http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308 Watch Unavailable 2018-12-09T04:16:20Z 2018-12-08T18:33:07Z 7827308 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308 7827308 Watch Unavailable 2018-12-09T04:16:20Z 2018-12-08T18:33:07Z Roderick B http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6551167 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/11323891/d8592d1b9001268c3e2992e7500aee3e_medium.jpg roderick_brentnall Why is this an option? I thought the whole idea of this site was for Genealogy not restrictions and who or how much information one can add. <a href="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1766176/Capture.JPG?1544293973" rel="nofollow"><img alt="" src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1766176/Capture_inline.JPG?1544293973" /></a> idea 7 4 1 comment http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895187 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308 19895187 Brett responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-08T20:05:57Z 2018-12-08T20:05:57Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley Roderick <br /><br /> Interesting, I have never seen that before. <br /><br /> But, it would appear to imply from the 'Error Message' underneath, that you will be exceeding your allowed total of 4000 induvuduals/persons that you are "Watching"! <br /><br /> Is that the case? <br /> Are you now/already "Watching" 4000 individuals/persons? <br /><br /> I am going to go out on a limb here; but, I believe that the limb is sound. <br /><br /> If you are now/already "Watching" 4000 individuals/persons; then, the "System" is working exactly how it is "Designed". <br /><br /> This is nothing to do with the "... site was for Genealogy not restrictions and who or how much information one can add. ...". <br /><br /> This matter DOES NOT restrict you in any way as to how much "Information" that you can add to individuals/persons in "Family Tree". <br /><br /> This matter is about the "Storage" space within "FamilySearch"! <br /><br /> Just imagine if all Users/Patrons in "Family Tree", could; and, did, "Watch" an UNLIMITED number of individuals/persons, image the "Storage" space that would be required for "FamilySearch". <br /><br /> I do not know; but, maybe with the advancement in technology, "Storage" is not so big a deal as it was when the 4000 limit was applied; perhaps, the limit of 4000 can be increased some what!? <br /><br /> Certainly, a good 'Question' to pose to "FamilySearch"! <br /><br /> But ... <br /><br /> In relation to your post, the above image does not represent any restriction on you in any way as to how much "Information" that you can add to individuals/persons in "Family Tree". <br /><br /> I hope this helps. <br /><br /> Just my thoughts. <br /><br /> Brett 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895225 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308 19895225 Tom Huber responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-08T20:44:42Z 2018-12-08T20:44:42Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber The last I knew, there is a solid maximum of 4,000 persons that a user can watch. I think that maximum (from the display that was posted) is what Roderick has run into. <br /><br /> If I remember correctly, the watch previously "functioned", but either dumped names or didn't finish adding the name to the list. <br /><br /> But my memory is weak on this. It could have been a different area in FamilySearch that was similarly impacted. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895258 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895187 19895258 Roderick B responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-08T21:14:06Z 2018-12-08T21:14:06Z Roderick B http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6551167 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/11323891/d8592d1b9001268c3e2992e7500aee3e_medium.jpg roderick_brentnall Well if that's the case why add any more names to the tree? If I'm the one who is creating the names and their info I see no reason why family search keeps me from watching the person if there are future changes. Rather useless I think. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895456 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895187 19895456 Tom Huber responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-09T02:21:55Z 2018-12-09T02:21:55Z Tom Huber http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/4678327 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/848aa9b2cb156db6981862795f1c0805?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG thomas_nevin_huber The limit is fixed at 4,000 names that you can watch. I have well over 10,000 names that I am linked to, but I watch only a few of those because the rest are not fully "fleshed" out and as such, anything can happen. <br /><br /> Before I place a watch on any person in the tree, I make sure that I have found as many sources as possible, attached them as needed, found as many items like marriage and death notices, and if there are stories associated with the person, documented those. Only after I have all that I can do to make the record as complete as possible, am I ready to put a "watch" on the person and, if the wrong source is attached, bad changes made, or a bad merge or merges, am I in a position to contact the person who made the changes and let them know: <br /><br /> -- That I appreciate their interest in making the person's record as accurate as possible. <br /> -- The person or family involved and my relationship. <br /> -- My thoughts and sources with respect to the changes they made. <br /> -- The corrections I made to their incorrect changes and why I did it. <br /> -- Request that before they make changes that they study the record, including the sources that are attached, any notes and stories that may be included in memories. <br /> -- Remind them (if they have not provided a source or a reason) that sources are crucial to establishing conclusions and facts, and that a person's reasoning is needed to let others know what research and thinking was done to reach those conclusions. <br /> -- What I did to correct what I perceived to be incorrect material. <br /> -- And finally, I again thank them for their interest in making the record as complete as possible. <br /><br /> The need to watch every person is basic overkill, in my opinion, especially if they have not had their details, collaborative information, and sources all entered. Because of the amount of time that it takes to flesh out any one person, I doubt that I will ever hit 4,000 persons to whom I have a relationship, that will need watching. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895471 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895187 19895471 Brett responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-09T02:48:19Z 2018-12-09T02:48:19Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley Roderick <br /><br /> Now, now ... <br /><br /> I think that there needs to be some 'give and take' here. <br /><br /> "FamiySearch" is NOT going out of its way, keeping you from "Watching" any NEW individuals/persons that you have recently added. <br /><br /> Unfortunately, there has to be a finite limit to the total number of individuals/persons we are all "Watching" at any given time. <br /><br /> I am a staunch advocate of utilising the "Watch" Lists for keeping tabs on individuals/persons associated to me in the "Branches" of the World 'Tree'. <br /><br /> I check my list of those whom I am "Watching" at least twice each day. I am proactive; and, I do not wait for the 'Weekly' e-mail of "Changes" to those whom I am "Watching" from "FamilySearch". <br /><br /> I like to keep on top of any "Changes" that are detrimental. <br /><br /> But ... <br /><br /> As I previously mentioned, I believe the requirement to place a finite limit on the number of those whom EACH User/Patron is "Watching" is purely a matter of "Storage" space, nothing more. <br /><br /> I may be wrong. <br /><br /> If so, I stand corrected. <br /><br /> Now ... <br /><br /> As this is your post, may I suggest, that, it is; and, should be, your prerogative to pose the question to "FamilySearch"; as to, whether with the advancements in technology, there is the possibility that the finite limit of 4000 can be raised!? <br /><br /> By the way, please do not suggest/raise, even in passing, the thought, to not continue adding Deceased individuals/person into "Famiy Tree", this 'World' Tree. <br /><br /> Just my thoughts. <br /><br /> Brett <br /><br /> ps: Sorry for my delayed response, I had to wait for after Church. 0 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895509 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308 19895509 joe martel responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-09T03:49:59Z 2018-12-09T03:49:59Z joe martel http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/1515804 https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/public/uploaded_images/9414696/IMG_5243_medium.jpg joe_martel Short answer is: it comes to costs of computation and interval of notice and all users are constrained by the same limit.<br /><br />Long answer: Proper programming sets maximums and minimums. The database and code has to be aware of this to function correctly. The limits are typically set based on costs, and code complexity and common user behavior. THere is a very small percentage of users that have, say over a couple hundred watchers. The complexity of watch is this:<br /><br />Let's say there are 1 million writes per hour . These are mostly added and edited data.<br />Let's there about 4 million FamilyTree contributors, each of which could watch up to 4k FT Persons.<br />Let's say there are about 1.1 billion FT Persons.<br /><br />There an algorithm that has to analyze all those writes, across all the persons and correlate those that change to Persons being watched, and then filter that out to show any one user their watched persons changes. Then that has to be composed into an email and sent out to the users.<br /><br />So today there is a limit of watched persons, the same limit for all users, and how often the computer can calculate and then update each user. So today the main constraints are the # watched and the periodicity of that update&nbsp; which is now weekly.<br /><br />Some requests have been to let users know that day, or immediately of a change.&nbsp;<br />Some requests have been to up the watched limit.<br />The storage component is there but negligible to the computational CPU costs.<br /><br />The limit will likely be upped as costs come down, but may have a tradeoff in priorities to that of being notified more frequently.<br /><br />Workaround? You may need to trim down your list by unwatching people that don't have much interaction with other users. Such is life in the finite world. 1 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895527 http://m.getsatisfaction.com/topics/7827308/replies/19895509 19895527 Brett responded to "Watch Unavailable" 2018-12-09T04:16:20Z 2018-12-09T04:16:20Z Brett http://m.getsatisfaction.com/people/6504538 https://www.gravatar.com/avatar/88e9af70bf486b0d3b552a8674e1380d?d=identicon&s=55&r=PG brett_gazeley Joe <br /><br /> 'Thank You' for joining in on this post, your presence is always much appreciated. <br /><br /> I stand corrected. <br /><br /> To be honest, I thought that the main reason may have something to do with CPU usage; but, I would not have had any idea on how to explain it. <br /><br /> Again, 'Thank You'. <br /><br /> Brett <br /><br /> ps: And, as (claimed) the last words of our famous (or infamous, depending on your persuasion) 'Bushranger" from 'Down Under', "Ned KELLY", who uttered the now-famous phrase, before he was hanged in Melbourne Gaol in 1880 ... "Such is Life"! 0