9 replies to this topic

[Vyger]

Duplicate Search Merge has come up in discussion a few times recently and a simple enhancement came to mind today which I would think could be simply applied.

 

Quite often like many researchers I import gedcom information either from a new data set or something received from another researcher. I know all the various methods that have been employed to maintain a tag on these newly imported items but they are not easily recognizable in DSM results.

 

Any new collection could easily be color coded with something distinct (hopefully other highlighting will become available) but it would be very useful and informative if any such highlighting was visible in the Duplicate Search Merge results. This would effectively help highlight the newly imported individual and any possible duplicate person in Rootsmagic and further help the decision making process during merge operations.

 

I do hope such highlighting is considered in any future DSM enhancements.

[Renee Zamora]

I just need some clarification. Are just wanting color-coding to be visable in the Duplicate Search Merge or did you want to highlight facts too?

[Vyger]

Just forget about that request Renee, I felt showing existing colour coding in the results list might have been beneficial but probably only for my own method of working.

[TomH]

Why did you drop it so readily, vyger? I see it as a potentially valuable tool to aid in setting the Primary person. However, its implementation is a little tricky in the current screen design because of the background colours used to highlight the selected pair and to signify fact matches and mismatches, specifically names. A simple solution might be to place the color-coded names of the selected pair, each in a white box adjacent to its respective Edit Person button in the space above the fact comparisons. The fact comparisons would continue to start with the names, backgrounded by the color signifying the quality of the match.

[Vyger]

Why did you drop it so readily, vyger?

 
It's not dropped, once stated it can't be taken back, I just got an effort v results type mismatch warning   
 
I think most wishes have been well stated and recognized, the other thing I wished for here was that the result list which presently shows "merged" could display something like "merged and edited". The present functionality forces me to process about 10 at a time and go back over the "merged" list and clean up those merged individuals through edit. I believe the functionality should open Edit Individual for every merged person as edits are invariably needed.
 
Really these various programming wishes for DSM are to try and prevent unwanted duplication and improve the quality of recorded information.
 
So I am all wished out and going back to the Portuguese sun.

[Renee Zamora]

Would looking at the People View - customized to show the "Last Edited" date, work for creating a list of people you just merged? Then you could work through that list as needed. You could even print out a report of everyone edited on that date and work through it as time allows to confirmed they have been cleaned up.

 

The other option is create a group of "last edited" merged people to go through. Color-code them as you fixed them. Then remove people with that color from that group as desired. I like shortening my lists as I work through them so I know how much more work I need to do. 

[Vyger]

An SOP for prevention of unattached media would be attach media to RM as you download and store it on your computer. It's a slow process, but slow and steady wins the race.

 

That will be an SOP then, put it off until later, or make a note of it somewhere

 

My belief is that when something is deemed to be necessary or even necessary in the majority of cases it should be facilitated through good intuitive programming or a least an option provided if pleasing everyone is a deciding factor. In my humble opinion the current Duplicate Search Merge functionality tends to lean towards creating duplication and untidy files, this mainly stems from lack of top level comparison information prior to pressing the merge button (where warranted) , again just my opinion. Other users may or may not make use of DSM and even if they do they may not deem a tidy up necessary after merging two individuals, that's life.

 

I am sure if DSM ever gets a make over the Rootsmagician will consider all those aspects and make a really useful utility much more informative and useful.

 

[Renee Zamora]

What I think we need is a list of recently merged people, because once you close the DSM window you loose the list of people that you just merged. That is the only reason why I'm not seeing the "merged and edited" suggestion on that screen as a complete solution. I want to make sure that's really what you think will be helpful before I put it in the tracking system. 

[Vyger]

What I think we need is a list of recently merged people, because once you close the DSM window you loose the list of people that you just merged. 

 

I agree completely and I do hop you didn't mind my little jibe earlier.

 

The current temptation with DSM is to merge where one is satisfied that the individuals are a match, the immediate result is duplicated information generally of differing quality. I, personally, would advocate that the Edit Person screen opens for every merge event, the user can close it if they wish but there is an overwhelming case for the tidy up to take place there and then going back to "slow and steady wins the race". Without doubt some users would find this annoying, although necessary, so I thought a check box on the DSM screen to select "edit on merge" might be the best way to please everyone.

 

Presentation of more information on the DSM page before the merge operation would also help, this has been discussed before and regardless of the current ability to open the Edit Person screen for each individual in turn, unless you have a photographic memory you will just select merge anyway. The points I am raising just highlight my frustrations with an otherwise very useful utility although I must state my impression that this utility would be little used by those with small databases and more so by those on large name studies.

 

Going back to my original wish on this thread, it was for the display of any existing colour coding in the top pane of DSM and not in the bottom panes where comparison colour coding already exists. In other words if I import a cemetery collection from online or fellow researcher source and colour code all the individuals Red then when I look at the results in DSM I can easily identify one of that new import in the top pane (colour coded RED) alongside a possible match in my own database as an extra value added information indicator.

 

Have a nice weekend.

[Renee Zamora]

Confirming enhancement requests are in our tracking system.