FSFT could automatically insert this helpful text whenever the "Continue Merge" button is selected.

LegacyUser

Ken D in Australia said: When the "Continue Merge" button is selected by a patron, the following text could be automatically inserted by FSFT (below the heading "Reason this merge is correct"). It would help everyone, especially persons who later investigate a merge that was done by any user:-

"Merged RHS John Doe (9XDN-LKP Deceased) into LHS J. Doe (9VDN-LVV 1757 – 17 April 1843) because:- [Sample reason - Both have daughter Abigail christened in same year - and with same PIDs.]"

FSFT would use the correct Names, PIDs and Dates (simply copied from the tops of the two columns).

Any Get Satisfaction user will understand the value of being able to quickly see exactly who was merged into whom, whenever they check the validity of a merge.

These words would also encourage the person doing the merge to think more carefully than most users currently think. The sample reason may help them to realise it is useless to say "They match" or "Found it in a book at library" or "From my records" etc..

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: What an excellent thought - I often feel I should make it clear who is being merged into who because after a couple of merges it might not be clear any more - but somehow I seldom get to write everything down...

LegacyUser

Paul said: This applies to "Not a match" conclusions, too. When I say, "This John Smith....etc." will it be clear, on later reading, to which John Smith I am referring? Okay, if I try to merge the two "John Smiths" later on I will get the warning they have already been declared as "Not a match", but clearly marking IDs against each individual would certainly prevent any ambiguity when it comes to change logs, etc.

LegacyUser

Ken D in Australia said: Yes Siree! It could be inserted also during "Not a Match" sessions.
And yes, the results of it in "All Changes" would help even the person who DID the merge or non-merge, by giving an immediate reminder about the exact ancestors involved, plus the reasons for their conclusion.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I fully agree that this is an excellent idea. However, I do not know who soon this could be implemented since FamilySearch has very limited resources and a number of areas need a lot of work.

This kind of change would go through an evaluation process wherein the idea would be approved or rejected or perhaps tabled for future review. A number of factors would be taken into consideration, including the support of the user community (how many stars you received or the number of times this has been suggested by other users), the amount of work that would be involved, the amount of work in other areas to support this idea (including sources) and so on.

Once approved, the feature would be prioritized for development and may sit for years (it took ten years of a lot of requests to get even the smallest amount of movement to a the means to correct/change/fix indexes of historical records) before it rises to the top of the list and is assigned one or more teams for development.

My background in working with the computer industry (I'm not retired) suggests to me that this is going to be a major task. I support the idea but do not hold much hope to see it developed (even though the need is great in my mind) or something similar in comparing the two records that may be for the same person (which I have suggested).