Limit merges - Merge alert for Macrae/Mcrae

LegacyUser

Juli said: Chicken-and-egg: until I merge the stray extraction-based profiles, they're not related to anyone outside their little tryptichs.

LegacyUser

ClareLM said: Hi Juli, But wouldn't you be merging the strays with a record that you know to be correct and also a member of your direct ancestry?

LegacyUser

ClareLM said: PS I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with what you mean by extraction-based profiles?

LegacyUser

Paul said: Clare

No way would your recent idea be of help to me and others, who undertake very careful research and add / work on IDs for individuals who have no relationship to them whatsoever.

In my own case, I have not added anyone of my parents' generation to Family Tree (I am not a LDS Church member), so my efforts would not meet your suggested criteria. (The "View my Relationship" aspect, in particular.)

I continue to have empathy with regard to your problems, but cannot accept your suggestions present a realistic way of dealing with the matter.

Incidentally, there is no obligation that one should have any relationship to the persons they add to Family Tree. Again in my case, I especially make a point of adding / working on the IDs of individuals of similar identity to my relatives, for exactly the purpose you are emphasising - to add as much detail to their profiles as possible in order to deter others from making incorrect assumptions, which could lead to incorrect merges.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: To give an example of the sort of thing that Juli alludes to. I'm related to the Billingtons of Nantwich. The extraction programmes went through the parish registers and created trios in FamilySearch of 2 parents and a child. Hence there will be lots of trios of John and Elizabeth Billington and child (as we know). Let's say that there are 2 John and Elizabeth marriages and a couple of dozen triples. None are yet connected to me. In order to work on the Billingtons, the only sane way to proceed is to bite the bullet and reassemble all the Billingtons in that parish into their families. I cross check the indexes with the images and gradually merge - but I probably have 3 distinct groups - the family who married 10y before the other, the family who are seen together in the 1851 census, and a splatter of odd trios who can't be identified to either.

At no time have I yet established which group, if any, my GG-GM is related to. All I've been doing is preparatory work that might or might not help me or someone else. But it's necessary work to reduce the scale of the problem.

LegacyUser

Jeniann Nielsen said: Clare,
I can relate to your dilemma because I also have many Macrae ancestors in the Scottish highlands. It can be tough to keep those lines cleaned up for sure.
I have 3 recommendations that have greatly helped me:
1. I make sure I document everything as clearly as possible. Thee aren't many records for Scotland on FamilySearch so it takes more time, but I make sure to put the full details for every census (including names,ages, and birthplace of everyone in the household written out), every vital record with the full details, and every church record with the full details. I don't just link to the record, I make it so that they can see at a glance what that record says so they don't have to click or think to know what the records say. I make it very clear who people are and what their documents say so that it's harder to get confused.
2. If there are people with very common names who are repeatedly merged incorrectly, I have found it helpful to write a Note that's something like, "Please note that Alexander Macrae was a very common name in this area, and there were many men with this name who are easily confused. Record hints and merge suggestions from FamilySearch are not always correct. Please be careful about making changes to this individual." If needed, I put this note in the Life Sketch box as well.
If there is a particular ones that keep being remerged, I also add things like, "Note that there was an Alexander Macrae with ID number x who was born in x, had x wife, and x children, and lived in x. There was a different Alexander Macrae with ID number x who was born in x, had x wife, and x children, and lived in x. These are 2 different men who should not be merged." I add this to the Life Sketch so it shows up when someone goes to merge them
3. I keep on top of the Possible Duplicates and Record Hints. If I dismiss or attach them regularly so there aren't any in that part of the tree, people are less tempted to make changes. Possible Duplicates aren't easily found within the tree without opening each person, so I use Puzzilla.org (the paid version) to find them more easily. There are other third party tools that will do this as well.
These measures have really helped to stem the tide of incorrect changes. Changes happen but not nearly so much as before.
Good luck!
Jeniann

LegacyUser

Jeniann Nielsen said: One more thing, if certain people are commonly confused or could be easily confused due to same name, similar age, and similar place, I carefully document both the family I'm related to and the one I'm not related to and put in the sources for both including parents and children. This makes it more clear to people that they are looking at 2 different families and not the same one. This takes more time upfront but saves a lot of hassle and undoing bad merges in the long run.

LegacyUser

Jeniann Nielsen said: Extraction based profiles are people in the tree that come from old records that were extracted years ago. In the system, one child with their parents are there, then another child with the same parents with another copy of the parents, etc. For England in particular there are many, many duplicates, sometimes I have merged 20 or even 30 that are the same person. So limits to the number of merges would be a problem.
It works better to document everything carefully and make things as dummy proof as possible. I agree with Adrian that sorting out the various families in the same area with the same names, including those that aren't your relatives, will help so that everyone will be able to keep the families straight sand prevent confusion.

LegacyUser

ClareLM said: Thank you Adrian and Jeniann for explaining what is meant by extracted records. I have come across these on numerous occasion when working on families that were in some way distantly connected to my direct ancestors. I'm beginning to see the complexity of the problem.
I've noticed today that there has been some changes to the the merging process, including some suggestions for reasons for merging. This may help.

LegacyUser

ClareLM said: Hello Jeniann,
Thanks for your detailed advice.
I have been doing just as you advised re your point No2, though not always with as much detail as you suggest.
On this occasion, I have also been messaging the person who was doing the merges. I explicitly asked them not to merge the record of Alexander Mcrae again. This request was ignored. I also explained to them the issues with regards the Highland clan and naming conventions, etc.
I have put all the information that I have into these Macrae records but there is little available.
I also try to keep on top of the hints for possible duplicates. With Macraes this can be a time consuming task.
I too also often add sources to the record of people with a similar names to someone in my extended family. I have been working on the same premise ie the more details and sources added to a record the less likely it is to be incorrectly merged. However, with the Macares this is just not possible.

LegacyUser

Kathryn Grant said: Well said, Adrian!