Why are you merging these two people
I was just writing a post about how much I love that this question is being asked first thing now. And at a point where both people are still visible so that it’s easy to copy information from both into the explanation. And that all of the canned responses are removed so that people actually have to answer the question.
But I just went back to the merge to check the exact wording of the message there and now it seems to be gone.
Is this question not being asked anymore? I’m on my tiny phone so maybe it’s not displaying where I can see it. Or maybe it’s after you hit ‘Merge’ now? I didn’t actually hit ‘Merge’ to find out since I just picked two random people just to see the first merge screen.
Comentarios
-
The message and the box for answering appear after you hit merge. It opens in a side panel so you can still see all the information on both people:
There is a default reason of something like "FamilySearch identified no inconsistencies," if there are none. I'm been wondering ever since first seeing it, if that message really should be there. Just because the routine says there doesn't seem to be a problem doesn't mean the merge is correct and blaming bad merges on FamilySearch "because the routine told me it was fine" doesn't really sit well with me.
2 -
I like the message “I am merging because “. I want people to actually enter an answer. Like a long-form response. Not just “same person “. Maybe this will prompt them to do so.
1 -
Just about to make a merge and it gives this rather similar message: "These 2 people have no significant inconsistencies. However, you should find proof that they represent the same person before merging them. " Although the principle is right, I'm not entirely sure what other information one might find in this specific case: same name, same date, same wife's name, same wife's birthyear… In this specific case his death according to the civil register is the same as her residence in the 1939 Register (she is a widow with the same surname), and their marriage is in FreeBMD for 1892. But just when do we say it's enough, and does this generic message really help to make that decision any more secure?
1 -
@FrankLittle In this situation you have done all you need to do. You have checked the information on both people, you have, I assume, checked the sources for them. Doesn't look like there is anything to do other than complete the merge.
Personally I like that the message is always there as a reminder to users that just because the routine is not seeing any problems, merging two people just because the computer says you can is never a good reason.
The message is more useful if doing a merge such as when the names are the same and one record has only parents and birth information and the other record has only spouse and marriage information. The routine will still say there are no inconsistencies. But that is only because the records overlap only with the name and the user really needs to be reminded that no inconsistencies with no overlap of data is very different than no inconsistencies with massive overlap of data.
2 -
@FrankLittle and @Gordon Collett
I think this is a great example. I get what you’re saying Frank. If they look identical, why do I need a big explanation.? I think a lot of times, it’s just that simple. Someone has imported an exact match. Easy peasy.
Then there’s what Gordon is talking about, where maybe the parent relationship was created by FamilySearch from a baptism record and the spouse relationship was created by a marriage record. I always give those details. Which records and people were attached to which profile.
But where my mind goes in this example is to exactly what we’ve been talking about. What are the history of these profiles? They may look identical now, but what information has been changed? Is this a situation where there are two men with similar names and dates and someone has added a wife to the wrong one and now they look like the same person?
How can we do a deeper dive instead of just looking at surface information during a merge?
What kind of short note can we allow people to enter that would actually be displayed during a merge?
Sorry to keep bringing it up. I know there is no easy answer Gordon. But it’s something I’ve been pondering for a lot of years. I spend so much time cleaning up the same messes over & over again instead of actually building the tree.And sorry to drag you into it Frank. Haha.
1 -
I certainly agree that it would be helpful to have a little simpler way of finding the history (other than trawling through the change history). I make a note of the FamilySearch ID in my own (offline) database, and following up a prompt earlier today just realized that the person now in this specific tree cannot be the person I have in the offline database. Digging deeper I find that someone has been "imported" into the FamilySearch family tree (probably because the family member of the same name and similar year of birth were not present). It's taken some wrangling to find the right data for this person and then remove the one added in error. But it's worth it in the end if it improves the accuracy of the tree. So, yes, on balance, I guess that Gordon is right: it is helpful to have the reminder that an extra check is worthwhile.
1