G so that others could see this and comment on the procedure

---

Gaile check out

http://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Dyer-1189&action=edit#bio

for an example of how the code would look in a profile

---

Dale,

I saw it and replied, but I'm not sure I fully understand how it will look on the view page.  I don't understand how it will be possible to identify which source applies to which fact in order to place the superscript numbers that link to the numbered sources.

Also, as you said, this will be a workaround ... what Jillaine described would be a REAL and eminently viable solution.

The last thing I want to do right now, however, is to put down a workaround - we DESPERATELY need anything that will help with this problem and its a NIRTS issue (I wish I could use a footnote in G2G to lead to the identification of the acronym NIRTS - it's Navy talk for "Need It Right This Second").  We don't know if Chris & Co. will make a decision to implement system changes (there may well be more factors in the cost/benefit analysis than I have laid out here) ... even if they do decide to do this, it will take time.  In the meantime, any workaround that can be devised to mitigate the problem as much as possible will be wonderful.

---

Sorry, Dale - my comment immediately above this was in process of being written when you posted yours that is just above that and has the link to your example.

Here's my response to your example:

WOW!!!     YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

That is great.  It answers everything to do with bloat and keeps the profile squeaky clean on the editing page to make it easy to see what's in the content.  The only problem is that it puts all the initial footnote numbers at the top.  It would be an easy fix to software to prevent listing those numbers at the start - of course, that is IF Chris chooses to do it.

Of course, you could put that list below the biography, but it would have to be above the "Sources" section because the <references /> tag only picks up the "<ref>something</ref>" tags that are above it.  The result is that you'd still end up with a list of superscript numbers that link to the individual sources, but are not attached to any facts.

.FANTASTIC WORK!!!!!!!!

---

I guess going to Kent State and getting a degree was not a total waste.

---

I like this Dale. I tried it on this profile, but put the sources at the end of the bio, but before the == Sources ==

---

That just goes to show how little I know, I thought it had to go first.  I like your way better Anne.

---

If we get a popular uprising going here in favor of adopting Dale's solution as THE policy for how to enter sources then one of the things we might do is to petition Chris to make one teensy weensy change that would allow us to use the <span> tag to make that set of numbers not appear on the view page.

Warning - the following is a bit laced with technobabble!

All it would take is to add a 1 line entry to the master css file that defines a span class - say it is named "hide".  The only attribute it needs is to set visibility to "none".

Then, when we start the section - at top or just above sources (doesn't matter where it is) all we need to do is to put:  <span class="hide"> before the first <ref> tag and </span> after the last </ref> tag.

Instant fix!!!!

I am oh-so-excited about what Dale hath wrought here - it's nothing short of a miracle.  I think we need to anoint him with the title SUPER SOURCEROR.  i'm picturing a cape with a big yellow triangle that has a big red "S" in the middle of it!!!!!  ... or maybe PROFILE PRESTIDIGITATOR ... someone stop me before I get REALLY carried away here

Go, Dale, Go!

---

Dale,

It can go anywhere as long as it is above the <references /> tag.  If we can get Chris to give us the ability to hide it, then it won't matter where it is.  In that case, it might be better to have it at the top so that it's more easily accessible when you want to refer to it while editing the profile, but others may prefer to see it just before the start of the Sources section.  I do think, though, that the style guide should specify the location in order to keep all profiles uniform so anyone who goes to edit them knows where to expect to find it.

I'm not thrilled with either of the 2 examples - yours and Anne's - that have been made.  Yours only has 1 footnote - I'd like to see an example that has several.  Anne's is pre-1700 so people like me can't get to see the edit page even though the profile is open.

If you would like to provide another example, I would like to see you make a new G2G post proposing this as *THE* be-all/end-all final, permanent, and forever solution (or if you want, I'll do it)  and use tthe new example.

---

Gaile, as requested see

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Dyer-1271

---

I will just stay out of it.

---

Beautiful!!!   I just made a little change - I didn't like that all the numbers were in a column, 1 below the other, so I changed the spacing.  I removed the blank lines but still tried to keep space between the different sources by using the <ref> and </ref> tags to separate them.  Please see what you think.

Now, how about making a new G2G post with your incredible idea as a formal proposal of a replacement to the current style guide source instructions?

By the way, this can also go iinto new profiles created by gedcom to give people an example that makes it easy for them to start using it.

---

Gaile I will let you propose it as I am going to be very busy with other things for the next few days, or weeks even.  Not to mention that my fingers and eyes hurt from all of the typing today.

---

Chryse,

I think everyone in on this has agreed that the "1 2 3" stuff on the view page is less hideous than the confusing mess on the editing page the way we now do it.

If you comment it out then it will be as if it were not there to begin with, so that won't solve anything.  As I set out above, there is a very easy and effective way to hide it, but it would take a very minor programming change to do it.  I am hoping that we can persuade Chris to do this.

By the way, when you want to wrap something in a comment tag set, it starts with <!-- and ends with -->.

---

OK Dale - I'll try not to embarrass you too much, but brace yourself for an outpouring of accolades from all of WikiTree.  I'm not sure you fully appreciate how truly amazing your system is.

---

I had a professor in college for one of my computer courses who told the whole class that I "think like a CPU"

---

Edited out

---

That was one sharp professor, who recognized greatness when he saw it, Dale!!!

---

I added a new profile earlier today when I found one more child for a couple that they did not have on their profiles - was found in the source I looked up because it was mentioned in a public comment - now I noticed that the style was wrong as soon as I saved and looked back at the Profile and I had to move and delete and move stuff so it looked standard - I think sometimes we just need to take time and look and see if it is ok, not rush off to another profile to fix or back to where we were before we found a source for this one - if we are going to do it let's do it right

Answer 2

Edited out

Comments

Chryse, thank you for your answer.  The problem is not really the GEDCOM inport but rather editing the profile to fit our style guide.  The method recomended by the Style guide is

Dale was born in 1951 to Father and Mother <ref>place source information here</ref>

This creates a lot of source text mixed in with the narrative and that makes editing harder later on.

---

(Makes editing harder later on to some.)

---

Edited out

Answer 3

Edited out

Answer 4

Two side to everything (except where there are three or four or five sides)...

So when I started at WikiTree, I learned the advanced source style, as described on the help page.

Then, there were comments that it was too difficult to see which comment the source applied to, when it could be part of a 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc string.

So I started using the simple style which assigns a number to each reference. I include the vol and page number for each reference in the footnote.

Now we are full circle, back to preferring the advanced style.

I have no objection to either style, however have found the simple style easier to read and understand in the published mode. Yes, it is more difficult to read in the edit mode. Which is better for visitors and for printouts?

Comments

I have found the same thing.  What is the problem with the old way of using [[Source XXX]] at the bottom and <ref>[[Source XXX]] Vol. x, Page y. </ref> in the text.   Or, with the other way of putting the full cite in the first use, <ref> Author, Title, etc.</ref> and an abbreviated cite <ref> Author, Vol. X, Page y</ref> for the next use.  Both make nice, clean cites at the bottom.

---

Hi April,

Your question about which is better for visitors and printouts might as well be rhetorical - anybody, visitor or logged in member, who is looking at a profile is ONLY looking at the view page, so of course we want that to look the very best it can.

The problem is that all profiles on WikiTree are - and are destined to always be - works in progress, so it is also important that the editing page be easy to use because of our dedication to collaboration here.

When the inline sources (all the <ref> ... </ref> tags) contain long citations, often including URLs that have lots of parameters that are frequently written using entities and character callouts instead of just plain text, it severely impedes the ability to read the narrative easily.

This often leads to people who try to add more information to the narrative ending up accidentally fouling up the source citations or the narrative itself.  Sometimes it also leads to people being so confused that they give up, or more likely in the case of newer members, being afraid to even try to make a contribution.

So .... even though the answer to your question is a no-brainer, there is a very solid case for needing editing capability to be easily accessible to all members.  The result is that we may have to accept a trivial underachievement on the view page in order to provide a major improvement to the editing interface.

OK - aafter that long-winded argument in favor of the new system, I really don't think that old vs new is the issue you are concerned with.  This new approach doesn't create the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc. string, although it does exacerbate it a little, since every source will have at least 2 tags - the first where it is used in the narrative and the second where all the numbers only are listed just under the Sources heading.  The decision of whether to use the full citation each time a source is footnoted (what you called "simple") or to use the empty tag (<ref name="something" /> for multiple footnotes using the same source (what you called "advanced") is not at all affected here.  You can still do it either way.

Now, to complete the full circle you mentioned, I'll comment on the start of your answer ... I hope this isn't adding another side ... that would be putting the "hex" on your pentagon.

---

LOL Gaille. I like your post very much, and realize I didn't read the original posts carefully - I can see this might be a very good solution to "conplex vs readable" conundrum.

Okay, I must agree that Dale's solution is elegant and brilliant. I will make the attempt to use it.

PS sorry for the rhetorical question - I hate those:)

---

April, you are the greatest!  I was ready to duck when the rotten tomatoes started heading my way in response to my last line!!!  I know I'm bad, but even I thought I might have gone too far with that one.

There is an easy solution to the string of numbers that get added with this new style (they will appear immediately under the Sources heading before the numbered list displaying all the citations.  In fact, there are 2 possible solutions (one that I thought of and one that Rob Ton recommended) and they're both easy.

If everyone decided that the 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, ... business is undesirable then there is an easy solution to that, also.

Both of these fixes would require WikiTree to make some modifications, though.

---

Thank you for summing up the solutions, Gaille - I will find them now.

Nah, no rottoen tomatoes - you are funny and we have the same sense of humor:)