"Changes to People I'm Watching" list has stopped showing current names
Comments
-
m said: I suspect something like that is happening as well.
Before the new merge, I noticed a merge happened and the giant profile was the one to be deleted (not supposed to be possible under old merge) and discussions were deleted after the merge (not supposed to be possible). So I hit restore and the discussions reappeared after the giant profile was restored.
Very disturbing effects.
But only lasted that one time. (Likely changed code then changed back.)0 -
Tom Huber said: Well, after never seeing the problem with my system, it has now shown up. I happened to have made these changes, so when they came up with "Unknown Name" I was surprised.
This involved restoring a record (a previously bad merge just a few days ago), and then detaching a child (who died at age of two) from being married with child...
This happened to be the brother of my grandfather, so it wasn't that far back. But since a merge and then restore was involved, cleaning up the record, this might help the engineers when they attempt to duplicate the record.
Small "watch" group, Chrome on Windows 10.0 -
Tom Huber said: One more noted problem .. when I switch to my watch list, I noticed that the word "unwatch" had an "open" star next to it, rather than the normal black star. I clicked on unwatch and the star did not change. Then I clicked on watch and the star turned black.0
-
Tom Huber said: That particular problem is unique to Chrome as it does not appear in Firefox on the same computer.0
-
Tom Huber said: The "unknown name" is the same for both browsers, only the changes I made on 1 May show the anomaly.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: Crikey. The fact that it's appeared for changes made on 1 May *and* you'd never seen it before, sounds seriously weird. If it were online routines (run by and for the current user) failing to get data that's there, why is it the same stuff that fails every time that I look at my Watch List?0
-
m said: I have been wondering if what these pages have in common is perhaps at one point all of them had been merged and then restored---(but almost all NM people had bad merges in the past, bad merges are almost the norm on NM lines).0
-
Adrian Bruce said: The fact that the initial Unknown Name entries were defined by a date range suggests to me that every profile updated for any reason on those dates had its Watch List report data corrupted - or maybe every profile updated where the Watcher met certain conditions. Such as a big Watch List maybe? It's only the content of the Watch List report data, not the underlying profile data. The above is just me being logical, in the way that I would have done at work, in order to decide where to look first. But since I know nothing of the underlying software I could be talking nonsense.
Its reoccurrence on a later date for Tom is worrying, suggesting an ongoing issue.
I have a horrible feeling that this is going to be a pain to debug - unless the techies have access to a Watch List report corrupted on those days, what on earth can they do to confirm anything?0 -
W David Samuelsen said: This has been going for years. It's always the MERGE problem when it is not done correctly.0
-
joe martel said: I finally duplicated this on KVGC-SGV. I put a watch and went to Lists |Changes and I see the unknown name and broken filter. I'll forward it on.
0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Phew - in the nicest possible way, I'm glad you've hit a problem! I hope someone can squeeze some debugging info out of it.0
-
m said: Great, Joe!
So it's merge, but not restore as I was thinking?0 -
Tom Huber said: Well, this is getting more interesting... Something is definitely amiss.
I often check my changes list, rather than wait for the weekly review message. The "unknown name" that I mentioned above switched from a previously displayed name to "unknown name" when the bad merge took place earlier in the week (same person).
I'm glad Joe was able to duplicate the problem, or rather see the problem.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: This is still the same. It does seem that it has something to do with records being deleted via merges. I wonder if the new merge software is partially at fault for this?0
-
Tom Huber said: Hm. At this point in time, the records I reported some 17 days ago that switched from a previously-displayed name to "unknown name" have been restored to the previously-displayed name. Chrome on a Windows 10 computer.
The filter is still broken.0 -
Adrian Bruce said: 1. Most of my previously [Unknown Name] profiles now have names in "People I'm Watching".
I had a look at one of the ones that have switched from [Unknown Name] to their proper name and could see no visible change since the update that was originally showing [Unknown...] - so any fix appears to be the result of something else (some deliberate work?), not a knock on of some user work resetting things.
2. LHNF-STV is still showing [Unknown Name]. As is LCQD-CDH which got set that way on 27 April.
3. Filter still doesn't work.
4. The pop up is now consistent between Firefox and Chrome - in both cases, hovering puts up a little box with name and PID. There is no sign of a Copy Id pop-up in the list of "People I'm Watching". Previously Chrome worked, Firefox didn't and the hover pop-up was Copy Id. Maybe they gave up on it! ( grin ) - given you can just select the PID and copy, I don't see any issue.
Windows 10, Firefox.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: The unknown names still show up. Yesterday a person who had created 3 separate, sparse, and almost identical copies of a record that I had worked on several months ago. They merged the far more detailed record that I had created into one of their duplicates and them merged in the other 2 duplicates. This caused some of the original information (which was still pertinent) to be lost).
I was in there adding the missing information to the surviving PID. I noticed that in my "changes to people Im watching list" the pid of the person that they had merged away was showing as unknown name, so as of yesterday morning the behavior has not changed.
macOS Sierra with Safari 12.1.2.0 -
Paul said: I now have just two IDs still showing as [Unknown Name].0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: If the person that created the discussions attempts to remove them, even if they've been brought over to a new PID via a merge, They will be successful since they are the one that owns the discussion. So in that one scenario, it IS possible to see discussions removed sometime after a merge.0
-
m said: I have several showing Unknown Name---seems like merge is what they have in common.0
-
m said: I forgot to say Firefox.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Just undo the merges! The only reason for "Unknown" to show up.
When I have them, I go to review change log to find the merges and undo in order to recover disappeared data that should have been saved.
Some unknowns are dated before 2012 so there's nothing you can do about it, just de-link the unknown .0 -
m said: It's just a computer bug that will be fixed by the engineers.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: There's nothing wrong with the merges. It's just that when the merge is done, the watch list statuses do not update properly. The merges are good, I would have no justification for undoing those merges.0
-
Paul said: I just carried out a merge on an ID (see MZPS-ST1) and it made the "Unknown Name" disappear, so she is now showing under her correct name (Mary Sore) in my "Changes..." section.
The "Unknown Name" appeared earlier today, when another user made a change that did not involve a merge. My general experience of the problem (relating to other IDs) is along those lines - i.e. merge made several days ago, but "Unknown Name" only appears after a subsequent change is made.
Don't ask me to prove that, but there seems no completely straightforward answer to how this is occurring - i.e. it doesn't DIRECTLY follow a merge, in my experience.0 -
Paul said: As an example, Mary Wrightson MPQP-6WN is currently showing as "Unknown Name" in the list. Another user made a change on 21 May that seems to have prompted this. However, an actual merge was carried out (by me) as far back as 29 February.0
-
Paul said: Just found my first example of where a name is showing as Unknown but has not been subject to any merge: LDFK-B6J. However, in common with most (all?) of the others, a "Couple Event Changed" action appears to have been a / the factor involved.
The implication in some other posts is that a merge (involving the ID appearing as an Unknown Name) is always the common factor.
(BTW - the "Possible Duplicate" on the page of the above IS a genuine one - so I will have to make a merge involving this ID quite soon! Maybe this will bring him back to his actual identity in my "Changes..." list.)0 -
Paul said: W David
I have added comments below as I believe you are saying a merge (that has not gone perfectly) is the common factor with these "Unknown Name" instances in "Changes To People I'm Watching". Please confirm that has always been your experience, as I have not necessarily found this to be the case with my examples.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said:
The implication in some other posts is that a merge (involving the ID appearing as an Unknown Name) is always the common factor
The reference of a merge involving the ID appearing as an Unknown name only works if it is very general. I have seen it where a merge between a person's mother and a duplicate of her resulted in the child getting an Unknown Name (due to attachments and detachments of the child to the parent during the parent merge). The interesting part is sometimes if you then go to the change history of the parent themselves, the Unknown Name designation on the child is not shown. The proper hame has been recorded. I only got the Unknown name because it was on the child that I had on my watch list.0 -
Paul said: So, in this case (John Stacy LDFK-B6J) it appears he might have become an Unknown Name following a merge involving two IDs of his wife. If a merge is always the factor involved, it could only have related to her, as no parents have been added for him as yet.
(That reminds me, today I must merge the two IDs I have for him.)0
This discussion has been closed.