I really really really hate the "Reason For Merge."

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Do you want us to merge duplicates, or what? Get rid of it.

When you start adding REQUIRED, I start going for the door.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: OK - that phrase "Explain why..." seems reasonable to me, thanks.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Trouble is, how do you know that it's a duplicate. Obviously you think it is, else you wouldn't be merging it, but if I come along and wonder, are those 2 the same after all? What am I missing? Then some explanation about why you know them to be the same, would be welcome.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The real question is how do I know that the merged record was a duplicate. The word duplicate does not answer the question as to why the user thinks the record they merged was a duplicate. In responding to you above, and when I completed the merge, I wrote the following

Despite such little information in the to-be-merged record, it is sufficient to determine, with the wife and child's name, that the two records are for the same person.

In the case of the duplicate record that I was merging, there was little to suspect that the to-be-merged record was a duplicate, except for the details about the daughter.

There was a second possible duplicate that was similar -- but in this case, the dates for the wife were all wrong. Since this took place in Lancaster County among the Swiss Mennonites, the dates were especially important because the families reused the given names over and over and married into families that did the same thing. It is not at all unusual to find and father, mother, and daughter all with the same names, but when the dates are added in, it is a very strong indicator that they are not the same family. Because of my knowledge working with three centuries of my family in that county, I rejected the possible duplicate as Not a Match with an explanation as to why this was the case.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: The most common reason that I, personally, list starts with : "nFS 2012 unsourced migration" followed by some specifics.

Of course, that requires scrolling the change record to the beginning (usually 2012) of the changes.

One other thing I've learned by helping others with merges is that most users do NOT seem to know is then a merge HAS already been done for the PID, that the identification of the subject is changed to the result of that MERGE throughout the record of changes for the current PID. And to truly analyze the changes you may need to examine those 'deleted' mergers- or even restore them (temporarily) to find what really happened. Correct merging can be a difficult process, correcting improper merges even MORE difficult.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: That’s why reason statements with detailed information that specifies exactly what is the same should be the standard. Then there is no question about what is the same. There is too much latitude in “same names, same places, etc.”. Exactly what does that mean? What name? What place? Are Apollonia Hauck and Anna Apollonia Hauck the same name? Are Horbach and Niederhorbach the same place?

Reason statements should not require the reader to try to figure what the “merger” means. They should be spelled out in great detail so there is no question about what the “merger” says is the same.

In addition, merge statements should not be written only for others but also for yourself, so you don’t have to go back and figure everything out all over again. Have you by any chance ever said to yourself, “What was I thinking??” I know I have.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: All the more reason why details should be spelled out and just writing “duplicate” is not enough.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "What was I thinking?" Very well made point, Carolyn.

I remember at least once sitting there with rising panic as I looked at a ghastly error on my part - only to read further in my justification and realize that I had actually covered the possibility that I was beginning to worry about.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: Exactly! You just proved my case in point!

LegacyUser

m said: spell out what it means to be "same names" or
same location" so that she won't write that "James Harris" & "James Harrison" are the "same name" or that "Massachusetts" & "England" are the "same location." Hmmm...

LegacyUser

m said: I think she knows they are different, she is just writing they are the same, because someone unmerged with reason statement "2 different people merged together."

LegacyUser

m said: example of gedcom name-only skeletal profile: GSCT-ZG5

i think i just merged 5 of these on different people.

merging is almost always skeletal profiles into giant profiles.

(FS should eliminate gedcom uploads.)

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: I have spent hours and hours working from morning till late at night doing genealogy for my ancestry, and for others and their ancestry, here at familysearch.org and in the FamilySearch "Family Tree." When my sister would leave to visit her daughter in St George, Utah, I would stay up the whole night, and then the next day working in the "Family Tree." I even got an in-house-message from FamilySearch stating that I was the highest contributor in my area and had others send me messages of thanks for all the work I was doing in the "Family Tree."

I know that FamilySearch or familysearch.org is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but I always felt that I, (and many others), were volunteer's for a great cause for Family History work. I felt, and still feel, that it is a VOLUNTEERING WEB SITE where people of many faiths and races, volunteer their ancestors information and then volunteer countless hours of their time and talents in seeing the information is correct by adding sources, and other things to their ancestors information in the "Family Tree."

If it were not for patrons VOLUNTEERING their ancestors information into the FamilySearch "Family Tree," there would be no FamilySearch "Family Tree."

It pains me that you do not see my volunteering, and others volunteering as of significance.

Yes Thomas Huber, this is a volunteering web site.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Your opinion, Don.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: FamilySearch what is your opinion about this web site? Do you, FamilySearch, see this web site as a volunteering web site?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: FamilySearch is a fully-supported site under the direction of the Family History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The FamilySearch International operation is largely supported through tithing donations from the membership of the Church, although there are plenty of people, both in and out of the Church that dedicate their resources to Family History. That includes those who index the records.

The whole reason for FamilySearch (its existence) is to assist members of the Church in fulfilling their obligation toward their kindred dead.

There are strong ecclesiastical obligations that are involved for the members and in that regard, the site is definitely not a volunteer site.

As in all things, members have their agency (choice) to fulfill their obligations or ignore them. Keep in mind that because life is full of obligations, there are some that come before this area, such as family and sometimes, other Church callings.

LegacyUser

ATP said: Yes, as you say, Tom Huber, and put another way, FS would not exist without that doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for church membership toward its kindred dead.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: As far as your ecclesiastical obligations comment, I am thinking you mean the site connected to this site. How could this site not be a volunteer site, when everyone with accounts, (members and nonmembers), are volunteering their family names and time to this site?

I have not even gone into my FamilySearch account since I last communicated with you about 3, or 4 days ago. I refuse to go into FamilySearch at present, just as I refuse to go past "Required" because I am mad at FamilySearch for even making this "Required" thing. There are many things around this you know, I could do as Jeff showed and just put (xxx), and also just not do any merging and add duplicates to the “Family Tree,” of just dump GEDCOMs as some do.

This will take me a long time in fasting and prayer, and even then because of my stubbornest I might remain mad at FamilySearch and stay away from this site.

Thanks for your (choice) comment.

LegacyUser

J. Matthew Saunders said: This detail about mergers is very helpful and I have learned something about a very challenging point. I now understand how to better explain what I am doing. Thank you.

LegacyUser

J. Matthew Saunders said: Thanks

LegacyUser

J. Matthew Saunders said:

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: FamilySearch.org is an independent site that is part of FamilySearch, International (and has its own upper management). While it shares a common signin with other Church sites, FamilySearch acts independently under the direction of the Family History Department, but exists (just as the forerunner, the Genealogical Society of Utah existed) to accommodate research by members for their ancestral lines and obligations toward those ancestral lines.

Members have an obligation that is laid out in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 128, verse 24 (Last Sentence in that verse -- emphasis mine

Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.

If it wasn't for that statement from Joseph Smith, FamilySearch would not have to add memories, stories, life sketches, and numerous other elements to accomplish the current goal to reduce duplicated vicarious temple ordinances, but because we are instructed to make the records of our dead "worthy of all acceptation," the rest exists.

The open-edit nature may not be the best approach, but it allows members and non-members to collaborate on their common ancestral lines. The recent changes are, from what I can tell, an attempt to get people to stop and think about the two records they are merging, rather than just merging because the system told them that one was a duplicate of the other.

I would not be surprised to see reason statements for attaching sources to become mandatory in the future, as well, but that is a decision that FamilySearch will make, not me.

LegacyUser

Paul said: One of the most common reason statements I input is "Same event". Many of the IDs I come across (obviously they are not usually recently created ones) were created purely to fit an event - christening or marriage. That's why we have ten separate IDs for a John Brown - one relating to each of his ten children's christening events.

So "Same event" or "Same event / child / parents" if quite sufficient if there is no other detail on the ID being merged, except an attached source for the event. Obviously, if there are two IDs that have been worked on by different users, having different sources, inputs, notes attached, etc., a more extensive reason statement is required.

My point is, just treat each merge according to its nature. There is no need to give a lengthy statement in many cases. When I HAVE done so, it certainly has not stopped other users undoing the merge, if they are so sure they are in the right. The problem largely lies with the stubborn users who are just not willing to collaborate and will never give up on their "my tree" mentality. For them, no amount of logical reasoning will ever be convincing enough.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: Sigh... your last point about stubborn users unfortunately has merit.

LegacyUser

Carolyn Wheeler said: Heather, you write this so clearly and succinctly. Thank you!!!

LegacyUser

David Roderick McLean said: You did not hear it from me but . . .

As if today a space character is a valid reason

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: FWIW, a space character is not really a character so much as it is a delimiter. I suspect that a space character might not "fool" the software check on the reason. But a period or a single character currently will.

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: When I first got involved with the FamilySearch Family Tree, I too, like Larron Campbell, https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... was convinced that a locked private Tree was the only way to go. In time I was persuaded to believe in the open edit concept of the now FamilySearch Family Tree database, but never lost my dream that it could be a locked private tree, and also an open edit FamilySearch Family Tree at the same time.

I find it a dichotomy that an open edit database, (the FamilySearch Family Tree), is now using the "Required" feature? Is the FamilySearch Family Tree using the "Required" merging feature to save the open edit-ness of the FamilySearch Family Tree?, or will the FamilySearch Family Tree in the future use more and more of the "Required" features to make the FamilySearch Family Tree database more of a locked private tree, and also, an open edit tree?

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Thanks Tom for your "Feedback" reply, "Actually, it can matter if a record is merged with a profile that isn't the same person, but has earlier ordinances than those you submitted and completed."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

At least I know now why FamilySearch has placed so much emphasis on merging the last little while. Not saying I am going to work in the "Family Tree" doing a lot of merging, but I can see why the new merging tool was created and implemented.