Change is not improvement - merge

LegacyUser

Robert Pugmire said: Change is not necessarily improvement. I do not understand the new merge. The old one worked fine and the new one is confusing and I'm not sure I am getting all the data.

Also I do not like when I add a source that when I use one of the names to return that it eliminates the source that I was working on.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The change has been made to bring the data flow direction in line with the source linker, as well as other improvements.

If you could explain more what happens when you use of of the the names to return and the source you were working on is eliminated.

A step-by-step process will help the engineers chase down the problem and fix it.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Is this case, change is an improvement.

The old merge process had several problems:

1) Not enough information could be seen in the records to conclude if the merge was correct from the merge screen.
2) There was nothing to point out clearly incorrect merges
3) Family relationships were easily accidentally lost if not correctly brought over in the merge.
4) Many people ignored the reason statement

With the new procedure:
1) Reason statements on each piece of data can be viewed.
2) Warning are prominently displayed that dates that do not agree.
3) All family relationships are automatically included in the merge.
4) Being forced to enter a reason statement could make people give one last thought to what they are doing.

If you find the new process confusing, good! Take the time to slow down, carefully consider the procedure, make sure you are getting all the data by closely examining the pending result of the merge on page three, take the time to explain what you are doing in the reason statement, and you will likely never make an incorrect merge again.

LegacyUser

Paul said: In general, no one supports the saying, "If it ain't broke don't fix it", more than me. But, in spite of still having slight reservations about the new merge procedure I have to accept its introduction was highly necessary. It used to be just too easy for users to rush in and complete a merge, with no justification other than the two individuals having the same name.

On one occasion, I found someone had merged many individuals named James Young, who had family members with totally different names and had never even lived in the same part of the country.

I'm happy that - apart from for the completely reckless - the new method presents an opportunity for most users to improve the quality / accuracy of their merges.