Parents being lost in Merge

+42 votes
1.2k views
I just noticed that with the new merge process, if the parents are attached to the profile that is being merged away, they do not automatically get attached to the new profile.   The person doing the merge has to mark the parents with the radio button to include them.   

I wonder how many parents have been lost in the process.   The merge was completed by a newer member and they never noticed the problem.
in WikiTree Tech by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (864k points)
retagged by Robin Lee
I worry about this also. Every line, now has to be scrutinized carefully before merging, because only the data from the lower number profile is included, where as before, if the other profile had data that the lower number profile didn't, it migrated automatically.  The new improved system is taking me 10 times longer as I go over and over and over every detail before merging and still suffer anxiety while clicking merge.

Then the biography is scrambling stuff in weird ways. We seem to have taken a few steps backward instead of forward.
YES!! Very frustrating and worrisome. The combination of having this happen and someone randomly rejecting a PERFECT merge (I'd waited on for a month due to unresponsive profile managers), was enough to make me put myself in a WikiTree time-out this week. Okay, so the time-out didn't last long but so not cool with the thought of losing ANY information EVER!
Maybe I'm remembering this detail wrong, but I didn't think this happened.  When merging A into B, I thought information on A that was blank on B was added to the merged profile.  If I recall correctly, the only time parents go missing is when the profiles being merged contain conflicting parents.  That issue is why merges need to start at the earliest generation where duplicates exist in one family line.
Now, only the data from the oldest profile in included automatically.  Any information from the newer profile that needs to be saved: parents, dates, names, marriages or places, has to be selected by the person doing the merge or it will be left out of the new profile. Our fear is that some people doing merges, may not realize this
I added the "bugs" tag to this question because I think the Team should treat this as a bug in the new merge process. If one profile has parents, they should be included in the default merge result. if they are wrong, the person doing the merge could remove them, but the decision to remove should be documented in the edit summary. And, of course, parents will not go the destination profile if it's project-protected (unless the person completing the merge is a Leader, Project Coordinator, or Profile Manager for the PPP profile).
Good afternoon,

Yes I have seen this as well. I personally do not like the new format. I know I am fairly new to wikitree, (2 years). I have had my fair share of having to merge profiles. I think the previous format was better. The new one takes a lot of time to complete. It can be very confusing to some. For example... when using the challenge tracker,  I noticed today that there is Mar 1-Apr 1 and there is a Apr 1-Maj 1 (which I am sure was a typo) should have been May 1. We have to be extremely cautious when tracking as well (hopefully it will change to the correct format).  This is my opinion on the matter.

 

Have a wonderful day and enjoy your Easter tomorrow!

I already made mention of this on January 18th, a day or so after the implementation of the new merge interface: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/542314/what-happened-to-the-parent-and-child-connections

17 Answers

+19 votes
Yes, it happened to me TWICE and I was shocked to see it happen. I have been very careful since then but I have also been wondering if arborists have noticed it as well.
by Maggie N. G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)
+24 votes
This is a serious issue.  There should be no machine-induced losses of information in a merge, so it's a problem that need to be fixed quickly.

In addition, the matter of merging George, son of John, and George, son of Henry has been a continuing problem, because the database can't retain both.  My strong recommendation would be that a merge with competing parents be blocked by the computer with a message like "Parent conflict, merge cannot proceed.  Resolve parent issue before attempting merge."

Who someone's parents are needs to be resolved by human beings doing research, not by the computer based on LNAB number.  

In the meantime, this is a reminder of how important it is that every single thing in the data field be backed up by a sourced item in the narrative biography.  If you have it there that George, born 1643 in Plymouth, was the son of Henry, born 1622 in Sussex, England, and his wife Mary <ref> source </ref> then repairing the damage done by the computer is relatively easy.
by Jack Day G2G6 Pilot (463k points)
Having said which, just because something is in a box on a profile doesn't make it "information".  Careless merging often results in junk reappearing after it's been removed.

On the whole it's better in principle to have a clear focus on which profile is being built, noting that profile-building often involves removing as well as adding.  The old system has trained us in bad habits.

Seems to me there should be no default choices.  An explicit choice should be made for every field before the merge can be completed.

Otherwise, the effect is the same as if we had a 3-way choice for each field

- profile A

- profile B

- random guess

with random guess selected by default.
Actually, RJ that is what I thought the new merge process was going to be....
+14 votes
Thanks for this explanation.  I noticed this also and it is a problem.  Hopefully a system fix is in process
by Sandy Edwards G2G6 Mach 7 (78.9k points)
No system fix, this is the design.....per Abby.
It's also happened if parents were marked as uncertain, don't know if that was solved already, but now during the merge, if there are parents attached to either one of the duplicates, the first thing I do is to make sure the parents are added and marked as certain. If the parents were uncertain after the merge we can mark them uncertain again, but this way at least we know for  for sure parents aren't lost.
+16 votes
Just had a merge completed and lost the parents of 6 children....grrr The merge caused so much grief. Spent most of last evening reconstructing the merged profile and adding parents to the children. Lots of work for something that used to be so simple!

Serious bug in the system or human error, whatever it is, It is NOT a good thing!

Take us back to the old system and work on a better way to merge, because this is not working the way it was intended. This was entered in Feb. It is now April 1st and this is not an April Fool's joke. I proposed a merger on two profiles while working on the Suggestion List two days ago. The merge was completed yesterday...results, parents lost, siblings lost. Again I spent most of the evening trying to put the profile back together.

I do not believe this is what the programmers intended to happen but in reality, IT IS HAPPENING. Instead of making Our Tree healthier, it is making Our Tree sicker...Not A Good Thing. IMHO.

I agree with Robin, the new merge system needs to be scrutinized and re-written. Not everyone is an experienced WikiTree'r and somethings on Wikitree have a steep learning curve. Mergers are such an important part of getting and keeping our Tree healthy; it should be (for lack of a better term) idiot proof.

I would also like to see a system that would flag obvious errors, to eliminate the necessity of Post Merge Cleanups. A lot of the little popup flags have been integrated into the system in the past few months. If our system can flag profiles that need cleaning after the fact, why can it not flag them during the process of merging...2 Biography Headings... 2 Sources Headings. I realize the new system has helped but the merge should not be allowed to go through until it is completely check and balanced. Sorry for rattling on.
by Loretta Corbin G2G6 Pilot (244k points)
edited by Loretta Corbin
+9 votes
Hi Robin,

I would not consider this a bug-the system is working as designed.

When we updated the merge process, many more features within a merge became editable. You can choose a birth date from either profile, or change it altogether, you can use a birth place but update it to be a full name rather than an abbreviation. The same goes with parents. Instead of automatically putting parents into the column of saved items for a merge, you need to manually choose whether to save them. Plenty of fictional parents have been imported in merges with the old system. There are issues with either process.

The thing with this is, it comes down to slowing down when doing a merge and looking over that last column before saving. Whether the parents are auto-populated or not, there's a lot of information that needs to be verified before the save button is pushed. I helped test the updates, and I noticed exactly what you guys have, but found I appreciated it. I just needed to move from doing things at one speed and rhythm to a slower, more methodical one. This lines up with editing the biography, as well. It took more time to complete the merge, but I was happier with it once it was completed. The bottom line? Check that final column every single merge, before saving. Whether the parents are put there automatically or not, they aren't lost forever, either. They can be reattached. Again, it's important to pay attention to the data coming in and act accordingly.

Now, all that said, if this is an issue for a large number of members, we can add it to our future updates for the merge process to change it back. I guess I prefer to update my own work process to accommodate the changes and get improvements elsewhere, though.
by Abby Glann G2G6 Pilot (735k points)
This seems to be a learning rather than a system problem.

Having said that with all the errors that Robin noticed I agree something does need to be done.

Maybe people need to meet some sort of  qualification before they can merge profiles (similar to the pre-1500 certification).  Even with the old system I have noticed problems with people not knowing how to merge properly.

Also, perhaps a preview of what the merged profile would look like would be handy as long as people actually use it .
I have another question for you all.  I am elderly, and I am in no way saying all elderly have this issue. But being that my eyes are aging faster than I'd like, I have a problem with the radio buttons being so darn small. Yes I am getting shaky as well. (Just a lil note to let you youngins know what you have to look forward to, lol) No but seriously, they are oh so very small to me.  Is it just me that is having an issue with this? OMG now we have a captcha??? I have clicked that darn thing thing 4 times and it gave me a hard time posting. One more question, (Must be my day for them) I have apparently been put on the radar for adding new profiles. Although I may be blind I do type very fast. It seems to be stopping me from adding new profiles one after the other.  Maybe I will just go back to sourcing already created profiles?
Thanks for that reminder about accessibility. I hope the tech team is paying attention.

You got a CAPTCHA here in G2G because you weren't logged in to Wikitree. A long-term login can expire when we least expect it, and there's no notification or warning. I get logged out in mid-edit sometimes.
Thank you for your comment. I have noticed that I have been logged out many time, just today for example, I was logged out about 6 times while editing. That was new to me.
I'll make a note about the radio buttons.

I already made mention of this on January 18th, a day or so after the implementation of the new merge interface: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/542314/what-happened-to-the-parent-and-child-connections​ - the problem with it this "design bug" is that it is not geared to the overall majority of WikiTree users. It might suit one leader, but the collateral damage to profiles and projects (including countless hours of research) is really something to be taken into consideration. 

Seems to me that the more merges you have done under the old system, the longer it will take to re-train yourself.

I'm lucky - I'm no extremely frequent merge proposer.

Eva, I do not understand how you get to this conclusion. It would seem that you would have oversight of the amount of merges that one has done in the past and also an calculated understanding of the mechanisms that underlie merging. Besides, your conclusion is still in no logical relation to whether the "old" system is "better" or not (which is not what is being pointed out here; what has been pointed out is a simple fact that parent profiles are no longer being automatically merged with the child profiles, and that this has had an impact on the merging done by even experienced WikiTreers, let alone the inexperienced or less-experienced majority of WikiTreers).

I'm also not a "frequent" merge proposer. Just a normal WikiTreer who has at times to do arboring work and propose merges in order to keep the "good work going" and validate the tree as WikiTree so keenly and warmly encourages, besides the various other tasks such as editing bio's and fixing data errors. And let's say even if I were an "Arborist" - this "design bug" should not merely be shrugged off with "re-training" suggestions.

Yeah Robin! for proposing changing the new system. I have done lots of merges and do not understand what was wrong with the old system, or,  how to use the new one. Looking forward to a new new way.
+14 votes
Two merges I requested were done yesterday and both of them had data loss. The first kept the one line bio and erased the more complete biography. The second removed the parents and birth & death places and dates.

I know that this is technically user error. But I like RJ's suggestion of there not being any default choices. That way the person has to consciously chose what data to keep. I think it would also be nice to be able to easily see what data didn't come over in the merge. To find the lost birth and death dates, I had to step back through the change history of the merged away profile until I found when the data was added.
by Jamie Nelson G2G6 Pilot (630k points)
+14 votes
I have also had parents lost in a merge.  Plus a biography, sources and categories.  Everything was replaced by GEDCOM junk.  I personally think the merging process was fine the way it was.  Yes it required people to do clean-up afterwards, but at least nothing disappeared, unless you manually deleted it.
by Kristin Merritt G2G6 Mach 3 (32.7k points)
Personally, I liked that the old merge process required a separate cleanup of the Biography/Sources section; but also like some of the new process's functionality.

RJ's suggestion of no default choices sounds like an excellent idea; it would help train us to check our work more carefully.

And Alert Banners to remind us to be diligent in our work would also help!
Yes and I have noticed that many people who do merges don't cleanup the Biography/Sources. To me that says more training is required.
The problem you run into, and this happened in the case I mentioned above, is that a new member adds a duplicate profile, which then needs to be merged.  The new member is the last person to approve, so then completes the merge. He or she is unfamiliar with the process, so then data can get lost.  I am afraid to initiate any merges now on profiles that I manage because I don't want to have to rebuild any more profiles.  I think the new merge process is an improvement to the old one, but if you are not careful or unfamiliar with the process, the results can be disastrous. A well-built biography can be destroyed in one click.
I agree Kristin, I had to clean up 2 merges this morning that were the result of the exact situation you outlined
+8 votes

Just discovered that this problem hasn't been fixed yet :(  Connecting a small tree twig was the top perk of a merge I proposed yesterday, I was delighted that the merge got done pronto and expected to find his family connected this morning, but they weren't. It  took several minutes of wandering about before I noticed his parents were missing and that was why no connection.  Fortunately I had added their names to the biography before proposing the merge and it is an uncommon last name so I could find them and connect, but what if they had been Smith or Jackson?

Why can't we keep them attached? Or at least have one of those warning banners pop up, when they are going to be detached? How many families are being disconnected every hour?

by Patricia Roche G2G6 Pilot (817k points)
As Abby replied above, this is not a bug; it was intentionally set up this way.
I know it is not a bug, but the collateral damage of disconnected  families is a frustrating problem that seems unnecessary.
+6 votes
Ever since the process changed, I haven't done any merges, because I kept reading all these horror stories about data getting lost, parents getting disconnected, bios getting switched etc.

So I tried a merge yesterday and went Really Slowly just in case - and it worked perfectly! Nothing was lost, nobody was disconnected.  I think it's just a matter of working Slowly, paying attention to what you're doing, not having 400 other tabs open, your email demanding your attention, Facebook notifying, Twitter going, etc. ;o)

It's wonderful!
by Ros Haywood G2G Astronaut (2.0m points)
But not everyone that completes a merge, is noticing that they have make a choice to keep the parents attached or other data from the higher number profile.  I propose several hundred merges a month an most need post merge editing because the persons completing them are not paying attention.
+12 votes
Could we add a "warning" flag when parents are on merged away profile and not selected for the new profile?    This is becoming a full time job looking for this error......
by Robin Lee G2G6 Pilot (864k points)
A warning makes a lot of sense to me.
+9 votes
Wow, this is scary! It is better to have two possible parents and a note that more research is necessary than to have some parents links unconnected!

Perhaps we need to limit merging to experienced members of wikitree? I noticed a new person trying to merge himself with his great-grandfather last week. Perhaps using a questionnaire and a badge to show merge competence would help?

Thanks!

Sharon Troy Centanne
by Living Troy G2G6 Pilot (176k points)
+5 votes
I think a system that forces the person doing the merge to consciously choose each new bit of information may be a way to ensure the correct, complete information is included in the newly merged profile.
by Debi Matlack G2G6 Mach 9 (94.2k points)
Debi, I agree, except this process defaults the data from the profile being merged into, so many people do nothing.   If it defaulted NO data from either profile and you had to pick which profile's data to use, then you are correct, it would force a conscious decision of which data to use.  See my suggestion on Feb 3.
+5 votes
I have to agree with Robin's suggestion about no default at all.  Sometimes the oldest profile is leftover gedcom detritus from ancient wikitree history, and the newer profile has better information.  

And, on the other side of the coin, one of my pet peeves is fantasy parents being merged back into lineages that have been broken due to lack of evidence.  That could happen, of course, no matter which profile gets defaulted, so no default info at all would seem to lead to fewer merging errors.
by Living Schmeeckle G2G6 Pilot (105k points)
+4 votes
Always, always read each line and click the appropriate boxes (be sure to go to the far right of the page and click on Father Confident and Mother Confident, if appropriate).
by Patricia Kent G2G6 Mach 1 (14.9k points)
sure, but in a well defined system, it should not allow someone to proceed without selecting something
Yes.  Currently it's like you have a choice of A, B, or Random, with Random as the preselected default.

Defaults are supposed to be helpful.  They used to be, on the whole, I suppose, though I always thought we should have to choose.  But now they're only 50-50.
+7 votes
This is still a problem.  One of the last merges that I was involved with that was completed by someone else, also disconnected the parents. This is very frustrating and has led to me proposing less merges.
by Kristin Merritt G2G6 Mach 3 (32.7k points)
+6 votes
I think a simple warning message should pop up when the parents aren't associated to the merged into profile.  We get warnings for a parent's sibling being born less than 9 months apart.  

We should be able to notify the user when the merged into profile (I don't want to say lowest number because of name spellings) has parents and the other profile does not.

Not sure if it should be a hard-edit (can't be bypassed) or just a warning and you can continue.

I know that I always look at the farthest right column and anywhere that is blank, I look back to ensure that there was no data on either profiles - just as a double check.
by Susan McNamee G2G6 Mach 7 (77.8k points)
+7 votes

Is anything ever going to happen to solve this problem?  Everyday there is a batch of emails for merges I propose, that others have completed, and each one I have to check for parents that may have gotten lost. Today's batch had two disconnects. Unfortunately some days I just can't deal with it and delete the emails without searching for parents.

If you can't keep the parents attached, why can't we have an alert, at least?  PLEASE  

by Patricia Roche G2G6 Pilot (817k points)
edited by Patricia Roche
Patricia, I agree with you totally. Something needs to be done urgently.

Merges are suppose to improve the tree, but now it is creating another problem of profiles being detached from their parents, and subsequently from their siblings.

This is a much bigger problem than having duplicates.
It's not just parents.  Lots of good data goes missing.
What sort of data, RJ?  The new merge system seems to work perfectly, as far as I can see.
Hi Ros

One of the places that I noticed that data gets lost is marriage information.

If the one profile has the date and the other the location, you can only select the one or the other.

If you do not make a note of it and go back after the merge completion and repopulate the marriage info, that information is lost.

I do know that it was the same in the previous format but it would be a great improvement if these fields can be separated.
Ros, if you don't propose a lot of merges, you won't encounter the problem. The most common situation where the data is dumped, is a PM creates a duplicate profile which now has parents, dates, places or marriage info, not on the first profile, then they get a merge notice for the duplicates and just merge them, without understanding what they are doing, so all of the info on the newer profile is dumped, unless they took the time to look at the profiles and select the data from newer profile, they wish to save. But sometimes the merged profile has had the biography groomed - obvious close attention paid to the merge, but still dumped the parents.

Related questions

+20 votes
1 answer
245 views asked Jul 26, 2016 in WikiTree Tech by Bob Jewett G2G Astronaut (1.2m points)
+42 votes
6 answers
+38 votes
8 answers
+24 votes
1 answer
+19 votes
1 answer
+20 votes
4 answers
+26 votes
3 answers

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

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...