Why does an item return as a Record Hint straight after it being detached?
I have noticed this problem on many occasions, but thought I'd raise it while I still have a specific example at hand.
Another user recently attached an incorrect census source to the individual shown below. I detached it, with reason statement, yet it immediately reappeared as a record hint. Had I left the page quickly, this would give the same, or another, user the opportunity to add it back again.
As it is, I have to mark it as "Not a Match". No big deal with just one item, but I have occasionally detached multiple sources (attached in error) and found it a real pain having to go back over each one to declare it not to be a match.
Does anyone (perhaps more savvy than me at this) feel a piece of added coding could prevent this behaviour?
As soon as I detached the source it was back as a Research Help / Record Hint item:
Best Answers
-
I would suspect that it gives persons most interested, following or viewing the profile the opportunity to verify that it is not a match (as you mentioned) - yep it could also give the opportunity for re-attachment. Maybe FamilySearch is starting to poll source attachments (see how many people attach or mark not a match??
By the way, I still see the England and Wales Census, 1851 you apparently just marked as not a match - so ...
1 -
Why does an item return as a Record Hint straight after it being detached?
I see this most often when some residue of the record remains: close relative profiles attached to the profile are also attached to the record, or events remain on the profile that need to be removed: vital event dates and places, residence dates and places, etc.
So, after detaching the unrelated historical record, clean up the profile.
1
Answers
-
Yes, I left it there on purpose, so others could see the issue (in conjunction with the change log). I'm about to mark as "Not a match" right now!
Done - after adding reason statement, of course!
0 -
I would wonder if the programmers have definite reasons for keeping the attach/detach and attach/dismiss processes separate in this way or whether the it just makes the programming simpler. It's also very possible that it just never occurred to anyone to combine detach/dismiss and no user has ever asked for it before.
Currently, and ever since hints were applied to records, having a source that was originally a hint detached always brings back that hint.
Maybe the problem is that there is no marking or flag of any type on the sources that say where they came from, that is whether they were ever a hint or not. That would make it impossible for the program to move a source to the Dismissed Research Help category. If a FamilySearch source that was never a hint on the person is detached, it should not be moved to that category. The required programming to accomplish this flow:
- User clicks "detach."
- Source is detached.
- Source is put back into the Hints bucket.
- Hints routine runs against that detached source.
- If the detached source brings up a Family Tree ID that is the same as the ID from which it was just detached, the user is presented with option to move it to Dismissed Research Helps or not or alternatively the source is automatically moved to that category.
- If the detached source brings up a different Family Tree ID or no ID at all then the previous step is skipped.
might be pretty complicated, particularly if dealing with a source that was a hint applied to someone who then got merged.
2 -
Good point. The return of the hint would be a good reminder to check both it and the detail page and ask, "Why does the hint engine think this hint should be here?" and have as a goal to get the hint to vanish without marking it as incorrect. That won't always be possible, of course.
Depending on exactly what I am doing, I sometimes don't start attaching hints until I am completely done adding information I already have. It's always interesting to see hints appear and disappear as I add more information to a person.
0 -
Yes, you probably have something there. I found I had accidentally left an item relating to the source I detached under Other Information (the Residence detail relating to the 1851 census source removed). I did the same for his son and, again, the record hint reappeared. However, this did not appear to happen in the case of the mother / wife, where the record hint did not return - possibly connected with a different surname (maiden name)?
I will have to concentrate harder next time I perform a similar exercise. I think I need to remove the Other Information detail before I detach the source, or the behaviour will probably be the same (i.e., hint immediately reappearing).
So, thank you for your thoughts. I usually make sure everything (no longer relevant) is removed when I detach sources, but I was obviously a bit sloppy here! I have even advised other users to ensure they remove the Other Information details, too, so should have done this immediately.
From a more general point, your comments led to me identifying a third Andrew Scott who lived in the area at this period - all three of whom married a MARY. I am currently adding "Not to be confused with...." notes to their profiles, but I'm sure incorrect merges and adding incorrect relationships are likely to persist, in view of the (ostensibly) very similar identity of the three individuals.
2