Merge Screen - Provide option to preserve information as "alternate" - events, names, etc.
During merge, you only have the option to replace vital information. I'd like to see that any variant of information is given an "add alternative information" type option.
To see how this works well, see Legacy Family Tree's Merge process. It highlights differences in information and provides options to select one or the other (replace) or by clicking on the box next to the row, it lets you add to alternate. It can create alternative marriage dates, etc.
There have been many threads about alternate names, which still hasn't been added. I'm asking for even more than names but across all event fields.
When researching, there are often conflicting or minor variants across records. Forcing only a single option isn't conducive to good research and documenting variants across sources.
(ps: does FS ever review these suggestions, or is it just a soapbox? I haven't seen any official comments from FS or any sign that these are being evaluated. there are dozens of threads about alternate names.)
Comments
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "There have been many threads about alternate names, which still hasn't been added..."
Alternate Names have been available on a profile for some time, so exactly what do you want there?
Secondly, adding an alternate date for marriage, birth, etc, is a massive change. You ask in the context of merging but that's a minor detail if the basic definitions of a profile don't accommodate alternate information - and, in FS, they don't. I would suggest that the whole philosophy of FamilySearch FamilyTree is that it lists conclusions and any change away from that would be a massive amount of work.
You say that "there are often conflicting or minor variants across records. Forcing only a single option isn't conducive to good research and documenting variants across sources." Sort of 'yes' - but there is absolutely nothing to stop anyone recording alternatives in the Notes - although one might justifiably say that the Notes on the Collaborate tab are too far away and the note next to the value is actually supposed to be "Reason This Information is Correct" - though that might work, I guess.
Using that idea, if faced with alternative birthplaces of (say) "Crewe, Cheshire, England" and "Haslington, Cheshire, England", one could put just "Cheshire, England" in the birthplace and record the two possibilities in the Notes. So I don't think, personally, that there is a convincing case to be made for Alternate values, given the existence of the other, note-based, methods.
My other objection to alternatives is that I've seen what some people do on their own Ancestry trees - any time a new value appears, they just slap it on as an Alternate value without any attempt at reconciliation. I shudder to think of the gradual accumulation of often pointless alternative values that would appear if FS allowed Alternate values for birthplace etc. I'd far rather see people pushed into thinking which value would be correct and explaining other possibilities in notes.
2 -
We users have been assured time and time again that all suggestions are reviewed and if relevant sent on to the proper design team for consideration. But you are right, the developers rarely come back here and comment on ideas. The ideas either show up in the website some day or they don't. Since the idea for being able to turn a Vitals name into an Alternate Name during a merge has been brought up, as you have seen, multiple times over the past many years. I suspect the answer on that feature is a resounding "No."
As Adrian stated, I read quite a while ago some FamilySearch personnel discuss that Family Tree is meant to contain the conclusion of our best research, not the half dozen theories we might have while researching a fact. That would mean that while in Legacy in your own research it is fine to have several different birth places while you figure out which one is correct or while you figure out that it is impossible to know where someone was actually born. When you come to a solidly supported conclusion, that is the time to transfer the information to Family Tree.
Another aspect of this discussion is to realize that merging is one of the most destructive actions in Family Tree and leads to the most problems. It's one thing to use the "improved" merge features of Legacy to mess up your private tree by combining information from many different people as alternate possible facts. It's a completely different matter to do the same thing to the ancestors of a few thousand other users in FamilySearch's public wiki tree.
What I think is needed, is for people to learn that before even starting a merge, it can be very important to throughly evaluate the two candidates for merging. This is easy to do by opening each in a separate window:
Here you can see and evaluate the entire profile including all the reason statements, notes, entries in the change logs, and sources. It is also quite easy and efficient to copy information from the person you are planning to delete into the profile you are planning to keep.
I freely admit that this is very difficult to do on a tablet and probably impossible in the mobile app. But I'll also freely admit that I think merging is so risky that it should be banned from the app and blocked on a tablet so that if people really want to merge they have to be on a screen large enough to really be able to compare the two people completely.
3 -
@Gordon Collett I almost always agree with your insights. But I was very disappointed to read this from you:
I freely admit that this is very difficult to do on a tablet and probably impossible in the mobile app. But I'll also freely admit that I think merging is so risky that it should be banned from the app and blocked on a tablet so that if people really want to merge they have to be on a screen large enough to really be able to compare the two people completely.
While I understand the motivation behind that statement, it does not allow for the wide variety of users of FamilySearch around the world. There are many areas of the world where computers are exceedingly rare; a mobile device is the only access to the Internet and thus to FamilySearch that is available to millions of people. Users of FamilySearch in those areas will need to use the website on their mobile devices or the mobile apps. Those who have other options in their first-world abundance should be careful about proposing restrictions on less-fortunate users who still need to do all the genealogical activities done by those with larger screens.
It may be that you don't understand all the things that can be done on the mobile app. Would you absolutely deny the ability to do a merge on the mobile app to everyone, even those who have no other good option for using FamilySearch? Certainly it can be more tedious to compare records on a mobile device, but the mobile apps have the ability to enable multiple screens, making it easy to switch back and forth between them to compare people or do other multi-screen tasks. Admittedly that's not quite as convenient as seeing things side-by-side on a large screen, but it can be done.
I'm pretty sure that I have done more merges on the mobile app than 99% of FamilySearch users have done on any platform. I'm just as careful when I do merges on the mobile app as I am when I do them on the website (and yes, I use both the website and the mobile app extensively). I certainly agree that merges should be done carefully and I'm happy to explore options for improving the safety of merges. But eliminating the ability to do merges for millions of people is not the way.
2 -
I was disappointed when FS revamped the merge process without making it possible to properly compare profiles. The contributors and reason statements aren't shown, there's no sign of the Collaborate tab, the sources don't show the indexed information, and the family members are listed practically randomly, with no provision for matching them up. In fact, the revamp was years ago, but I still haven't figured out the purpose of the first merge screen: you cannot come to any useful conclusions based on it, and you can't do anything on it. When cleaning up index-based legacy data, that first merge screen is just an extra dose of mindless tedium.
If that first merge screen were redone to be essentially a side-by-side view of everything that has been entered on both profiles -- with the ability to switch to every tab, including the map/timeline -- then it would make sense for the second step to basically switch the destination side to an "edit mode", where you could move conclusions over from the other profile, or change parts of conclusions with reference to data from it. Without that full and proper comparison tool, however, I don't think it makes any sense to add such an edit mode -- you'd never know whether you were adding to or corrupting the data. If one profile suggests improvements to the other profile, make those changes before the merge, when you have the two profiles open in separate tabs or windows that you can switch between. (No, such a setup is not as convenient or easy as a proper tool would be, unfortunately.)
2 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi said...
"...If that first merge screen were redone to be essentially a side-by-side view of everything that has been entered on both profiles ..."
Let me say that even using a full-fat browser, I would never contemplate doing a merge without looking at each profile in a separate browser tab - if I'm lucky, the two tabs fit side-by-side. Only once I have satisfied myself that the two are (or aren't) the same human being, will I then embark on the merge process with its own screens. Which kind of then begs the question of the design of that first merge screen, as Julia indicates. I thought it was just me...
0 -
@Alan E. Brown in an online forum with a near total lack of all the subtle nuances of face to face communication, it is rarely profitable to be disappointed about anything or make more than surface evaluations of an idea. We all have strongly held opinions that we all probably realize are unrealistic. Admitting that I think the mobile app is totally unsuited to merging ranks right up there with me freely admitting that I don't think anyone in this world should be going to bed hungry.
But back to the point, I do like @Julia Szent-Györgyi idea that the first step in a merge basically be the automatic full panoramic presentation of both profiles side by side, much like my screen shot. Full highlighting of conflicting information would be great.
I also think we need to do more to get people to realize that genealogy on FamilySearch is a community rather than an individual enterprise and continue the emphasis on FamilySearch Centers being a place for people to sit down with family and friends to work collectively to improve Family Tree by completing tasks on FamilySearch Center large screen computers that are difficult to do on mobile devices.
To illustrate why merging needs more information presented and more roadblocks for completing comes from a man I was talking to the other day. He recently was working on some hints for his family and found that within the last year another user had gone ahead and merged several dozen Evan Evans who were clearly different men. He was shaking his head over the resultant dozens marriages, the plethora of children, and the work he now has in front of him to undo all of these merges.
3 -
@Adrian Bruce1 if it had to be an option to automatically add alternate information into notes/collaborate, at least that would be progress. Perhaps a better log of what happened in the merge would satisfy both of us?
I subscribe to the thought that genealogy is a collection of evidence, of which we know there are conflicts. One can reason away the conflicts, but often there is no way to know the "truth" - I don't want someone thinking their conclusion is the only one that must be correct. I prefer to see the list of evidence, notice any conflicts, and determine their own.
By its nature, saying the main display field should "contain the conclusion of our best research" - that makes the FS Family Tree individualized and not a community. Again, it's my approach only - but once someone starts adding conjecture to the base facts, you are the one now individualizing genealogy. I see it opposite - the notes and collaborate field are where people should store their narrative or conclusions, leaving the main screen to be just the facts & evidence.
@Gordon Collett yes, this full display of both profiles is exactly what Legacy Family Tree does. You can edit each individual during the merge process as well. You can copy events & notes back and forth and then select which record's field you'd like to complete. I really like their approach and think FS could learn from it.
0 -
@genealchemist said " ... I see it opposite - the notes and collaborate field are where people should store their narrative or conclusions, leaving the main screen to be just the facts & evidence. ... "
Hmm - I'm not sure quite what these facts are if you've shifted the narrative and conclusions out. The identification of a source record to a specific profile is, after all, a conclusion, so where do these facts come from?
While I sympathise with the idea of the approach, it's my personal belief that the average FamilySearch user wouldn't be able to cope. For them, they want to record their ancestors' details and many can't cope with someone altering things - so seeing someone else setting up alternative details will be equally difficult for them.
0