New duplicate merge - why does full information not show up?

LegacyUser

Christine said: Working on Amelia Britton record, LHGK-335, and found possible duplicates. The new merge duplicates screen comes up, with possible duplicate Amelia Britton, 9Z6Y-YSR. The original Amelia Britton shows christening 5 Apr 1876, Moorfields, Gloucestershire, England. The possible duplicate shows christening 5 Apr 1876, Gloucestershire.

Usually (with old merge) I would click on possible duplicate, copy ID, open in another window and compare the records. I can't do that with the new. Is there a way to copy the number and open in new window?

When I manually opened another window, put in the possible duplicate ID to compare the records, I see that the christening place is Moorfields, Gloucester, England.

If that information had showed up in the possible duplicate it would have been easier to determine that they were probably a match. Is there a way to refine and make complete information show up?

However, without opening up the new tab and seeing that they were christened same date, same place, same father's name, I might have had some doubt (especially with a more common name) since the only location was a county, not a parish/town.

The second possible duplicate for Amelia Britton was Amelia Britton KJV1-NQ5, which showed same christening date, same father (Alfred), but christening place Devon. I started to say not a match (because Devon and Gloucestershire are not same place) but for some reason I thought I should type in the number of the possible duplicate in another window and look at the record. Imagine my surprise when when I opened the actual record I found not Devon but Moorfield, Gloucestershire, England! I am still scratching my head where the Devon came from.

I wonder how many other records have those errors in the display! Anyone have any ideas why this is coming up incorrectly?

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: This appears to be another problem with the new merge feature. It would seem that it is not correctly picking up the data that is actually in the person record.

Someone from FamilySearch needs to look at this

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: So it appears that the new merge is NOT bringing over the Display location, but instead is only brining over the Standard place name that is associated with the Display name. This needs to be examined very closely by FS because this will cause a number of different problems

LegacyUser

Christine said: And why would Devon be the Standardized place for St Mathews, Moorfield, Gloucester, England? Google maps says it is 114 miles.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Unfortunately it's a long story. It has to do with both the way the dual naming system works and how it has evolved over the past year or so.

If you look at the change history on Amelia Britton KJV1-NQ5, you will see that almost everything (including the entry of the Christening place) was entered back in 2012. The dual name mechanism has evolved in the last year or so. I suspect that when the standard names were added, the system just standardized it with the closest thing it could find. You might want to go in and see if you can find a better standard place (assuming that the St. Mathews location is correct).

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: As Jeff implies - strange things have happened over the years. Possibly automatically a bit at a time but possibly someone simply clicking the wrong entry. I tried to see how it might have come about automatically but failed on a swift glance.

You may know exactly where Moorfields is, in which case don't bother reading this but in case you don't, so far as I can see, it is now in the Bristol area:

"In 1887, John Bartholomew's Gazetteer of the British Isles described Moorfields like this:
"Moorfields.-- eccl[esiastical] dist[rict] [of] St George near Bristol par[ish], Gloucestershire, on E. side of Bristol, pop. 7007.

" ... Moorfields is now part of Bristol district."

See URL https://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/pl...

"Bristol St George, Gloucestershire, England, United Kingdom" is already standardised as a place-name in FamilySearch, so if it were me I'd enter that as a standardised name and "St. Matthew's, Moorfields, Bristol St George, Gloucestershire, England, United Kingdom" as the display name. Which is getting a bit long...

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Adrian,

In looking at this example, I discovered another "hole" that should be filled. See:

https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said:

Usually (with old merge) I would click on possible duplicate, copy ID, open in another window and compare the records. I can't do that with the new. Is there a way to copy the number and open in new window?

To copy the ID number in the merge screen, just click on it. It's a button now rather than text. With just the single click you should get the banner that says "ID copied" then you just paste it where ever you want. This works for any ID on the page.



But an even quicker way to open the possible duplicate in a new tab or window is to just click on the person's name to open the summary card then right click on "Person" in the lower right corner. Again this works for any person's name on the screen. They have dropped the convention of having all links blue so the names don't look like links until you hover over them and an underline appears and your cursor changes form, but the names are all links to the summary cards.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Indeed Jeff