Possible duplicates tab
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: People should always check for duplicates, not just with the feature, but also with the Find function.
As far as that goes, there is a whole list of details that should be checked to complete every person’s record, checking for duplicates is just another item to check.0 -
Gordon Collett said: Eugene, welcome to the getsatisfaction public discussion boards. Your feedback comments go to FamilySearch engineers and designers but also go to this board for all other users to discuss and comment on.
Your suggestion really is a great idea, one that others have posted on and off over the past couple of years.
Unfortunately, we have been told by FamilySearch personnel in the past that checking for duplicates is so calculation intensive that running that routine every time a person's detail page is loaded would lead to significant degradation of system performance for everyone, if it didn't just downright crash the system. Keep in mind that every time you make a single change to data on a person and save it, the routine would have to run again to see it that change revealed any new duplicates.
So this falls in the category of a great idea whose day may come when FamilySearch servers have the computing power to provide it or a programmer comes up with a way to make checking for duplicates much more efficient that it is now.0 -
Eugene Victor Sheely said: Computational power is always an issue, but there is no need for this to degrade the system. This could be calculated on parallel processors, and would have no need to be completed before the page finishes loading. When completed the portion of the page that applies could be updated.0
-
Tom Huber said: Computational power includes the database, which currently contains over one Billion persons. No number of parallel processors can over come the need to check against that kind of database, in my opinion.0
-
Would it be possible to add an additional filter in the temple lists (reserved or shared) to filter, or otherwise identify those records that have a possible duplicate flag? Since this condition halts further ordinances, this would enable patrons to look specifically at those records rather than needing to look at every record to insure those ordinances are able to progress freely.
0 -
This could easily be solved by only doing one massive check for duplicates once per month and not having it do a live update. At times people would see the tab that says duplicate, enter the profile, and ultimately not find one, but that's a small price to pay to have this enormously important feature. Every time duplicates are merged, it is almost the equivalent of doing an ordinance. Because so many duplicate ordinances still occur every day due to not having these people merged.
0