When is someone going to start reducing the long list of approved merges? [closed]

+45 votes
938 views
I was just looking at the list of approved merges and when I got to over 1200 I got tired of going to the next page. I did work on a few and everyday I check on the status of those I proposed but it became clear that there are a lot of people out there who do not do that and just propose a merge and then forget about it. My suggestion is this, If you propose a merge keep checking for approval and finish the job if it goes into default approval, don't leave the final work for others to do.
closed with the note: Old thread
in Genealogy Help by Dale Byers G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
closed by Dale Byers
A lot will be stuck because nobody knows how to complete them.  At some point, somebody will convert them to unmerged matches to clear them out of the pending list.

Then they'll go back to square 1, because the only thing you can do with an unmerged match is remove it.
One a week I personally go through (and I'm not an arborist) all pending mergers - all 2000-3000 of them - and merge those that I recognize as being South African (and also those clear mergers of which I do not have to do the bio integration of).

I'm am surprised by the amount that I see that are somehow "forgotten" by their managers who often have vested interests in the quality of the research.

I think people should be made aware of their responsibility in doing (following up on) their own merge proposals (meaning completing them, including the bio-integration conforming the rules of a specific project).
I have had a Wikitree member e-mailing me since I made what I considered to be a straightforard merge that  resulted in duplicate offspring on the profile who had different mothers. Usually I propose duplicate offspring as merges but I didn't this time. She initially asked for my assistance in dealing with it so I proposed a merge of the offspring but it was rejected by the other PM. I replied to her e-mail, assuring her that I do my best by proposing and completing merges but I cannot be held responsible for the duplicate profiles created by others and gave her a few tips on how to keep on top of duplicates/avoid creating them in the first place. She then e-mailed me again saying "" I am NOT the one to clean up messes that another volunteer has created. I've made my complaint to WikiTree previously about volunteers on autopilot and arbitrarily merging. Therefore, I ask you to remove your merge and permit the managers to review."  I found this quite threatening but still replied, saying that a merge is irreversible and I got a reply saying they were reversible in the past and I should consult a pro! How rude. She has been here since 2013 and has 300 and something contributions, I have only been here since February but have 23.6k. If she gives me any more grief, I'm blocking her.
Hi Gillian, I understand your frustration and your hurt (because that is what some WikITreers do intentionally or unintentionally). There are ways within WikiTree to deal with issues that arise such as this, but what I would like to give to you is a New Years blessing and the following - remain calm [meaning once the adrenalyn starts flowing - DWWA] and remain true to yourself; do not get trapped into an angry discourse. It might only escalate and nobody will benefit from that. Least of all yourself - it depletes one's energy. So on the bright side - there is a whole new 2017 that has dawned on us today ... I'm making one of my intentions not to take things so personally even though I get burned, bullied and [ab]used by others. Life is short and not worth those moments.
Like so many here I go through them and do what I can to complete them, many are very very difficult to confirm and need some hard genealogical work to complete and that takes time.  So we can't be in a hurry to just reduce them.  there about 100 that I have identified and are working on.  The other problem is frequently the families tied to them also need a lot of work, (wrong children.parents,generations) so its not just a simple merg the entire chain need to be fixed, and that can be slow.

The other, I try not to get upset when dealing with an uncoperative PM.  I lay out the evidence, list my sources (ones anybody can view) and if I am very very positive that I am right, I don't mind making direct statements ordering them to make the change.  That usually works, Wiki probably would not approve (not being nice) but sometimes you can't be,
2 things come to my mind here -

1. Quite a few proposed merges, one or both of them are 'Project Protected', so should the Project managers be responsible for clearing them ?

2. Many proposed merges go to 'Default approval', should the proposer then be asked to complete them ?
Many, many of the merges that aren't being completed are due to the privacy on one or both of the profiles.  The manager may approve it, or it may go into default but only the PM can complete the merge.  This has come up in G2G many times in the past few months.  Unless the policy's change back to what they were before the new merge rules, there will continue to be a great many merges that won't be completed without leaders intervening.
Rather odd that if this has been pointed out before, why has nothing been done about it ?.

Either change it back, make the Project manager responsible, or ask the proposer to merge or remove the proposal.

Otherwise, accept that you are going to end up with millions of  proposals that can never be merged.
The team works on the private ones but it's not at the top of our priority lists. We work on them when we can.  It's on the to-do list to fix the public ones so they can be done by members but there's many things on that list.  It'll happen.
There are many times I propose matches or set them as unmerged matches to alert the PM to the possibility of a duplicate.If I am reasonably certain they are a duplicate I start a merge. If most things are the same but 1 or 2 are off and there is no source for the odd info I match them.

I do check back from time to time but most of these need to be done by someone closer to the info or they are not both open. Every one found may make the list look bigger but in reality it just means now we know about it so it can be fixed. Bear in mind the list is only the KNOWN ones. There is a lot of WikiTree out there to cover. LOL
I'm all for reducing the backlog of approved merges, and quite ready to complete the merges... when they are obvious. Unfortunately lots of merges are proposed with not even a comment to explain why the profiles represent the same person ("same person" doesn't cut it), the differences between two profiles are not explained, there is no indication which information is correct, no indication which spelling to prefer and why when the surnames are different. When it's like this, I leave the merge alone, rather than make a boo-boo.
You make good points there, Isabelle. That is in part why I suggest that managers of 'Protected Profiles' should be made responsible for the merge, or removing it.

Failing that, whoever proposed the merge should take responsibility, they should not propose a merge, unless they have suitable evidence.

I agree with you Karen,

I have proposed merges, but myself not being the profile managers, request the PM to do the merge, or let me be placed on the trusted list so I can complete what needs to be done, but then I find that the PM's are not active wiki members and haven't been on site since 2016, and won't answer my emails.

10 Answers

+31 votes
 
Best answer
For those of you interested, we have an Arborist Project.   http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Arborists

About a month ago we were almost caught up with the merges, then the Database Errors project helped a large community find a lot of additional merges to be done.   We have focused on those errors.   That is the reason for soooo many merges that are now default approved.   

The Project is working the difficult ones and a lot of the older ones are worked by the EuroAristo project.   One thing that I would ask is that you DO NOT set merges as unmerged matches unless you are planning on doing the work.  An Arborist will eventually get to the merge.
by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (527k points)
selected by Doug Stewart

"DO NOT set merges as unmerged matches unless you are planning on doing the work"  indeed Robin.  I'm not understanding this annoyance with pending merges taking a couple months to complete, when there are thousands of pending Unmerged Matches dating back 2012.  From the WikiTree instructions page on merges "An Unmerged Match is a temporary state. You should work with others to resolve the open questions and either complete the merge or reject it."  Four Years is not temporary state.

A temporary state is not defined by the amount of years but by the state of resolvement of issues. Some issues have only been resolved after hundreds of years

I honestly do not get the annoyance with unmerged matches - why mergers should not get matched (when there are good reasons to do so - not speaking of those many cases where for some reason a manager is hesitant or unsure to merge [I think which is the tenure of Robin's request above]), only because there is some kind of forceful logic out there that all proposed mergers should be done.

When working in a project, all the pieces of the puzzle will eventually fall into place. I.e. unmerged matches resolved.

Resolved.
I'm with Philip on this one. Unmerged Match is a designation that the two are probably duplicates, but research is needed to resolve the situation. Sometimes that research can be done quickly, sometimes it cannot. I'd rather the two remain in Unmerged Match status than not be connected at all.

But many of the Unmerged matches are exact matches, and are set us unmerged, simply because one of the PM's doesn't wish to merge them, and they stay in that state for years. My annoyance is that proposed merges are viewed as a problem, if of not resolved in a few weeks, while unmerged matches, aren't perceived as a problem if they take years. 

I guess it is a matter of seeing the glass as, half full or half empty.  I see the list of proposed merges as a wonderful list, indicating progress being made in resolving the thousands of yet unfound duplicates and don't understand why folks get upset that we are not working fast enough, when great care should be taken, before completing a merge. While the merge is on the proposed list, it is visible and we are reminded that research is needed, if sent to unmerged, it becomes invisible and will stay there, out of sight and mind for years.

I understand both sides of the story, which is why I always ask people to NOT set default approved merges as unmerged matches.   We KNOW if they are default approved that the profile managers are probably inactive.   So, who is going to work the unmerged matches.   There are other people, like me, that enjoy the challenge of working through these issues.
right, I get Robin's point now... the merge already has (default) approval, its ok for it to remain in that state while any additional research is still being done.

for someone to now set it as an unmerged match (presumably to do more research), just resets the very long clock for getting approval again.

don't restart the approval clock over again.

Patricia, I have not seen use of Unmerged Match the way you describe. What I have seen is PMs rejecting a merge for the reason you describe. 

I also don't understand "if sent to unmerged, it becomes invisible and will stay there, out of sight and mind for years." One can still see a list of unmerged matches the same way one finds proposed merges. So they are no less visible than proposed merges. 

Default approval does not mean the merge should go through. I've seen many default approvals that are wrong. 

And I see nothing wrong (when there is conflicting information) with selecting "Unmerged Match" on those especially when the person who proposed the initial merge does not provide any direction about how to resolve the discrepancies. In such cases, Unmerged Match is wholly appropriate. 

I'm just not understanding the bias against Unmerged Match.

AND if someone doesn't want to see a proposed merge go in that direction, then it's incumbent upon them to provide sufficient information to make it clear how to resolve any differences.

 

 

Thanks Jillaine, exactly my point - with full understanding of and consideration of the position Robin is coming from, which is many times my frustration as well. Though dealing with the naming conventions of (somewhat more) than a few hundred years ago, I tend to be cautious and not accept every proposed merge [to my ability] - on the first impression (and even agreed to both parties [i.s. managers or groups of managers] as self-evident) as "a go": Though I do agree - the line is often at times obscured or influenced by whimsical, intuitive and / or entirely predisposed on false presumptions or disinformation.
I second Jillian's comment. I try to do half a dozen merges a day, just to keep them from stacking up but I'm unlikely to touch those which do not seem logical to me. I'rather leave them to a person who knows the time period or the culture and NOT merge  profiles that my not be precise, it makes for a mess, IMHO.
Point is, if you see a pending merge with approvals, which is stuck waiting for some research, you can do the research and then do the merge.

If you see an unmerged match waiting for some research and you do the research, you then have to restart the approvals process, and you have no control over what happens next.  Very likely, the next thing you know, somebody will have rejected it or completed it and your research will have been a waste of time.
Not true. If you have matches within a project and it is clear why the matches are there, people will be happy to help out with the research or wait until the research has been finished. There can be as many as a few hundred matches at the same moment. Many times it is simple a match because the otherwise seemingly obvious duplicates might be different generational conflations, because of naming conventions, or other related lines that need finishing first, so as to sort out the "facts".

It is a different setting though if people are just scared to merge or match because of some trivial issue.

Though I honestly do get the frustration. Have been trying to get a few mergers done in one family, and though it is not directly my concern, this last match of the two duplicate spouses of this person will fall into that category that you Robin and the rest are speaking of.

There are multiple problems with the example you link to. There is no source for the marriage of John Richard Robertson... Just a "I know..." How does "I" know and who is "I"? AND the comment left by the PM who selected Unmerged Match is very confusing (so I can understand the frustration).
+15 votes
I didn't know of any merges I had started but out of curiosity I checked the page.  The first one in the list I went to the compare and then it informed me the merge had been completed a month before.  Why was it still on the list?  The next one had discrepencies in the parentage that I couldn't resolve.  I ran out of patience and went to bed. Maybe there are others that had been merged but not removed (we can only hope).
by Beulah Cramer G2G6 Pilot (191k points)
I start looking at a couple of pages in, to avoid the ones that have "issues". Yesterday I spent the day looking at merges, mostly the simple duplications that I felt comfortable tackling.
+17 votes
There are just over 4000 approved merges waiting for completion.  There used to be a group of people who chose to go through the merge completion needed list on their own and complete as many as they could.  But then we had a very heated discussion on the G2G where some claimed that the merge completions were being done "aggressively" and without enough consideration for the accuracy of the newly merged profile or whether the merge should be completed at all.

In any case, the end result was predictable, the folks that were regularly completing merges have stopped and the list has ballooned up to a point where it is unmanageable again.
by Kyle Dane G2G6 Mach 9 (96.7k points)
I check merges that I initiated and try to complete them whenever possible but I'm always reluctant to work on the others as there may be factors I do not see and I don't want to muck about in someone else's backyard, so to speak...
Kyle, I suggested that people complete the merges that they proposed and received approval.I would say that if you propose it you should be willing to do the work necessary to complete it. I do know that it is faster and easier to just propose it and get the 2 contribution points for that than it is to do a little research that should be done to complete the merge and then edit the biography, but if they care about the duplicates then they should be willing to do the work, if they are just proposing the merges to boost their contribution point total quickly then maybe it is time to rethink the contribution point system.
Dorothy, I am not faulting those who think like you. Most of the merges I propose have some connection to a family line I am following or working on because they are related at least by marriage and I check my list every day to complete those as soon as possible. Like you I sometimes try to do a few others every week but I only do those that are about 100 proposals back from the most recent ones so that others have the time to check their own proposals, and even then I will skip some that I can find no sources for as well as the pre-1500 merges that I can not work on anyway.
I propose a lot of merges for duplicates that I come across when looking for someone else (turned up in a list returned by a search). I know nothing about the people except what's posted, and if enough info appears to match, I'll propose a merge. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Help the community by proposing the merge? If I wouldn't be willing to complete the merge, should I not propose it? (Reminds me of a similar discussion about unmerged matches.)
So, this is the real question at issue: "Is it expected that if you propose a merge, you are also signing on to complete the merge and/or update the bio of the newly merged individual also?"  Some seem to be saying "yes".

I believe we should not place that limitation/expectation on merge proposers, because, as Liz's comment points out, it does help us to achieve the goals of WikiTree simply to propose the merge, even if you don't complete the merge.  By the same token, it also helps the goals of the community to complete the merge, even if you don't update the biography section.

We each bring our own sets of strengths, weaknesses, and research goals to this project and it's my thinking that we should allow each person to take on only those tasks that they're willing and able to complete.  So if any of us notices what looks like a needed merge, we should propose it, even if we are not 100% certain, and even if we don't have the time or expertise to take those next steps, leaving them to be completed by someone who does either currently or at a later date.
Dorothy I also follow up on the merges I propose. The basic responses I get.  Some one removed the merge reproposed it. Gets credit on their contribution list. But Never ever follows up on the merge. Tears me up for proposing the merge ,  because after all " this is my ancestor" . Calls me names insults my intelligence and skills genealogist. I don't propose merges outside my watch list.
There seems to be a lot of confusion around the subject of merging. I'm happy to work on merges that make sense to me, but Iam equally happy to let others who know more about the "suspect" profiles to merge if they know more about the two "people" who are proposed for merging. Perhaps we need rewritten guidelines?
Thank you Liz, for clarifying this and confirming I am doing the correct thing when I come across obvious duplicates. Many duplicates are caused by "hit and run" folks to dump a gedcom and go inactive.

About once a week, after I finish checking merges waiting for me, I will look for pending merges of my known relatives/ancestors. I just found a bunch of Williams, Graves, and Daniels folk.

Also whenever I receive an email notification that a merge has been completed.I ALWAYS look at the completed merge. And I can attest to the fact that at least eight out of 10 merges are NOT cleaned up.
+15 votes

I didn't realize until very recently that I could see such a list. (and even now, I keep forgetting where that is -- probably the Find menu. I keep forgetting to look there)

I'll be glad to help out when I can, but honestly, my priorities will be sourcing and updating my own watchlist first. And it takes me a while (I don't see how some of you people can get 1000+ contributions within a month's time).

by Dennis Wheeler G2G6 Pilot (424k points)
+9 votes

The point to my "question" is that if you are going to propose the merge then you should complete the merge that you proposed when the approval is made and not expect others to do it for you. Match Bot proposals are another thing entirely and I do believe that proposing merges is a good thing to do. My biggest problem is with those who would propose the merge but are unwilling to do the work needed to complete the merge and clean up the resulting profile, most of us have many other things that we could be doing that are more enjoyable than doing research on profiles that have no interest or connection to ourselves, but if no one is willing to do the work it will never get done and that will make the problem even worse. This thing only works if we all do our part to make it work.

by Dale Byers G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
I've very recently corrected a misunderstanding I had. I assumed after 30 days that the default approval meant the system would automatically merge them...so I waited and waited, and nothing happened still.

I didn't realize that it meant I could come back and complete the work (which I'm happy to do). Perhaps it would have been more helpful if I had gotten a notification that it was ready.

After completing my first merge, I realized even more how important it is to note differences and recommend choices (which is why it can't be auto-merged by the system). Someone has to choose, and after 30+ days, I've even forgotten why I thought they should have been merged in the first place.
The page of proposed merges I looked at this morning was last updated

about May 5. If it was more often I think the list might be shorter.

Beulah, I'm guessing you were looking at the Pending Merges list that you can access under Find > Pending Merges.

The default view of that page is "Showing pending merges across WikiTree and ready for action by any member," sorted "oldest on top" (so that the oldest merge proposals show up first). Currently, the oldest proposals ready for action by any member have a date of 2 May 2016, so they are on top of the list.

There are other display options available on that page, including "Pending Merges Initiated By Me" (my personal favorite -- that's where I check to see the status of my merge proposals) and "Pending Merges Waiting for Action By Me." I prefer to sort "Oldest on Top," but you can also choose "Most Recently Added" to verify that the list is up to date. The page displays just 20 merges at a time, but there's a button at the bottom of the page to navigate to the next 20.

I'm still confused.  The page for "all wikitree merges" has as the first one Sarah Gillett and Sarah Throckmorton to be merged.  Checking the compare tells me the merge has been completed.  I went to Gillett-53 and it indicates the merge was completed in November if I am reading it right.  Under the paragraph it states it was updated May 2016  .Where am I misunderstanding the process?
Beulah, You are correct about the message on the first one on the list.  I am not sure but it could be that the messages is there because you are not pre-1500 certified, I am not pre-1500 certified either, but the point of my statement was trying to get people to check on the merges they propose. That would be found by clicking on the line "Pending Merges Initiated By Me" that is located above the big GO button.
When an already-completed merge sits on top of the pending merge list like that, it's a data glitch. This happens every so often. Send a note to the WikiTree team and they'll clear it.
Can someone pass on the message that Sarah Gillett Throckmorten, Gillett-53 is merged and needs to be removed from the list of pending merges that are waiting for approval.  I tried to send a message to wikitree information and get the message that my computer doesn't let me do it.
Thanks for the answer Dale.  I guess it is established that I was finding a computer glitch and it will be resolved.  Just  my luck to find a monkey wrench the first time I try to help a situation.  I did understand your point and agree whole heartedly.  I am just getting comfortable with trying to branch out into some of these challenges and have not made merge suggestions in the very seldom situations, before, where I thought it might be appropriate  .However, today I made two very easily determined cases of a merge being needed in them.  Now I will join the list with the others who are waiting for action.  Save me a seat on the bench.
@Ellen Smith  Thank you for pointing out that we can click on Pending Merges Initiated by Me.  I didn't notice this link before under the Pending Merges.  I keep good track of the merges on my own profiles, but not on non-family that I propose.   I will keep better track of them in the future!
+18 votes
I have proposed merges that I'm not related to but didn't wish to complete, either because it needs someone more closely involved to make a judgement call or because it's just the first of many that will need to be done.  I thought it was doing the PMs a favor to at least initiate the process.  (All of those did get done.)  If Dale's opinion becomes policy, I will forget doing anything with any profiles that aren't my ancestors or their close kin.  I felt the same on the error correction,  too.
by M Anonymous G2G6 Mach 4 (46.4k points)

I also harbor the hope that the profile managers will take responsibility for many of the merge proposals I make, but that often doesn't happen.

What's particularly discouraging is when the profile managers resign from the Trusted List after being notified of the merge proposal, apparently assuming that I want to take responsibility for their relatives. A couple of times I've even gotten messages telling me that I can take charge of the profiles. This leaves me thinking "These are your relatives, not mine. Why I should I have to take responsibility for figuring out what you had in mind when you created these duplicate profiles with your massive gedcom import?"

I am not asking for a policy change, but if you feel like the profiles are duplicates and feel strongly enough to propose a merge then you should at least keep tabs on them to help finish the job. I have seen far too many proposals that just state "clear duplicate" when on just a passing review it is clear that they are not and I would not touch those unless I had better information. I only propose merges for those profiles that I am researching myself because I am already doing the research needed to do a quality job with the merge.

Oh, I complete the merges I propose after they get default approval (except when someone else beats me to them as soon as the 30-day period ends). However, when I run across a pair of unsourced profiles for (not a real example) Isabel Hortense Hall, both born April 15, 1812 and both married to Maurice Quentin Sullivan, but showing different birthplaces and different dates of death, and I propose a merge, I wish to heck that one of the profile managers who created them would take some responsibility for their creations.

Then you get the PM of one of those profiles reminding you you initiated a merge and it's time to finish it, or a message telling you there is a lot of work needed to verify all the relatives attached to the two  "clear duplicates". Sheesh. What about they do their bit, since it was one of them who created the duplicate, or do I need to wipe bottoms as well? Sorry to sound negative but at the end of the day we volunteer our time to help out, none of it is "our job", it's supposed to be collaborative.
+13 votes
Would it possible to setup things so that a reminder is sent at the 30 day point to the person who initiated the merge giving options to complete, reject etc
by Chris Gilbert G2G6 Mach 1 (12.1k points)
seconded.
Chris,  At any time you can see all the merges you have proposed and the ones that can be merged will be indicated.   Just go to Find>Pending Merges>hit the link Pending Merges Initiated by Me.
I think part of it is an EDUCATION problem.

When I was relatively new to Wikitree I proposed a merge between a profile I created and one (for the same person) that  was managed by someone else.

In spite of repeated attempts to contact the other manager, she never approved the merge, nor responded in any other way.

Thus it sat for over a year- because there was NOTHING that  educated me about the "default approval" process. I thought there was nothing I could do until the other manager approved.

When someone proposes a merge, the response should EDUCATE the person about the merge process- TELLING them that after 30 days they can complete the merge even if the other manager never responds.
I agree.  But I would also like to see a reminder after 30 days
Thanks Robin.  I do that every so often but I think a lot of people are not and forgetting about the merges they proposed which is why there can be a backlog at times needing volunteers to do them.
+14 votes

I just made a tool, that will increase number of merges and probably even enlarge the queue. Sorry about that.

Compare by branches

To error 106, I added compare by branches link. It does compare both profiles by fields and also all relatives, that are similar enough. This helps you to decide which related profiles must be merged also. Merges must be then done on wikitree in a standard way. This compare function is also accessible on http://wikitree.sdms.si/default.htm in group Analyse item Compare branches.

Here is an example of the report.

http://wikitree.sdms.si/function/WTWebDuplicates/Compare.htm?UserID1=10099563&UserID2=5148448

by AleŇ° Trtnik G2G6 Pilot (398k points)
No worries!   Anything to help us find all those duplicates is a blessing!
+9 votes
This is and always has been an ongoing task.  We have leaders and arborists working on the list continuously, as well as other members.

Not everyone is comfortable completing every merge. It is best to leave the ones you cannot do for someone who can.

That being said, if everyone will do what they can, starting with their own merges needing their attention, followed by merges they proposed and then any others that feel confident in completing, we will all get it done together. Please be courteous and clean up the bio afterward!

Keep in mind that it is and will be an ever ending list so one of the most important things we can all do is try to search for duplicates before adding new profiles.  Leaders and Rangers try to catch duplicate makers as soon as we notice them and educate them about the one world tree.  Many things are ongoing, including software improvements, to solve this problem. Patience and teamwork is what we can all contribute now!
by Paula J G2G6 Pilot (227k points)

I am what you might call an Amateur Arborist ie I don't have the badge, but I just quietly go about merging each day.  I work on the "Dozen a Day" principle, figuring that since the way to eat an elephant is 'one bite at a time', then my nibbles may count for something. 

Yes, I only take the 'low hanging fruit' or no-brainers or ones where everything is such a clear match with no discrepancies that a child could do them.  And I always clean up after myself. 

I get a great deal of pleasure from imagining that various PMs can now get on with their research and possibly even see something they overlooked before.  And it's always pleasurable to get thanked.

I organise surname lists by date then look down them for duplicates, propose them and later on I finish them if they have not already been done by the PMs (some of them tackle them before 30 days). I probably proposed 80 last month (rough estimate based on what was left for me to do, plus a few). If i'm creating a profile and I see two of the rejected suggested matches appear identical to each other, I'll scrutinise them and propose a match where appropriate, even though they aren't a match to my new person. One or two afternoons a week I will have a go at the pending merges backlog, doing any I feel comfortable with. I do these things not to get the points, as a handful of people seem keen to assume of us, but because I feel I'd like to give something back, since I have more time than most to do so and because I am a connector and see the value in it, to get the unconnected numbers down.
+5 votes

This is just a suggestion.  I frequently find duplicates while sourcing -- so these profiles are usually not related to me.  When I propose a merge (and I usually have 10 or so waiting for approval), I always tell the profile managers that if they will approve the merge, I'll do the clean up.  In my mind (and probably only in my mind -- giggle), it is an extra incentive to give the profiles a "looksee".  I try to remember to check my pending merges list every few days for approvals.  As an aside to the volunteer who does not "clean up other volunteers' messes" -- goodness!  Cooperation is the key to WikiTree.

by Kathy Zipperer G2G6 Pilot (241k points)

Related questions

+22 votes
3 answers
+36 votes
5 answers
+35 votes
2 answers
+21 votes
11 answers
+20 votes
1 answer
+30 votes
10 answers
+2 votes
0 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...