rmrichesjr wrote:Between the training materials and a little experimentation, I found that if I entered a piece of information, what I had entered was given priority when I viewed the record. I don't know whether adding a note or source would accomplish the same thing. If some piece of information is simply wrong, the thing to do is to dispute it.
That option was changed in the Feb 2008 release of nFS. Now there is a new Summary Tab. In the Summary Tab you can select the version of each name, date, or place to be displayed as the default record. If no record is selected in the Summary view the default is determined by a sort of the data, not by any order in which you do the combining.
If someone else has selected a default record that you do not agree with you can either change it or correlate with the other person. If you change it, the default is changed for everyone that looks at that folder, so if someone else has selected a different date or version of a name it might be best to correlate with them. It shows the Name and contact information of the person who selected the default record in the Summary view. If no name and contact info is shown then the displayed info is there by the sort of the data.
The default sort is not just an alphabetic sort, it places priority on LDS Membership records, but if there is none then it is usually just the first in an alphabetic sort, which is often just a first name. Before we had this summary selection option the sort gave priority to the logged in individuals personal submission then the LDS Membership then an alphabetical sort. This required almost everyone to add a record to each folder to get the correct data to display and created duplication of records. This new method is a much better option than any type of ranking system of the data because the decision is made by the users (not the software) and they can correlate if there are disagreements. There was a lot of discussion here in the forums about a solution to the default record prior to Feb 2008 with all kinds of proposed ranking systems. I will have to agree that the developers choose the best option.