Why this notice: "These two people can be merged, but only if the possible duplicate is the survivin
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Reed Stanley Hall said: I had believed that the arcane rules concerning mergers had been removed from the Family Tree program with the change of software on June 29. So it has come as a surprise when attempting to merge record MNWM-2KT into preferred record LZ6L-PG1 as the surviving record, I received this notice: "These two people can be merged, but only if the possible duplicate is the surviving individual."
It is difficult to try to understand the rationale for this. Granted I can go ahead with the merger under the required condition and carefully make certain that all conflicting data is transferred from the preferred record being deleted to the one that will be the surviving record in the merging process. This, however, seems to be a silly condition to impose.
Is there a good reason for this merging requirement of which I am not aware?
It is difficult to try to understand the rationale for this. Granted I can go ahead with the merger under the required condition and carefully make certain that all conflicting data is transferred from the preferred record being deleted to the one that will be the surviving record in the merging process. This, however, seems to be a silly condition to impose.
Is there a good reason for this merging requirement of which I am not aware?
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Don M Thomas said: I am a patron to FamilySearch just like yourself. One Person, One World, "Family Tree."
Copy down the ID Number of the person who must be the "Surviving Individual." Then go to "Find," and then, "Find By ID" Number, and then go to that person. Once on the "Vital Information" page of the person who must be the "Surviving Individual," hit on their NAME, BIRTH DATE, or DEATH DATE. Do any of these show their History, or information, was changed or "Modified" by "LDS Church," or "LDS Church Membership."
Just wondering if their "Vital Information" was "Modified" by "LDS Church," and might be the reason they must be the "Surviving Individual?"0 -
Tom Huber said: I'm with you. I believed that the restriction had been removed when nFS was finally and completely severed from FS FT.
I would open a case through feedback or call support in this situation.0 -
Reed Stanley Hall said: Good idea. This ancestor was christened (baptized) in 1594 and died in 1670.0
-
joe martel said: The cutover away from nFS removed the IOUS Merge issue. That's not what is happening here. In the case you cite here most likely one Person was created from a membership record and that record must be the survivor. All you have to do is hit Review Merge and Switch.
0 -
Reed Stanley Hall said: (1) In the case you cite here most likely one Person was created from a membership record and that record must be the survivor.
Even though this ancestor was christened (baptized) in 1594 and died in 1670.?
(2) All you have to do is hit Review Merge and Switch.
As I indicated, Granted I can go ahead with the merger under the required condition [switching] and carefully make certain that all conflicting data is transferred from the preferred record being deleted to the one that will be the surviving record in the merging process. [Also have to make certain that incorrect data that was already in the record that will be the surviving record is then removed.] This, however, seems to be a silly condition to impose.
(3) My question remains:
Is there a good reason for this merging requirement [for an ancestor born over 400 years ago] of which I am not aware?0 -
Don M Thomas said: This goes back a few months ago to when I, like a little child threw a tantrum over "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership," and it should not be a contributor to the "Family Tree," and that only patrons should be contributors to the "Family Tree."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
My above paranoia about how "LDS Church," or "LDS Church Membership" should not be a contributor to the "Family Tree" started because of the large persons dumping by "LDS Church Membership" a month, or so, before the disconnecting or separation of NewFamilySearch. We were told that the separation of NewFamilySearch would stop the damage that "LDS Church Membership" was doing to the "Family Tree," such as creating people and membership records for non-LDS persons or ancestors of actual real converted and baptized members of the church. According to this "Feedback," of Reed Stanley Hall, it appears that is not the case, and "LDS Church" and "LDS Church Membership" people and records of the converted member's ancestors have been transferred over to the "Family Tree."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0 -
Don M Thomas said: This goes back a few months ago to when I, like a little child threw a tantrum over "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership," and it should not be a contributor to the "Family Tree," and that only patrons should be contributors to the "Family Tree."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
My above paranoia about how "LDS Church," or "LDS Church Membership" should not be a contributor to the "Family Tree" started because of the large persons dumping by "LDS Church Membership" a month, or so, before the disconnecting or separation of NewFamilySearch. We were told that the separation of NewFamilySearch would stop the damage that "LDS Church Membership" was doing to the "Family Tree," such as creating people and membership records for non-LDS persons or ancestors of actual real converted and baptized members of the church. According to this "Feedback," of Reed Stanley Hall, it appears that is not the case, and "LDS Church" and "LDS Church Membership" people and records of the converted member's ancestors have been transferred over to the "Family Tree."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...0 -
gasmodels said: Joe, I think that restriction was removed when we disconnected from new FamilySearch. I saw a situation last week where two membership records for different individuals were merged. I do not believe membership is the reason.
I'm wondering if the ? spouse which is a read-only record may have something to do with the message. I do not know that for a fact but that would be my first guess.0 -
joe martel said: Reed,
When a Person is created via Membership it has to be the survivor. Merging of two "membership" Persons is allowed.
1) Membership records include both LDS church members and a large set of records that are not members but were loaded into membership earlier this year and synced into nFS.
2) The decision to preserve the membership created Person will cause you to flip if you want to Merge.
3) knowing a Person came from Membership affords certain business logic that will allow the software to better provide provenance to the source of that Person, i.e. we know a real person existed. But when membership loaded those others in that diluted that distinction.
So, I agree that this does appear "arcane" for these newly added Persons, but not for original membership. This distinction is probably detectable by the software, though it may be difficult to sort that out on-the-fly at a Merge. So for now you'll have to flip.0 -
Reed Stanley Hall said: Thank you for your response. Even though it seems to be a ridiculous equirement for a person who lived 400 years ago, I will pursue the merger and make the necessary changes to the suriving record.0
-
Don M Thomas said: What did 'LDS Church Membership" do to make this 400 year old person have to have "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" as the surviving record in a merge? I thought all this nonsense was done away with when we split from NewFamilySearch?
"Don Martin Thomas 4 months ago
It is not right that we are forced to have LDS Church Membership as the surviving record."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"Don Martin Thomas 4 months ago
I am sorry, but I am not going to do it - !!!! I refuse to make a merge of a person that I have entered into the system, and has tons and tons of different source data and photo's and all, and am forced by the program or system to merge it with a person that has very little data, just so the person can show a source of LDS Church Membership, - when most if not all the sources on that person show sources coming other than LDS Church Membership. Nope, sorry, I am not doing it - !!!!!!!!!!!!.
This has really got me upset."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
I got a one gold star for the above reply.
If the "distinction is probably detectable by the software," can't this be fixed?, to where "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" is not always the surviving record in a merge? Why does "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" have to be the surviving merge or record in the "Family Tree?"
Related Topics: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Again, why, and what did 'LDS Church Membership" do to make a 400 year old person have to have "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" as the surviving record in a merge?0 -
Don M Thomas said: What did "LDS Church Membership" do to make this 400 year old person have to have "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" as the surviving record in a merge? I thought all this nonsense was done away with when we split from NewFamilySearch?
"Don Martin Thomas 4 months ago
It is not right that we are forced to have LDS Church Membership as the surviving record."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
"Don Martin Thomas 4 months ago
I am sorry, but I am not going to do it - !!!! I refuse to make a merge of a person that I have entered into the system, and has tons and tons of different source data and photo's and all, and am forced by the program or system to merge it with a person that has very little data, just so the person can show a source of LDS Church Membership, - when most if not all the sources on that person show sources coming other than LDS Church Membership. Nope, sorry, I am not doing it - !!!!!!!!!!!!.
This has really got me upset."
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
I got a one gold star for the above reply.
If the "distinction is probably detectable by the software," can't this be fixed?, to where "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" is not always the surviving record in a merge? Why does "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" have to be the surviving merge or record in the "Family Tree?"
Related Topics: https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Again, why, and what did 'LDS Church Membership" do to make a 400 year old person have to have "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" as the surviving record in a merge?0 -
Robert Wren said: Apparently there was (is?) no real answer to the question posed "Again, why, and what did 'LDS Church Membership" do to make a 400 year old person have to have "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" as the surviving record in a merge?"
Joe Martel tried - unsuccessfully - witness the change record of PID which was the subject: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per... (I wonder if anyone can decipher that change log??? - an amazingly long and controversial exchange -check back to 2016 (THIS topic's original date, based on the commenting parties)
However, I'll raise the question again for THIS merge: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/per... which just reared its ugly head there.
I suppose it'll be easier to simply "comply" by switching (BUT more likely I'll ignore the whole mess), and add the 60 yr old father & 51 year old mother. But I sure don't understand WHY??? one side of the merge is "MY 6TH GREAT-GRANDMOTHER", the other "MY 6TH COUSIN EIGHT TIMES REMOVED" (THANKS for adding those relationship, I'm not sure when they snuck in)
the question asked above: "Again, why, and what did 'LDS Church Membership" do to make a 400 year old person have to have "LDS Church" or "LDS Church Membership" as the surviving record in a merge?"
FamilySearch provides such interesting (unsolvable) puzzles.0 -
Brett said: Robert
FYI
My post from 14 Days ago ...
ALL. Web version. View My Relationship. Relationship Title (English, at least). IT IS THERE! Good one "FamilySearch".
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Brett
ps: I also posted/responded in a number of post that raised the matter previously.
.0 -
joe martel said: Robert, this is a pretty old thread and the behavior and rules regarding merge survivor have changed. You may want to open a new thread.
But in a nutshell, when the computer detects that a merge will fail because of memory/technical reasons it will tell the user which Person should survive. See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/merge-error-message-whaaaaa0 -
Robert Wren said: Thanks, Joe, that thread is a bit more helpful. I ended up here from a Google search after not finding anything in FShelp. With that link, perhaps this topic should be CLOSED??0
-
joe martel said: This is an out-of-date thread. Please refer to one of the newer ones mentioned above.0
This discussion has been closed.