Why is an occupation not recognised as a duplicate if in different case forms?
I notice that if an occupation is truly identical in form from an existing entry it cannot be carried across, but if (as in the example below) the only difference is in the case presentation, it can be.
Since (and I have asked for this feature in a previous post) such details are not carried across with the year of the event (we have to add that manually from the profile page) can't the programming recognise these occupations are identical and treat them consistently, whatever the case form?
It would not be possible to carry across the occupation "IRON MOULDER" if it had appeared in that form when attaching a previous (1881) census source, but because it appears as "Iron Moulder" in the 1891 source, it can be moved across. In these days of AI, and other advanced programming, surely these "different" occupations be recognised as being exactly the same?
Comments
-
@Paul W Thanks Paul for writing this up. I have seen it many times, and just ignored it as a duplicate, but you are correct, the program should see it as the same. I have added the bug report.
1
