Sorry if I am being obtuse, I went back and reread the whole feed.; so, again -- will try one more time to see if I can get there.
Your original proposal does not Clearly “say to me” what it is that you are actually proposing as a “solution”
My assumption is you mean “Change the Instructions under Help” == Yes, I agree Needs to be more Explicit (but also think that things like (Debi Hoag statement) needs to be incorporated., as well as “on screen Instruction of what the System expects at a particular level”
I also think it needs to be looked at from both system constraints – and user input (most think they are doing it right – Root problem = misinformation)
RECAP Q. Unmerged matches: Should we have more clear advice about when not to do this [Yes - How/Where}
- (a) Remember the aim in handling merge proposals is a decision to either accept or reject the merge. [You want to have us either merge or reject without having the ability to do further research within the 30 day clock – Yes agree, BUT once it gets to that (Merge) level it should be accept/reject – not renew for another cycle] (Root Problem -- sequencing)
(b.) Unmerged matches are for special cases. Is it clear what further checking needs to be done? (No Not Clear – Needs To Be More Definitive – Who Takes Responsibility/where -- This is a research issue] - Please make sure this is described in your notes.[Where and how does this appear – How Notified/at what level]
2. Have you looked at the profiles, and the profiles of parents, children, spouses and siblings in order to see if there are simple explanations for whatever is creating doubts .[Where and how does this appear – Who takes responsibility for this – at what point in the sequence – the “Proposer” the “Profile Manager” the “Completer”]?
From a user standpoint – Directions for use and purpose need to appear “on the Screens accessed” -- "Help needs to define & explain the steps". The current sequence itself (although useable) is not intuitive (my opinion only) for a user and creates other problems. Screen text will get to the people working the merges – whereas “Help verbage” might not reach everyone.
Thus, in a nutshell:
Step 1 Unmerged matches Say = Research – Clearly define and needs to be used for just that – to resolve discrepancies before the Merge (start clock here vs after)
(A)*Both Profiles need to be Researched; -- are they the same or not – This should be BEFORE proposing the merge and (B) the specific reason for going with a merge should be clear ( in place profile posts)
Step 2 Merges Say – Complete/Reject
(a) “Proposer - I’ve done all the research I can and still think they are the same”;
(b) Manager approval/default approval – agrees with suggestion;
(c) Volunteer Completer – Re-review - sees from profile they agree or not -- if not, set as “Reject” – Not as Unmerged Match – If Completer disagrees with Reject option – They need to research themselves to either approve or reject (with their reasons) as 3rd consensus (or maybe leave as is and contact profile manager for resolution; or if not completed within 60 days system default to "rejected" where it starts all over).
Hope I got it right this time – there are some good suggestions here – How to summarize them (pros vs cons) and how to get it to the next level – I don’t know.
I think Dale’s suggestion (couple days ago) should also be incorporated under this. It seems clear that we need more definitive language and more definitive solution suggestions that include how to Stop, Prevent, Fix the basic ROOT CAUSES – this takes “people with system expertise” to set the correct path – If it can be done with the “help verbage" ”G2G Posts -- Great – I am all for it -- most cost effective!
http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/199835/is-it-time-to-revise-the-merge-proposal-system
Regards