Deleting Ordinance Data During Merges

LegacyUser

Paul Prestwich said: Problem: Temple ordinance data is being deleted during merges.
When people begin using FamilySearch, they often start creating ancestor records. They later find that those people have already been created and are duplicates. The system identifies them for a possible merge. The person then merges the new person with the old established record. However, they keep the new record and delete the old one. Since the ordinance information is not presented during the merge process, one result is that the ordinance data is deleted and that ancestor record shows up as available to have ordinance work performed.
Solution: Have the system automatically search for ordinance information on both records. If both records contain ordinance data, the system will automatically KEEP the ordinance data that was performed earliest, regardless of which record it comes from. If only one record has ordinance data, the system will keep that data, regardless of the record. If neither record contains ordinance data, the ordinance data fields will remain blank and the record will be available to have ordinance work performed.
This will ensure that individuals whose ordinance work has already been performed will remain intact. It will eliminate the need to send requests to FamilySearch to try and retrieve the ordinance information that has been erroneously deleted and as is the case in many instances, it would eliminate having to perform the ordinance work all over again.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: All ordinance records are now merged to the new record no matter which record survives. Sometimes, there is a lag in the updated ordinances but they will show. With many non members using FS, it was prudent for engineers to develop the system to enable ordinances to follow merges without seeing these details.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

'Christina' is correct, when you "Merge"/"Combine" two individuals/persons whosoever "Temple" Work is "Competed" FIRST will prevail; eventually, it can take time for this to happen while the two data bases, of the "Family Tree"; and. the "Temple" (Work) synchronise.

But ...
That said ...

There is a "caveat" to the aforementioned; and, that is that if a "Temple" Work record (ie. "Ordinance) for an individual/person ONLY has the word "Completed" and not the other two fields of a 'Date' and 'Temple' (or, "Completed" with 'Date' and not the other field of a 'Temple'; or, "Completed" with 'Temple' and not the other field of a 'Date'); then, even if that "Ordinance" was "Completed" before that of the corresponding "Ordinance" of the "Merged"/"Combined" individual/person, that OLDER "Ordinance" record will be OVERWRITTEN by the later completed "Ordinance" record with all three fields (ie. 'Completed'; 'Date'; and, 'Temple').

The FAULT/FLAW has been notified to "FamilySearch"; but, has yet to be addressed/fixed.

The fault/flaw appears ONLY to be a "Display" problem/issue in/for the "Family Tree" database; because, BOTH, "Temple" Work records (ie. "Ordinance), being the EARLIER completed Work and the LATER completed Work for the seperate individuals/persons, will still be recorded correctly in the "Temple" (Work) database (despite any "Merge"/'Combine").

Being a Member of the Church, I check the status of the "Temple" Work for both individuals/persons before a "Merge"/Combine"; and, if one of those has the EARLIER completed Work that ONLY has the word "Completed" and not the other two fields of a 'Date' and 'Temple' (or, "Completed" with 'Date' and not the other field of a 'Temple'; or, "Completed" with 'Temple' and not the other field of a 'Date'); then, I take "Screen Shots" of BOTH; and, retain, for my own record, proving that despite the resulting display in the "Family Tree" database; that, the "Temple" Work was ACTUALLY completed EARLIER than is shown.

But, that is just me; as, I am well aware of that "caveat".

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul Prestwich said: Do you know when these changes were implemented?

LegacyUser

Brett said: Paul

There has been no change, this is the way it has always been.

There have always been two databases, that of "Family Tree"; and, that of "Temple" (Work).

It has has always taken time for the two databases to synchronise.

The "caveat" that I refer to has always been around.

Nothing has changed or been implemented in that respect.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: There have been no recent changes. All ordinance data has been correctly handled in merges for years. As Christina said, sometime you have to refresh your browser window to see the updated information. There was a time a year or so ago that the system was slow at times and it could take several hours for the various databases to synchronize, but I haven't seen that delay for a long time.

If you have an example where it appears it was not, post the specific Family Tree ID number here so the engineers can see what is going on.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: When I first started in FS over a decade ago, I was told to merge into the PID with ordinances to preserve them but I do not know if this was authentic advice or nut. Of it was athletic, it no longer applies to merges. Ron Tanner addresses this in at least one or more of his live sessions. If a merge needs to be undone, the ordinances will follow their original PIDs. I hope that makes sense.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: Sorry for the typos. I'm on my phone.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Christina

That is correct: IF, individuals/persons that were "Merged" / "Combined", are later "Un-Merged" / "Un-Combined"; then, the "Temple" Work state for each REVERTS respectively 'back' to what is was BEFORE they were "Merged" / "Combined".

Brett

.

LegacyUser

ATP said: Thanks, Brett, for your added "completed" explanation. I also handle duplicated ordinances the way you do, but did not know about the "completed" complication. I think our dead kin have to be amused when each time later someone comes to "complete" still the same ordinances, sometimes say, "well, here they come again!".

Thanks, always for your input.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: These merges at times are erratic when it come to ordinances.

Time to time I find them, un-merges most of time do NOT restore.

Instead I get the message questioning my relationship to the person and contact the site.

I had to send feedbacks on those ones to get the ordinances restored.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: I just assume someone fell asleep during the endowment or some other defect occurred during an ordinance and that's when duplication occurs. lol

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Brett,

not true

It happened different way.

Case in this - I had cards printed for baptisms sent to me to do because other person in another state did not do for a year.

And then I proceeded with baptisms without delay. Imagine my surprise when the cards were scanned at Salt Lake Temple, showing they were already done. A quick check in FamilySearch Tree showed the guy in other state got around and did it just a few days before me. The baptisms were for a friend of mine so it wasn't in my message account.

LegacyUser

ATP said: LOL!

LegacyUser

Brett said: David

What is: " ... not true ... "?

I understand what you are saying in the rest of your "Comment"; but, certainly do no understand what you mean by " ... not true ... "!

Please explain/enlighten me ...

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: ATP

'Yeh' ...

Re: the Fault/Flaw with regard to "Temple" Work (ie. "Ordinances") that ONLY has the word "Completed" and not the other two fields of a 'Date' and 'Temple' (or, "Completed" with 'Date' and not the other field of a 'Temple'; or, "Completed" with 'Temple' and not the other field of a 'Date').

Both, the EARLIER "Completed"; and, the LATER "Completed", Work, is, both, stored; and, RETAINED, in the "Temple" (Work) database, the problem/issue is the resultant "Display" from a "Merge"/"Combine" in the "Family Tree" database.

It is just so confusing to see LATER "Completed" Work in the MIDDLE of the EARLIER "Completed" Work; especially, if you were the one that was responsible for the EARLIER "Completed" Work.

And, even WORSE when you are dealing with early Church Members (eg. Early Utah Mormon Pioneers) many of whom whose Work was done while they were actually "Living", being OVERWRITTEN by the "Much" LATER "Completed" Work - actually quite distressing; and, in many cases, trying to get the matter addressed/fixed through a 'Support' Case, moving through the 'lower' (ie. First) Levels is an absolute nightmare.

I, of late, have been holding off on "Merging"/"Combining" in such instances (when the "Temple" Work would get 'muddled-up' in the resulting "Display", from a "Merge"/"Combine", in the "Family Tree" database), in the HOPE that the Fault/Flaw will EVENTUALLY get addressed/fixed; and, as, an interim measure, I place a "Caution"/"Warning" everywhere - in the "Life Sketch"; "Other Information" - "Fact"; "Collaboration" (BOTH, "Notes"; and, "Discussions"), for BOTH individuals/persons. Most times that "Caution"/"Warning" is heeded, sometimes not; and, I have to go and "Un-Merge"/"Combine".

But, it certainly would be nice if that Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display", from a "Merge"/"Combine", as I refer to above, in the "Family Tree" database, was addressed/fixed, sooner rather than later.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Brett, I am referring to "two databases". Not true, in fact, when ordinances are bar-code scanned in to record, the record of completed ordinances show up in FamilySearch in less than 15 minutes. Occasionally there will be hiccups, delaying showing up. There was one card not showing up for 3 weeks even other cards showed up promptly.

There is something else everybody has to be on guard - ask to check cards to be sure each ordinance is done and marked off because two cards were discovered not done in confirmation due to no mark, and also when cards are returned, check again to be sure they have been stamped (stamping is done right after scanning). Out of 179 cards done by my ward's youth Dec 21 at Bountiful, I found one card marked but not stamped, double-checked FamilySearch, it was missed by the sisters doing the recording. It was too late to bring back to temple.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Has to respond to this concerning "Completed", it was a programming error, found only in 1992-1996, the beginning of data processing for Temples. Nothing we can do about this. There is an article about this in FamilySearch Wiki. I will post the link to it when I find it.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: As for those overwritten dates, find the record and report. I was startled when my 2nd great grandparents were living and baptized because, until the discovery of the living baptism records, no one knew they were baptized because we (the cousins) could not find any trace of their membership records for many years.

LegacyUser

Brett said: W David

You do not seem to understand.

The "Temples" works on one database; and, "FamilySearch" works on one database, those two (x2) databases are distinct and separate databases; but, those two (x2) databases ARE "Connected"; so that they "Synchronise", in regard to "Temple" Work.

The 'lag' time, of even just the "15 Minutes", that you refer to, IS an EXAMPLE, of the fact that there ARE two (x2) databases, that of (1) "Family Tree"; and, (2) "Temple" (Work); and, that they synchronise.

I have been in a "Temple" when the Work was "Recorded" in the "Temple" (Work) database; and, checked the "Family Tree" database moments later; and, the Work DID NOT immediately appear in the "Family Tree" database - I have done that more than once.

If there was ONLY one database; then, the Work would IMMEDIATELY appear in the "Family Tree" - it DOES NOT.

As I have advised, that is WHY when you "Merge"/"Combine" two (x2) individuals/persons in "Family Tree", whosoever "Temple" Work is "Competed" FIRST will prevail; eventually, it can take time for this to happen while the two (x2) databases, of the "Family Tree"; and. the "Temple" (Work) synchronise - except in the case of the aforementioned "caveat".

And, furthermore, as I have advised, with regard to the aforementioned "caveat", the Fault/Flaw in the RESULTING "Display", from a "Merge"/"Combine", in the "Family Tree" database.

And ...

As to Work being MISSED from being RECORDED, 'Yes', that has happened and does happen, that is why we SCAN the "Cards" and submit a 'Support' Cases so that the Work that was MISSED can be RECORDED - correctly.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: W David

I do not care WHEN (or, even, WHY or HOW) the problem/issue occurred.

All I know is that:

IF a "Temple" Work record (ie. "Ordinance) for an individual/person ONLY has the word "Completed" and not the other two fields of a 'Date' and 'Temple' (or, "Completed" with 'Date' and not the other field of a 'Temple'; or, "Completed" with 'Temple' and not the other field of a 'Date'); as, there IS a Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display" in the "Family Tree" database; that, even IF that "Ordinance" was "Completed" BEFORE that of the corresponding "Ordinance" of the "Merged"/"Combined" individual/person, that OLDER (ie. Earlier) "Ordinance" record will be OVERWRITTEN by the NEWER (ie. Later) completed "Ordinance" record, with all three fields (ie. 'Completed'; 'Date'; and, 'Temple').

'Yes', you are correct, there is NOTHING that WE ourselves can do personally about this Fault/Flaw.

The Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display" in the "Family Tree" database, MUST be addressed/fixed by "FamilySearch".

I used to "Report" such; but, I am tired of "Reporting" such; and, no longer want to deal and move through the 'lower' (ie. First) Levels of 'Support'; as, it used to be such an absolute nightmare.

I have "Reported" the Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display" in the "Family Tree" database to "FamilySearch" through, BOTH, numerous 'Support' Cases; and, this "FamilySearch" ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum on a number of occasions, to-date, the problem/issue has not been addressed/fixed - that is not to say that it is not being looked into, just not addressed/fixed as yet.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: The Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display" in the "Family Tree" database, MUST be addressed/fixed by "FamilySearch".

This has been addressed by FamilySearch. NOTHING can be done about it because it wa a programming error that is UNRECOVERABLE because at the time there was NO internet service connecting the temples to FamilySearch. The data was transferred on the TAPES at the time.

LegacyUser

Brett said: W David

'No', the Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display" in the "Family Tree" database has NOT been addressed/fixed.

But, due to the nature of the problem/issue, "FamilySearch" may certainly STILL be working on the problem/issue - if NOT; then, that is a big HOLE in the "System".

The way that the "Data" was recorded back then, may be the problem/issue; but, that DOES NOT mean that the "Family Tree" database could not be addressed/fixed to alleviate/accommodate that problem/issue.

The Fault/Flaw in the resulting "Display" in the "Family Tree" database, both, CAN; and, SHOULD, be addressed/fixed.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Brett, sorry it can not be fixed I already talked with the higherups about this hole and it is NOT fix-able. No dates were recorded for confirmations in computer system, period! This is for 1992-1996 only

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Since then I have learned something.

Make sure the personal page with ordinances is on left side and right side having no ordinances.

Merge.

Ordinances are retained, not vanished.

Flip them and you lose the ordinances, and have to ask feedback to have them restored.