Flag records as not a match when sex does not match

LegacyUser

Brian Allen Leete said: Sometimes records of different sexes are flagged as possible matches. But when you try to merge them, the computer does not allow the merge. This seems to be because the computer checks the sex before allowing you to go to the merge dialog. This means I can't flag the records as "not a match" even if I am sure they are not a match. The net effect of this is that the computer will continue to flag a possible match that I know is incorrect every time I look at the record. See LB2V-LWR and MC37-8WJ for an example. Clearly not a match, sex doesn't match, and birth places don't match.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Interesting

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: This clearly is an issue that FS should resolve.

Differing sexes is usually justification enough to prevent a merge but it definitely should NOT prevent the records from being marked as "Not a Match". It should also not automatically presume that the records are "Not a Match" either.

But another issue is that when records are not allowed to be merged due to being different sexes, then there needs to be a bit more information provided in the warnings:

In a couple of instances I have come across "duplicates" that were not marked with the ****, but were DEFINITELY duplicates. In many Ohio records that I've gone through, the person that was recording names into the birth registries was not the same as the person who submitted the original lists of names. Sometimes in their rush, the "M" box got checked instead of the "F" box (or vice versa).

However, since a record marked with an incorrect sex may have also had inappropriate ordinance work done, both that work and the sex needs to be corrected (appropriate reasons described) BEFORE that record is merged. This pre-merge cleanup usually requires the assistance of customer service.

LegacyUser

JT said: That 1855 census doesn't claim the child was a son. It says the child's sex is "Unknown".
But the parent's first names match, and a younger brother's name matches, and the town is the same as already claimed for the next state census 10 years later.

LegacyUser

Brian Allen Leete said: Merging different sex records is easy. Simply change the sex of the incorrect record then merge. With some of the latest changes in family search, I don't think you need to contact customer service any more. When you change the sex of an individual, the old ordinances are no longer listed in the record.

The specific issue I'm dealing with (and I agree with you and consider it a bug in the program that needs to be fixed) is when you have two different people of two different sexes.

I could force the merge by changing the sex and the other information on the second record, but then I would lose completely the second record, and possibly assign ordinances to the wrong individual. Better, I think is to simply have a button on the first merge screen that allows you to mark the two as not a match.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yea, I suppose that you could kludge it by changing the sex, THEN marking them as "Not a Match", and then changing the sex back. But the fact is that the program is just designed wrong.

I really hope that FS makes a comment here regarding contacting customer support when changing the sex on a record. When ordinances are performed, I understood that they are recorded that they are permanently recorded against the original PID that the work was done for. If the PID gets "merged away" into another PID, the original ordinances are still associated with the original (and now deleted) PID. So the potential of having incorrect ordinances on the original PID would still seem to be an issue.

In any event, your original comment still applies, as the inability to mark ALL hints (including possible duplicates) as "Not a Match" is a design flaw.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Hopefully, this is something that FamilySearch will address and resolve.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: The two records can be marked as "not a match" by clicking on Show All under Research Help and then clicking "not a match" in that window. I do agree that if you click on the Possible Duplicate there is no option to mark them as "not a match". This is a definite Bug but there is a relatively easy work around until the bug gets resolved.

LegacyUser

Brian Allen Leete said: It works!

Thanks.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: glad it resolved your issue