Re: [Gramps-users] Thoughts about a "Person of Interest" feature?

[Craig T. <ctr...@co...>]

At 11:54 AM +0200 6/4/13, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>Hi Jesse,
>>  Is there any reason why associations shouldn't display in
>>  relationships view?  It seems kind of useful.
>I can imagine that the relationship view was designed with families in
>mind, and as such is full enough already.
>>  Perhaps that's the feature I should request.
>I think so, yes. Of course, the actual building of that feature will
>depend on volunteers, so there is no guarantee that it will be
>implemented soon, but I like the idea.
>
>There are other places where I think that associations can or should be
>supported too, like in reports, but I'm no expert on that.

I don't know that any software program can really model all the 
relationships that people have in real life.  Life-long friendships, 
associations through business or common interests, neighbours, etc. 
Sometimes we're closely connected with non-blood relatives--the 
obvious ones being through marriage (parents/brothers/sisters-in-law, 
nieces/nephews, etc).  In these days of the internet, one can feel a 
connection to persons you've never met face-to-face*!

A handful of times, I've found something that lists the pallbearers 
at a funeral.  Some of the connections are obvious and other times 
you learn something new about that person or family.

Craig

*Do we want to record every 'Facebook friend' in our genealogy research?!?