Improve suggested reasons for merging individuals

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: The suggested reasons provided to users for merging fail to consider sources. They imply to users that the way to determine whether two profiles should be merged is by referring exclusively to the vitals. But vitals commonly do not match the source material posted to the profile.

Some of my well-documented and carefully explained ancestors are regularly merged away into somebody else's profile entirely. This happens because a naive user ignores sources, reasoning, and all communication attempts, and changes vitals to match some modern (false) hearsay. Then he/she or another user sees matching vitals and merges, and voila, my ancestor disappears.

May I suggest that if the sources do not match the vitals and relationships, then that should be rectified prior to merging? Or may I at least get some sort of agreement that when merging two individuals, sources should be considered? If we can at least agree on that last point, then hopefully we can agree that the suggested reasons for merging need to change.

I suggest that either 1) an additional step be added to the merge process wherein users are required to ensure that vitals match the sources provided, or 2) the merge suggested reason statements be changed to include consideration of the sources provided (e.g., all sources from both profiles agree on every piece of vital information).

LegacyUser

Don M Thomas said: Just another patron like yourself.

or 3) merging reason statements should go back to how they were before, without a REQUIRED reason statement. No one should have to be REQUIRED to do anything when one is volunteering their time, and talents, in furthering the kingdom of God. It should be done because we love our Father-in-Heaven, and not because we are REQUIRED.

LegacyUser

ATP said: Nathan Twyman,

I hear you!

Unfortunately, most people take the path of least resistance, thus messing up the board that others, then, have to do clean up! It's called being a slouthful servant!

LegacyUser

Nathan Twyman said: So, to be clear in case I wasn't, I am referencing the FamilySearch-produced example reason statements. When merging, these are the suggested statements given:

"All vital information and relationships match. ID numbers: L299-NVQ and KHQ1-FCL."
"Most vital information and relationships match. No details conflict. ID numbers: L299-NVQ and KHQ1-FCL."
"Most vital information and relationships match. Some details contain minor conflicts. ID numbers: L299-NVQ and KHQ1-FCL."
"This record contains little information: L299-NVQ. There is enough evidence to believe it is the same person as KHQ1-FCL."

I am claiming these are poor reason statements and are a bad example for users to follow. This post was not meant as a complaint about users who don't think things through--it is meant as a suggestion to FamilySearch to change these example reason statements in a manner that tells the user to *evaluate the evidence,* via examining sources, and not make decisions based exclusively on whatever is currently listed in the vitals and relationships.

As it stands now, the implication of these example reason statements is that sources don't matter. That is the wrong message.