New Duplicate Merge is a failure

LegacyUser

Ray Batig said: Disappointed in new duplicate management feature. The display is new and quite different. I am not sure why you need the second page. However, the worst thing is that you cannot complete the merge. The third page hangs up even after you enter a reason why you are merging the two people. I don't think you need to enter a reason but even if you do the page will not finish.

When will the software people learn to test their new changes before putting it out for use???

LegacyUser

Ali Jessee said: Hi Ray!

Thanks so much for reaching out--we've had a few other reports of this and are looking into it as we speak! If you want to supply PID's that were having the problems, we'd love to use those to help get this solved as soon as we can.

Thanks,
Ali

LegacyUser

Ray Batig said: Try these: L261-CJ8 showing dupe, G7SG-PVK needs to be merged with K4GT-5V2.

I still do not know why we are forced to show a reason why we did the merge.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Reason statements should always support the reasoning why a person did what they did, even if it seems superfluous to the user who took the action. Others argue that, before the latest change, I used a standard reason statement -- "After examining both records, I find that these are for the same person."

What I've done is I've explained what I did (examined both records) and the conclusion I've drawn from that action.

I have not merged anyone with the newly updated feature.

LegacyUser

Ali Jessee said: Wonderful Ray, thank you!

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: If you are a FS Staff member, could you please identify yourself as such in your profile and name, like your colleagues on this forum all do. This makes everything clear so that we know when we are speaking to a fellow user of FS or to a staff member. Thank you very much.

LegacyUser

Brett said: A van Helsdingen

Be prepared ...

Haven't you noticed me doing the same, in a very nice/pleasant matter, of late; and, my cordial 'Requests' were "Removed" by the 'FamilySearch Moderator' with the 'Reasons' of "No need to call contributors out." and "There is no need to for this user to challenge another poster and make them uncomfortable.".

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul said: FamilySearch Moderator

Having not been quick enough to read them before they were removed, I naturally do not know the specifics of why Brett's posts were taken down. However, he is correct in that we have come to expect ALL employees (when responding in an official capacity) to identify themselves with an "Employee" logo. Please do your best to see that position continues, so we can be quite clear on whether it is an employee investigating a problem, or just a helpful fellow user who believes they might be able to help solve a specific issue.

Unfortunately, it tends to be "little things" like this that do tend to upset many users. As well as the fact that I have looked through all the posts raised on this issue and can't see one official acknowledgement there ARE problems, which are in the process of being addressed. Surely that would be in line with the ethos of this forum?

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: We will not comment in a public forum about specific contributors.

The remainder of this message is to address work practice of the forum in general.

We love constructive posts and those are very much encouraged. However if the post violates the Code of Conduct then generally the post in its entirety will be removed.

As for how users identify themselves, that is up to the user to decide. Everyone has a different level of privacy expectations. We have experienced that when some employees participate or designate themselves as such they are called out, or treated poorly. We do appreciate when the community does appreciate those that reveal they are inside FS. None of the employees participate in the forums as part of their job  - many do it because it is their desire to help, and most do it on their own personal time.

The desire is to respond to user's concerns, and critical bugs and faults are dealt with almost immediately. But there should be no expectation of an official response nor to act on the users request. We thank you all for your constructive contributions here. With you we can make the FS products and communities better.

LegacyUser

Ali Jessee said: I am an employee, but new to Get Satisfaction and wasn't aware of this. I'll make sure to get that added for next time--sorry for the inconvenience!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Ali Amanda Jessee

'Thank You' so much.
That will be very much appreciated.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Yes, thank you Ali for both confirming your employee status and for your efforts in resolving the problems that have arisen.

I had my first experience of the new merge feature about an hour ago and I'm pleased to report the exercise went well - i.e. task completed satisfactorily!

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I kinda like having employees identified as such, but I can live with the choices based on why they may be posting in the forum. Certainly the more employee knowledge we have here, the better.

My concern is all the new people coming in. They can be directed to this forum by the system, or even more frequently sent here by the help desk. In these cases (especially the second one) those people expect that their questions will be answered by a FS employee. We've seen cases where some of those folks even get upset when nobody answering their question is an employee because they can't consider it definitive.

This is understandable when the FS Help desk, who can't resolve their specific issue, refers them to a place where someone CAN resolve their issue. It isn't intuitive that they would be getting their help from a bunch of outsiders.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: The only reference from the help desk is relative to suggestions that I am aware of. Users are referred here to make any suggestions for change. With respect to issues and or questions - I think most people just look at the threads and believe that the forum is wider than just suggestions. However, I do agree with the thrust of your overall comment.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Privacy is not a relevant argument concerning employees and their identification as such when acting in an official capacity. After all there appears to be a person with the first name Familysearch and the surname Moderator that I am replying to. Now I know that is a group account, possibly used by several different actual people. However the account is identified as associated with Familysearch and so anything that account does is officially associated with Familysearch. If someone is acting in an official capacity for Familysearch then they must be identified as such. If they are posting in a private capacity then that is different.

Regarding calling out, that in and of itself is NOT negative. It is merely identification of somebody in relation to a particular thing. It can be either positive or negative.

As for being treated poorly, well I regard the treatment that I and others have received at the hands of the operators of the Familysearch Moderator account as appalling. Legitimate discussion has been stifled, useful posts removed and overly sensitive snowflakes have been indulged when they have got offended at things which they should not be offended over. A post from Familysearch Moderator is not regarded by me as a positive thing in most instances. I regard the account as an instrument for stifling of discussion and censorship. Poor treatment is hardly confined to those inside Familysearch.

Why have many employees found themselves handled roughly? Partially it's the nature of the beast when it comes to the internet which is unfortunate. However in a great many cases it's because of evasive answers, patent nonsense being put forth or inconsistent statements. In others it's because of incredibly poor decisions of someone else in Familysearch whether recently or years before. You will notice for example that the limited resources available to Familysearch are acknowledged by contributors to this forum. New users are informed of this fact and told that grandiose proposed schemes are unlikely to be implemented. However conversely where "limited resources" is perceived as being used as an excuse or even worse where it is clear that "limited resources" are actually being squandered then the reaction will rightly not be charitable.

Then about the claim "none of the employees participate in this forum as part of their job", well then what is the point of anything "official" appearing here at all then? After all if none of the employees participate in this forum as part of their job how are we to regard the Familysearch Moderator account? If this account is not being operated by anyone as part of their job then can it be said to represent rogue individuals abusing their power? That is the implication of the sentence I quoted. That implication is patently absurd, which then implies the sentence which produced the absurd implication is also absurd. Both cannot be true in any sensible worldview.

Aa with many things in Familysearch there seems to be confusion and inconsistency over the purpose and mission of these forums.