Unmerged Matches created from default approved merges

Question

As the Arborist lead I regularly review merges done, including unmerged matches that are the result of default approved merges.   In many cases the well meaning person puts a default approved merge into a Unmerged matched state with a wonderful comment about why the profiles are not ready to merge.   The problem is, the merge was default approved, more than likely, if the profile managers were not active enough to approve the merge, they probably will never see the comment or act upon it.

I would like to ask if everyone could start asking a question on G2G when they do an Unmerged match, making the same comment.   As an example, see http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/152520/need-proof-of-father-to-complete-merge

Does this sound like a good idea?

Comments

If the system would ALWAYS place a comment on both profiles anytime an unmerged match is selected, that would help, would it not?

---

My guess is that it would help, Jillaine, but still not solve the problem.  There are plenty of proposed merges where managers of both profiles are not active, so it wouldn't matter how many comments there are, nobody will ever see them ... or do anything about it if they do see them.

Please don't get me wrong - I definitely feel that the comment should go onto both profiles, not just one of them.  I just don't feel that it would solve this particular problem.

---

Gaile expressed my thoughts very effectively.

Answer 1

Hi Robin, to ensure this suggestion gets traction in the wider community, I think the guidance on unmerged matches should be amended to reflect it http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Merging#Unmerged_Matches

The description implies that unmerged matches should be used in this situation - perhaps there should be some additional wording that encourages people to post a question in G2G first before they set a match as unmerged?

Comments

Leigh,

I agree, something like....

 

"Remember, if you are working default approved merges, the profile managers may not be active.  If you are unable to solve the questions about the profiles yourself in order to complete the merge, you should post a question on G2G to see if someone else can help."

---

I am commenting on this again to remind everyone that an unmerged matched state is supposed to be "temporary", that we should document exactly why we are not sure that they are the same person, and finally, when all else fails, ask the question on G2G.   As the lead of the Arborist group I see a lot of default approved merges that are put into an unmerged, matched state with a comment like..."I don't think these are the same person, or Not enough data to make a decision"   From the Arborist project standpoint, we would prefer that a default approved merge is either proven incorrect and rejected, or left for one of our team to work if you are unsure.

---

ok I have one - and I have asked the other profile manager and he did merge the father so I know he is active - in fact I looked and I have a couple of e-mails back and forth with him on another shared relative - but ok see I have Anderson-34351

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Anderson-34351

and this profile has the children going down while Don has Anderson-33705

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Anderson-33705

that is you look at it it is the better of the two profiles, pictures, better sourcing - but does not have the children coming down from it and so here I am and another cousin too waiting for this merge and it has been sitting there in unmerged match mode for a couple of months now - so I was reading through this discussion and I am not feeling this has been clarified so that I can proceed - can someone please take a look?