Jump to content


Photo

Duplicates


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 dillydream

dillydream

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 02:47 PM

ohmy.gif [color=#3366FF]
I`ve done quite well by merging my duplicate names in the individual list ,but in one of my families now when looking at the family view,nearly all of the children have been duplicated.
How do I delete these please.
Thanks,
#Dillydream laugh.gif

#2 mapleleaf

mapleleaf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 555 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 02:51 PM

If you hit the "delete" key, you can delete a person.
Or: Edit > Delete > Delete Person
Or: Right click, Delete > Delete Person

~ Debbie

#3 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 03:40 PM

If you delete that person, you MAY be deleting both listings.

You have to merge the children too.

Then, if you end up with duplicate families, (the same children listed in multiple families of one or both of the parents) you can show the families, choose one you want to get rid of, Right click on a parent and and choose Delete => Family. Leave the default setting, Something like "unlink people as a family but leave the people in the database."

Alfred

#4 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 03:57 PM

If the record numbers of the duplicate children are different, I would manually merge the duplicate children rather than delete one.

If the record numbers are the same, a child is linked to the parents more than once. I unlink one of the duplicate children from the family.

Laura

OOPS Alfred posted while I was typing.

#5 Doug Couch

Doug Couch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 09:17 PM

Yes, as most have said. merge not delete. When you delete duplicate people, you may have some data in one and not in another...and deleting loses one set of data. Merging, keeps all data for the person; however ends up with certain multiple facts...which you can then decide between.

The important thing is figuring out why you are getting the duplicates. Duplicates often occur when using drag-drop between databases. The selections allowable tend to overlap for some things. Furthermore, RM's drag-drop is not that intelligent of a function as yet.

Example: When you are adding a spouse, etc., RM will ask if you want to use an existing name, even though the name OBVIOUSLY could not be the correct person...unintelligent move. The reverse of this type of move is when drag-dropping people who are exact or very close matches, it does not provide a walk-through comparison list to allow you to merge.

This should be developed. When such a list is presented (such as was available even in dinosaur Family Tree Maker 4, although not with drag-drop), it should also give side-by-side selectable facts to choose between (or concatenate as an additional option...i.e.: this, that or both). It is unfortunate that such a useful function as drag-drop can save tons of time, and yet create new problems requiring more time. Time to pause on developing new functions and finish up on some like this, that have never really been completed.

#6 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 01:19 AM

Hi Doug,
QUOTE(Doug Couch @ Nov 22 2008, 10:17 PM) View Post
Example: When you are adding a spouse, etc., RM will ask if you want to use an existing name, even though the name OBVIOUSLY could not be the correct person...unintelligent move.
I would say you are mistaken regarding this claim ( otherwise, why would it be there? ).
BECAUSE, there are a number of ways that an existing name COULD be the CORRECT person...
You have already entered this spouse:

1. as a child of an existing family in the database -or- a wholly separate (lone) individual
2. as the only known parent of a child(ren)
3. with their spouse (as a couple that would undesireably be repeated)
4. perhaps others I'm overlooking ( likely wink.gif )

...and are NOT recalling that fact.

QUOTE(Doug Couch @ Nov 22 2008, 10:17 PM) View Post
The reverse of this type of move is when drag-dropping people who are exact or very close matches, it does not provide a walk-through comparison list to allow you to merge.
Exact matches from the source DB -ARE- merged, IF you drag the "selected" person & drop them onto their exact counterpart in the destination DB.
[ALL "exact" matching (descendants/ancestors) of that "selected" person... that exist in both databases WILL be merged-> AUTOMATICALLY].
I wonder if such a walk-thru comparison is not implemented because there needs to be two databases opened, a bridging operation taking place -and- depending on how many individuals to be matched... much time, a way to suspend, marking the unfinished persons in the original source database, some way to resume later (by ensuring that both of the same databases are open next time), ETC. (lotta housekeeping) ???

QUOTE(Doug Couch @ Nov 22 2008, 10:17 PM) View Post
This should be developed. When such a list is presented (such as was available even in dinosaur Family Tree Maker 4, although not with drag-drop), it should also give side-by-side selectable facts to choose between (or concatenate as an additional option...i.e.: this, that or both). It is unfortunate that such a useful function as drag-drop can save tons of time, and yet create new problems requiring more time.
What you refer to here is just a "walk-through comparison" DURING import of a GEDCOM. In effect, (theoretically) if one's database is already free of duplicates, RM's import routine for GEDCOM is faster than (most/all) -and- immediately proceeding afterward-> to the menu option for Duplicate Search is basically -equivalent- except that it can be done, at your leisure, instead of all at once (or requiring two databases open, housekeeping, ETC.)... Right?

QUOTE(Doug Couch @ Nov 22 2008, 10:17 PM) View Post
Time to pause on developing new functions and finish up on some like this, that have never really been completed.
I can agree with you , though, that I see potential value in a "walk-thru comparison" during GEDCOM import (if resumable at a later time -or- optional)-> BECAUSE, this is actually a better point to attempt duplicate matching than at a later time (through the menus). During this stage, the set of possible duplicates to be matched is smaller (than the whole database or from a starting surname) AND the context of the family tree relationship would be helpful in those "match" considerations. Any that did not match within the context of the family tree...could then be handled by the Menu option, later.

Just my opinions, though! rolleyes.gif
Cheers,
kbens0n

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#7 dillydream

dillydream

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 09:55 AM

[font=Book Antiqua]


Thanks for the replies everyone. biggrin.gif
I`ve started to unlink the children that I`ve duplicated.
I haven`t dragged and dropped any, so I think it`s just that I`m unfamiliar with inputting information. blink.gif
Cheers,
Dillydream wacko.gif


#8 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:30 AM

QUOTE(dillydream @ Nov 23 2008, 10:55 AM) View Post

[font=Book Antiqua]
Thanks for the replies everyone. biggrin.gif
I`ve started to unlink the children that I`ve duplicated.
I haven`t dragged and dropped any, so I think it`s just that I`m unfamiliar with inputting information. blink.gif
Cheers,
Dillydream wacko.gif

Just to reitierate... you would want to MERGE children that you've duplicated...
...UNLINKing them just leaves EACH of those unlinked duplicate children...
... "floating" uselessly in your database!

Cheers!

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N