ghost parents on SP for Samuel Henderson McClure L6PK-92S
I posted on here about Samuel Henderson McClure L6PK-92S having a sealing to parents with no parents listed over two weeks ago. I have not heard anything and the problem is still not resolved. How do I know when it has been looked at?
His parents on the SP are most likely John McClure and Rhesa Carter, the current parents listed. John McClure's record was a merge of several John McClures, so when I separated them and put each one in the correct family, the SP for Samuel McClure showed no parents. The SP ordinance needs to be moved the parents now shown, John McClure KG1Y-RTH and Rhesa Carter K2F1-ZKB.
I have looked at this situation and I believe the following incorrect merge has ben done. John McClure KZR1-NZ2 has been merged into a different John McClure 1814 – 1874 • LHBR-L53. This John McClure has a different spouse. I believe what needs to be is search for KZR1-NZ2 using Find by ID number and then restore that record. If you then merge KZR1-NZ2 into John McClure KG1Y-RTH, I believe it will resolve the ghost parents situation currently found on the record of Samuel Henderson McClure L6PK-92S. I am not familiar with these individuals or their records so you should carefully review after restoring to make sure the merge is appropriate. Below are two articles from the help center that may be useful in the suggested changes.
go luck in resolving this issue.0
Sorry for my mistake, I overlooked that merge. I'm impressed with your work. This must have been a major headache to untangle.
@gasmodels ., Stephanie would not want to remerge KZR1-NZ2 into the current father because that was what created the entire problem. The merge of LHBR-L53 and KZR1-NZ2 was done by her in 2021 as part of sorting out who all these different John McClures were.
Just to make it clear for myself what happened in regards to the sealing for Samuel I put the pertinent events in graphic form. There were other things going on with other couples and children not included in this.
I see what you mean now that Samuel was sealed to his correct father and mother, but his father was a combination of two men and when those two men were separated, the sealing went with the wrong one. I'm not surprised it's taking Support some time with this one.2
Welcome to the FamilySearch community, and thank you for your question regarding ghost parents on SP for Samuel Henderson McClure L6PK-92S.
We will be private messaging you to request additional information.0
Looking through the change log for Samuel McClure, his record was created by a user on 24 April 2014. It has no merges so that sealing for him done on 12 April 2016 was using this one and only record.
On 21 May 2014, the same user added parents to him, John McClure, KZR1-NZ2 and Rhesa Carter K2F1-ZKB.
This John McClure already existed in Family Tree as part of its original creation in April 2012. His wife in that original import was Sarah Gregory KDM2-N41. On June 9 2016 he had Rhesa Carter K2F1-ZKB added as a wife and on 29 October 2017 had Elenor Walls 27SG-M81 also added as a wife. A bunch of children were added over the next few years and and bunch of merges done. It looks like a bunch of these were wrong. I'm glad you were able to sort out this mess and get everyone separated into the correct families.
Based on timing of the sealing, it appears that the father involved was the John McClure married to Sarah Gregory, not the John McClure married to Rhesa Carter.
As are as I am aware, this is a situation where the blue box just has to sit there because it did involve the wrong parents.0
"Based on timing of the sealing, it appears that the father involved was the John McClure married to Sarah Gregory, not the John McClure married to Rhesa Carter."
Yes, but since the John McClures were combined into the same person, and the mother was Rhesa Carter, the SP should be valid for the current John McClure and Rhesa Carter. The IDs are not important to the ordinance. The names are. The SP should be moved to the correct John McClure and Rhesa Carter.
I'm just wondering how long it will take support to do this. It used to only take a few days, but it has been two and a half weeks.1
It is 'Brett' ...
'Long time no speak' ...
It looks like, that post of yours, of a couple of Weeks ago, may have been TAKEN into the INNER Workings of 'FamilySearch' "Support", by one of the (now) "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ]; as, your 'Profile', indicates that you have raised Three (x3) "Discussions" (ie. 'Posts'); but, ONLY, Two (x2) of those ARE recorded, against you.
And, you may or may not, have been sent a "Private" 'Message' in regard to, that post of yours, of a couple of Weeks ago; but, possibly not; as, things were in a veritable 'state of flux' back then; well, to be honest, they still are.
There may be a BACKLOG of Work, in the INNER Workings of 'FamilySearch' "Support", your post may just be caught-up, in that BACKLOG.
It is still, rather, EARLY DAYS, since the INCLUSION, of 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel), into this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; since, the 'Demise', of the 'FamilySearch' "Support" Case (Management) System.
It is a 'steep learning curve for all concerned' ...
It is very much STILL a 'Work in Progress' ...
There are, MANY; Many; many, problems/issues to sort/work, through; and, out ...
Just some perspective.
It is good to hear from all of you again, Gordon, Brett, and gasmodels.
I have not worked on major untangling of merge messes since working on this John McClure last year. I had a really bad experience with a support missionary in this instance who actually told me I "shouldn't touch someone's record on Family Tree if I am not related to them." That's kind of hard to do when you are related to one John McClure and not the rest he has been merged with. Possibly, that is one reason they did away with the old FamiySearch support system.
Now that the temples are open, I am working on completing unfinished ordinances for the McClures in my family, and I noticed that Samuel Henderson McClure never had his SP moved when I requested it last year. Getting support help through the Community is so new, I didn't know what to expect. I wasn't expecting it to take this long. It makes me think that my case is lost in the system or has been closed without notifying me.
How did gasmodels' answer get to be the accepted answer and how do I change that? Gordon's diagram explains the situation very well. I am worried that support has interpreted the situation as gasmodels did, and closed the case. It is very confusing case, so it could very easily happen.
I have no way of knowing if the case is closed or just in process. Maybe that is a feature they need to add to this community.0
If you did not mark gasmodel's answer as accepted, then the only other people that can are moderators. Looking at a question I posted as a test to see how this marking as accepted works, I see that once we have marked one of our own questions as accepted or once a moderated has marked it, there is no option to revoke that accepted answer flag. I think I will post that as a flaw in the system.
As far as timing for getting things done in this current system, I'll just mention one example. On June 20, I posted a request to get BIC added to a record. Within twelve hours it was escalated and at that time posts were disappearing here when that happened. On July 6, about two weeks, later I got a direct message notifying me that the case had been escalated with an apology for the delay in letting me know. On July 27, I was informed, again via direct messaging, that the BIC notation had been added. And this was on a simple change.
Looking through the Q&A temple category, it does appear that there are a lot of ordinance page issues that are fixed far quicker than that now which I hope is an indication that procedures are getting worked out and are more efficient and that you will hear from support sooner rather than later.1
'Yes', unfortunately, some of the 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) at the "Lower"/"Lowest" 'Level' of "Support", have little (if any) "Experience".
We have all had to 'Contend' with that.
I have had to previously spend, some time, 'pleading' with the "Lower"/"Lowest" 'Level' of "Support", that took on the case, to forward the case up the line to their "Supervisor"/"Line Manager", for a resolve of the case. And, when they did, the case was CORRECTLY "Actioned", very quickly; as, opposed to being INCORRECTLY actioned with NO action at all.
Your previous post, of a few Weeks ago, would have been posted, when things were very new, in regard to the INCLUSION of 'FamilySearch" "Support", into the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
Perhaps, your previous post, of a few Weeks ago, has just got a little 'lost' in the transition.
Just a thought.
'Yes', the INCLUSION of 'FamilySearch" "Support", into the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, is VERY new, only a number of Weeks ago.
The Company, who 'Developed'; and, 'Owns', the Software, Platform, of the particular Case (Management) System, that 'FamilySearch' WAS using, may have, 'pulled the pin'; or, made a "Change" in policy, that forced 'FamilySearch' OUT.
Unfortunately, it appears, that the 'demise', of the Software, Platform, for the Case (Management) System, that 'FamilySearch' was using, must have been rather SUDDEN - without, a recourse.
Hence, WHY, the 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel), 'ALL of a SUDDEN', appeared (ie. FORCED, included) into this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
And, also, WHY, everything, in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, is NOW, in an even GREATER, 'state of flux'.
This "Community.FamilySearch" Forum was NOT 'Designed' for the INCLUSION of 'FamilySearch" "Support".
The "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, was ORIGINALLY established; as, a place for ...
User/Patrons, HELPING / ASSISTING, Users/Patrons ...
And, it appears, that the "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ], have an official guideline/policy/mandate that:
(1) ALL 'Questions' MUST have an 'Answer' (which is not unreasonable; and, quite acceptable); and,
(2) ALL 'Questions' MUST have an "Accepted Answer" (or, "Best Answer", as it now appears).
'Yes', all 'Questions' should have an answer, if one is available.
That Said ...
Many of us, OBJECT; and, have objected, to "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ], 'Answering'/'Commenting' on a 'Question'; and, then, immediately, marking their (often, One and Only) 'Answer'/'Comment'; as, a (often, the) "Accepted Answer" (or, "Best Answer", as it now appears). Sometimes, even "Closing" the 'Question', when such should NOT be done - as, the 'Question' was far from 'Answered' or addressed.
The ability to mark an 'Answer'/'Comment'; as, the "Accepted Answer" (or, "Best Answer", as it now appears), should ONLY be the ability (and, purview) of the ORIGINAL poster of the 'Question' - ONLY they should have such ability.
I have noticed, that the other thing that "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ] are doing is to (to put it nicely) encouraging/enticing the ORIGINAL poster to mark an 'Answer'/'Comment'; as, an "Accepted Answer" (or, "Best Answer", as it now appears).
'Yes', a lot needs to be 'worked out'/'sorted out', with regard to regard to the INCLUSION of 'FamilySearch" "Support", into the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
Especially, as the WHOLE purpose/premise of the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum has NOW "Changed", with the INCLUSION of 'FamilySearch" "Support".
Just some thoughts.
It has been a month since my original post about Samuel Henderson McClure and his ghost parents. No response from support yet.
So I go through my emails to the email I got when I posted the first time, and I click on the link. It took me to another person's question, "What has happened to some of the old English C and M batches for England that were in the old IGI?" and my question is listed as an answer to this question.
What do I have to do to get my problem solved? Should I start over with a new thread? I'm not getting any response from support on either of the two threads I have already started with the same question.1
I 'see' that you tired a THIRD time; and, this time you, have been successful.
ps: Persistence always pays dividends ...0
Actually, I was unsuccessful because they deleted my post and offered to help me unmerge the record.
This support system really doesn't work.0
I think the issue is complicated by the fact that you believe the John McClure record that contains the sealing is not the John McClure that is the father of Samuel Henderson McClure L6PK-92S. You have unmerged and then merged that record into another John McClure. If that is true then in reality the sealing is to the wrong person and many would argue that another sealing needs to be done to the correct father. I don't have a position one way or the other as to what is correct but it appears that support is taking that position.
I would suggest you phone call support, (that is still available) and carefully explain the situation. It will need to be send to another group that deals with ordinance issue and they should be able to provide you with the correct policy answer. I can understand as I was confused when I first looked at the issue and did not see the complication. Since the sealing only occurred in 2016 is is difficult to argue that there was confusion in the older records.0
Thank you, gasmodels. When I get some time I will call on the phone. I just hope I can get someone on the phone who understands the question and knows what to do.
If Samuel Henderson McClure was sealed to John McClure, it doesn't matter which ID number the John McClure had. Support can move the SP to John McClure with a different ID. He wasn't sealed to someone else. The ID numbers are technicalities. They do not affect the validity of the ordinance.0
The opposing position is that the John McClure he was sealed to is not the correct one. The ID's represent people and we do not seal to names but to individuals -- if the record is the wrong person then the sealing has not been completed properly. I am not trying to be obstinate just trying to present the opposite position and I personally do not know which is correct.0
The trouble is that in this situation he was sealed to TWO men, his actual father and some stranger, which had been incorrectly merged together, and to his correct mother who was married to only one of the two men.
So, what takes priority?
The sealing of the child to his correct mother and correct father as represented by the correct archived/deleted ID number that did not show at the time of the sealing but was restored after the incorrect merge was reversed?
Or the sealing of the child to his correct mother and incorrect father as represented by the surviving ID number present at the time of the sealing which followed the incorrect father when the merge was reversed?1
Gordon Collett understands this situation completely. Could it be that you have encountered the same problem before, Gordon? I know I have, in this case with all of the other dozens of children that were listed with this John McClure merge of at least 4 different men at the same time. Samuel was sealed to 4 different John McClure's, all with the same ID at the time.
Just as with name pronunciations in the temple, they always say "The Lord knows" who we are trying to seal as families. The recording process has so many errors in it because of the glitches in the FamilySearch website, that a large percentage of the temple work we do gets recorded incorrectly because of user errors in Family Tree. This shouldn't hinder the work.
With John McClure's other dozens of children, the recording was corrected, some by me and others by FamilySearch Data Administration. They just missed this one. I sent Samuel in as a case, and he was missed somehow. His case was no different than all of the others. Using this community forum to get help with something this complicated just isn't working very well.0