In light of My Connections, should we rethink how we categorize? [closed]

+30 votes
472 views

Currently, our category philosophy is to "Always select the narrowest applicable category." Although this makes it easy to group a bunch of profiles with something in common, such as a military unit or actors from a particular country, it's not something that will give a bunch of results when the new My Connections feature is used. For that to give a wide result, you'd need a larger category, such as [[Category:United States, World War II]] or [[Category:Actors]].

Should we rethink the categorization philosophy to allow for this and allow profiles to include both a narrow and a wider category?

Also, should the help be updated to include a bullet point under Benefits of Categorization, such as "help members find their connections to the global tree?"

closed with the note: answered
in The Tree House by Natalie Trott G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)
closed by Natalie Trott
I agree with the philosophical change. I wonder if it would be possible to make a technical change so that when a profile is categorized in the narrowest category it might automatically be categorized in the upper level categories? This would be a technical change which would essentially implement the philosophical change. Would it require a change in how we name categories so that the hierarchy is evident? It would be easiest, of course, to just simply permit people to place profiles in each of the individual level categories, although the number of categories could get to be lengthy, but if it could be an automatic process accomplished with a technical change and one category title categorizing a profile at all levels of the hierarchy that would be ideal.
Excellent suggestion, Nelda. It probably wouldn't need a change in naming of categories, provided the category hierarchy was organised correctly with each lower-level category a subcategory of the right higher-level ones.

The alternative, to put profiles in not only the narrowest category but all the ones above, could result in very long unwieldy lists of categories at the top of the biography text and in the row at the bottom of the profile.

Natalie is quite right about adding finding connections as a benefit on the help page.
Yes, adding EVERY level of category would be a mess, but adding a higher, larger level would give more results. Some categories need to be "Top Level" with no profiles, because they are organizational, but some other high level categories that aren't designated "Top Level" could be useful for finding connections.
The notations that indicate the number of records, pages, and subcategories in a subcategory make high-level categories more useful than they used to be.

6 Answers

+9 votes
Hmmm, don't we already have something like that at least in some areas of the site? There are many German Notables (in their case I know it for sure) who belong to the category "Notables" AND to the category "German Notables".

If that is an analogy to what you think of (my currently quite tired mind isn't sure about it), then why shouldn't it also work for "My Connections" to put people in two same categories, one broader than the other?
by Jelena Eckstädt G2G Astronaut (1.4m points)
For Notables it is a result of the Notables sticker or Notables project template that results in profiles being categorized in a Wide category (Notables) and a narrower category (In your example German Notables).

Using this example of how Notables Sticker/Template works could a work around be adjusting other stickers and project templates to add the wider categories?
+14 votes
Interesting question, Natalie, and thanks for raising it.

My initial reaction is that it's premature to consider any categorization changes. Thanks to you and some other key leaders, categorization has evolved over many years to a very good point. We wouldn't want to mess with it lightly.

We also need to consider that My Connections can only (only!) search 200 people at a time.
by Chris Whitten G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
Right, I forgot about that part, Chris.

But what about the help? Should a statement be added to Benefits of Categorization?

I like watching this discussion. 
I respect Chris's comment that the system has evolved over many years.
Is there a page which gives a summary of past discussions and resolutions?
As a novice, I can see some discussions on G2G, but it takes time to get a broader view. 

Looking back at Natalie's question. I like short and simple flow-paths, so "always select the narrowest category..." makes sense to me.

In my mind, this rule doesn't stop me adding a profile to a broader category. The current guideline doesn't say "always and only select the narrowest category...."
  
 

+7 votes
no,  I don't think so.  The ''My connections'' feature has limited usefulness in my view, for instance, if I run it on the Lachine Massacre category, it gives me this:

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:MyConnections&u=6690041&c=Lachine_Massacre

(hopefully this actually displays correctly).  It is not very detailed.  If I run it on Featured Connections, it gives me this:

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:MyConnections&u=6690041&c=Featured_Connections

Mayflower Passengers gives me this:

https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:MyConnections&u=6690041&c=Mayflower_Passengers

While all this is interesting, I don't see that it brings much to research.  So I would not include it as a factor in categorization requirements.
by Danielle Liard G2G6 Pilot (647k points)
+11 votes
Thanks for raising this question.

It seems like there would be many genealogically relevant ways to use searches that returned results from within subcategories.  Connection Finding is only one example.  I would really like to be able to use the Limit to Watchlist toggle on state categories, to see profiles categorized into the various counties and municipalities in the state.

I would think it would be much better, in the long run, to develop search-within-subcategories functionality for various research purposes, than to add top-level categories to individual profiles to facilitate a particular niche usage.
by E. Compton G2G6 Pilot (193k points)
That's a very good point. It would be very useful to have it in WikiTree proper - I do that type of searches in WikiTree+
+12 votes
I don't believe we should change the way we categorise. People use the low level categories for different reasons and whilst the My Connections functionality is interesting it's not something that I would necessarily use often. Many people find categories difficult to fathom as it is.  

As to the Help page, I think it is a good comment to add regardless of My Connections.
by Jutta Beer G2G6 Mach 6 (67.1k points)
I tend to support this comment. I don't like the idea of mechanically adding a higher level category.

I support identifying profiles to the lowest level category possible - it is where you are most likely to find family connections. I have always disagreed that profiles should only be identified in the lowest category. Sometimes a broader category is required to find family and friends. For an example from Irish geography, I identify family members in both townland and county categories.
+8 votes
No, I think the sub-catagories serve a purpose in organizing categories and the MyConnections function is NOT a good enough reason to upend everything for a complete restructure, which would take months if not years to address all the categories and we already have quite a few that are put on hold for changes already.

It should be possible to code MyConnections to also search through sub-categories. It's just not implemented yet. It likely would only take a few lines of code and a couple weeks to do, depending on how easy it is to detect sub-categories in the API.

EDIT: As Chris pointed out, MyConnections also does not do multiple pages at the same time right now. It could if you sacrifice calculation time and add an updating loading bar indicating how many profiles are left to check.

However, adding a sub-category routine could mean a higher server load depending on the size of the category -- especially if say, someone ran it on the top-most census category and it attempted to propagate through the entire tree.
by Heather Kushion G2G6 Mach 1 (13.1k points)
edited by Heather Kushion
I wasn't thinking of doing away with subcategories, Heather, but changing the help to reflect, perhaps, also adding upper levels to a profile. I already got the answer, but thanks. I have closed the question.

Related questions

+8 votes
3 answers
290 views asked Mar 7, 2023 in WikiTree Help by Chris Hilling G2G Crew (370 points)
+24 votes
2 answers
656 views asked Aug 15, 2022 in WikiTree Tech by Stu Ward G2G6 Pilot (135k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
284 views asked Mar 24, 2022 in Genealogy Help by Peter Hatherall G2G Crew (550 points)
+7 votes
1 answer
241 views asked Aug 9, 2017 in The Tree House by Jerry Dolman G2G6 Pilot (179k points)
+7 votes
1 answer
105 views asked Dec 20, 2023 in WikiTree Help by John Hodgson G2G6 (7.0k points)
+19 votes
7 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+4 votes
1 answer
+24 votes
2 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...