Longstanding Ordinance Merge Potential Deletion
I think it's a well-known-to-veterans problem that you have to make sure when you merge that you don't delete the copy with ordinances done. The problem is that I think a lot of people don't know this. I can't imagine how many people's ordinances have been done and re-done unnecessarily over the years that this problem has been present.
So my question is: given how long this problem has existed (at least 15 years) is there a known reason the program continues this pattern? I think I could leave it alone if I knew there was already a reason. Otherwise I'm considering contacting every relevant department and individual. It would save me a lot of time to know that there's a good reason.
Thanks in advance.
コメント
-
One piece of the puzzle - a large percentage of users of the FamilySearch Family Tree are not members of the LDS Church. Ordinance details are not visible to non-members.
1 -
The system could preserve ordinance info without showing it to all users, or at least a record that the ordinances were considered done for one version.
0 -
It's my understanding the information is preserved in the system - just not visible to the average user, whether LDS or not.
2 -
That's actually very good to know. I do hope it will be addressed though because the end users will end up re-doing temple work unnecessarily. I know it's not your job to fix this, but thank you for answering.
0 -
@SarahNemelkaMansfield, Aine is correct. Deleted persons are actually archived, along with any information that is not carried over to the main person. This is to insure that the information can be restored in case of a bad merge. Here is a knowledge article that might help:
How does merging duplicates in family tree affect ordinances?
Knowledge articles can be accessed by clicking on the question mark on the upper right side. A drop box will appear. Enter your query into the search bar.
1 -
Thanks for confirming @Rhonda Budvarson. I was working from memory - a staff member had stated that was the case in a recent thread, but I'm not LDS.
1 -
@SarahNemelkaMansfield,
The truth is more complicated than your question implies. Here are some points to consider:
- In many cases, a merge will only be allowed in one direction. One factor (but certainly not the only one) that contributes to a required merge direction is the presence of ordinance information. So for many situations, the merge order you are concerned about may not even be possible.
- Even when a merge order is not required, and the person designated to be the survivor in the merge has no ordinances but the person designated to be deleted does, the result of the merge will generally preserve the ordinances with the resulting merged person. There are aspects of a person profile that are automatically combined or otherwise preserved in the merge process, even if they are not presented in the merge interface; a person's tagged memories is one example, and ordinances are another.
- Note in particular that when the merge is done such that the deleted person had the ordinances, there may be a brief time when the merge survivor appears not to have ordinances. The article I link to below says that the completed ordinances may not show up for 24 hours, but in my experience it happens in a minute or two. But it is not immediate, so it's easy to draw the incorrect conclusion that the ordinances have been lost, when in reality, you just have to be patient and wait for the ordinances to be updated behind the scenes.
- It is also definitely true that records of ordinances are never lost, even if they may not appear to be connected to a merged person. They are stored in a separate system and can be recovered and linked by support staff.
- I'm not saying that the merge process is perfect in regards to ordinances, but many more situations are handled properly than it appears you are assuming.
See this help center article: How does merging duplicates in Family Tree affect ordinances?
1 -
Thank you everyone for your input. A ticket has been created to look at the merge/ordinance issue :)
1
