nFS comparing possible matches

Discussions around Genealogy technology.
scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

nFS comparing possible matches

Postby scion-p40 » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:34 pm

In nFS very little data is provided when comparing individuals who are possible matches. The less data, the less likely I am to combine.

In contrast, when I use Legacy and click on merge, the next thing I see is a box of options for search parameters. I select a much more narrow search for my Smiths than for my less common surnames.

Additional features that would be helpful in nFS:
-warning that this is a parent child relationship
-option to flag as not a match
-multiple tabs identify specific types of data; those with an asterisk have differences between the two individuals
-general: name, birth, christening, death, burial, pref spouse, pref father, pref mother, living flag
-family: spouses, children, marriage, birth, christening, death, burial
-events, research, medical, address, & pictures: n/a to nFS
-notes: shows all notes of an individual (in nFS, this could be all notes that anyone added, or just select chosen notes)
-LDS: ordinances performed
Viewing this data side-by-side, one can make more educated analysis than is presently possible in nFS.

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Combining Info

Postby garysturn » Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:49 am

I agree that it would be helpful to have more info displayed when doing combining. Things I would like to see: (Some the same as scion)

- I would like to see the dispute symbol in the combining screens, so if someone has added a dispute you could read it before combining.
- I would like to see the parents birth and death dates, a lot of the combining errors are father-son combining errors where there are multiple generations of people with the same names.
- I would like to have the ability to add a note tag similar to the dispute tag that would follow that persons name and where we could leave a short note about that person or combining warnings.
- I would like there to be a option that says "This is not a Match". Once someone selects that option, any time in the future that match is presented to anyone, it would issue a warning like: "Someone else has determined that this is not a match, please use caution in combining." It could even list the name of the person who determined it was not a match so people could correlate if someone else thinks it is a match.
- I would like the ability to mark records as records which contain gross errors in some of the data. Records marked with these types of errors should generate a warning when presented for combining. Example: some records contain multiple sets of parents, some have real bad dates that show they died before they were born or were married after they died, they might have the person hundreds of years old, etc. Disputes might work for this if those disputes showed up everywhere but they don't show up in the combine screens.

We do have the ability to click on some of the records while combining and get some more data but many people do not realize that they can click on people and see more info while combining.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

BradJackman-p40
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Uncombining

Postby BradJackman-p40 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:36 am

Besides the "Not a Match" option, I would also like to see the ability to uncombine individuals become easier. It is an incredible hassle trying to find and remove one individual in a list of 150. The uncombining page is even less useful than the combining page. It displays very little useful information. I would also like to see on the uncombining page which record has temple ordinance dates, and what those dates are. Additionally, I would like to see on the uncombining page an option similar to the "Possible duplicates" feature, a "possibly different individuals" feature which groups the combined records into sets of similar data.

For a taste of how impossible the uncombining task is, take a look at Heber C Kimball (KWNP-GNM)- this "individual" is made up of the following unique individuals (Many instances of each) -

Heber C Kimball
Herbert Kimball
Thaddeus Constantine Hix
Tyrus Walker Hurd

I can't even get into the "Combined Records" view, it sends me back an error saying "FamilySearch could not process your request" after 10 minutes of trying to load. 10 minutes after clicking on the details view, nothing seems to have happened. Not only is this individual improperly merged, but it's nearly impossible to uncombine. Lots of problems, indeed.

BradJackman-p40
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Needs sources.

Postby BradJackman-p40 » Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:59 am

Also, I'd like to see an option to identify that a person is a possible match, but cannot be confirmed. This would in essence tag the individual with a note that says "Possible match - sources needed". It wouldn't prevent someone from merging it in, but would make someone think twice.

In lots of lines there are possible matches that cannot be confirmed, but should not be discounted. If a user confirms that it's a possible match, but cannot confirm that it is a match, there should be some sort of notation, or a different area to place the individuals "under investigation".

Come to think of it, there should be a way for a user to tag something as "needs sources" like in Wikipedia. Then the nuts and bolts family historians can go in and clarify problems and issues on their line that were identified by someone else. A list of research issues pertaining to your direct line would accompany this.

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Uncombining

Postby garysturn » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:23 pm

The uncombining problem and the problems with folders with to many records are the two problems that I hear discussed the most and there has been a lot of feedback submitted on them. I am sure they are both high priorities.

We have been getting updates about every 3 months, we had one in Nov 2007 then Feb 2008 and another in May 2008. The next update should be in Aug 2008. Maybe we will get some help on uncombining in that update.
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

kennard
New Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:44 pm

PersonId in advanced possible matches

Postby kennard » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:31 am

It would also be nice if when the "advanced possible duplicates search" is selected, the option to "Search by Number" were given, just as it is given in the regular search. I have seen cases where I contribute a gedcom, and (by looking at the list of people in my contributed gedcom), I can see the PersonId of a person I want to combine with another person, but the search for possible duplicates can't seem to find the person I want. It would be really nice if I could just use a search by number feature in the possible duplicates to tell it that the person I am looking for has PersonId nnnn-nnn or whatever, so I can actually do the combine.
As of now, I can find no way to combine an individual that for some reason or another isn't meeting the computed threshold for a possible duplicate, even if I know what the id number of that person is.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20779
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:05 am

GarysTurn wrote:a lot of the combining errors are father-son combining errors where there are multiple generations of people with the same names.


I'd like to see such combinations blocked. I can't see any logic in allowing someone to combine a father's record with a linked son's record. That creates an impossible relationship. If someone wants to combine a record with one that's already messed up, they have to clean it up before they combine any more to it.

scion-p40
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:56 pm

Postby scion-p40 » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:12 am

Unfortunately, the current system encourages this problem by displaying so little detail during the combining process.

User avatar
garysturn
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Draper, Utah, USA
Contact:

Better warnings when combining

Postby garysturn » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:18 am

Maybe a program routine that checks large folders for gross errors could issue a warning when attempting any type of combining into of from a folder which appears to contain gross errors. PAF generates a report of possible errors. Maybe a program routine that looks for that types of errors in folders that posts a warning to check all details because the folder appears to contain combining errors. The routine could check for things like:
-Death Dates before Birth Dates
-Marriage Dates before Birth Dates
-Relationships between records in the same folder (Father Son)
-Birth Dates and Death Dates making the person greater than 100 years old
-Children born when the mother is over 60 years old
-Multiple parents
-Children born after the death of a parent
-Marriages to a spouse who died as a child
Gary Turner
If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our new
Code of Conduct

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20779
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:18 am

GarysTurn wrote:Maybe a program routine that checks large folders for gross errors could issue a warning when attempting any type of combining into of from a folder which appears to contain gross errors. PAF generates a report of possible errors.


That was a issue I pointed out in the beta - there was no "sanity checks". I had accidentally made a boy who had died at the age of 3 in 1700's the father of someone who was born in the 1800. A big oops on my part (I was working from notes and grabbed the wrong person of the same name), but I was surprised there wasn't anything that warned me either during the operation or after the fact. A "check for errors" function is needed.


Return to “Family History”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest