What is the plan for all of the "merges that cannot be completed"

Question

Trying to get some ideas and ask the "team" about what we are going to do with the growing list of merges that need completion.   There are two categories of "concern"

1) With the change in the merging process, we now have a lot of merges where one of the profiles has a GREEN privacy and can only be completed by the profile manager of that profile (the other profile manager of the open profile,cannot complete the merge)  Those merges show on the list of default approved merges to complete, but no one can complete them.

2) With the new privacy rules, a lot of profiles are now "unlisted" so it is impossible to tell if you have a match or not until you build out your tree and run into a common ancestor.  There is no way to know that you are creating duplicates.   This appears to be mostly an issue with famous family lineages.

Is there a way to change what profiles are shown as potential matches?  Lets not show unlisted profiles....  And can we stop showing merges where one of the profiles is Green/Public as default approved that anyone can complete the merge?

Answer 1

1 is being worked on. The plan is that if a merge gets default approval, the Public profile(s) will get opened so anyone can complete the merge. There were some tricky merge issues that were discovered while working on this, so those need to be handled before this can be completed.

For 2, searching / matching is one of the next things that's going to be worked on.

Comments

Yay!!!!  THANX Jamie - this is great news!

---

Great because I have a number of merges that are in default approval but I can't do anything with them because in each case one of the profiles is a Public one.

I agree with Robin, there is no sense in showing potential matches with unlisted profiles

---

That is good news!!!

Is there any way that the name searching could be beefed up to show spouse/children on the "search list(s)" with possible removal of the "Profile Manager to conserve space for the display:(https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Special:SearchPerson

or table view (Mgr & Edit Date) of https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Special:Surname&s=EDWARDS&cln=&order=name&secondary_order=&layout=table&u=

---

Personally, I think adding family members to the results would make it too busy.

But we are thinking about adding the ability to filter by family members -- so, for example, you could search for John Smith with a mother named Sarah Brown.

---

That would be good also and probably reduce the amount of time it takes to "open the profile" look at detail; then go to next and repeat process, until you can find what you are looking for, or rule out ones you are not looking for.

Thanks for the info..

Answer 2

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

What I recently came upon is a merge proposal where both profiles were 'Project Protected', and therefore could not be completed, even though they had default approval. My suggestion is that someone should be responsible for these, either the project manager, or whoever proposed the merge. assuming that they have information to hand that can prove the verity of that merge, and if not to remove it.

Comments

@Tim, I wasn't even "trying" to address the issue of PPP, that is another subject.  THANKS!

---

I am aware of that, Robin. I was simply explaining why I made my initial comment.

One supposes that Wikitree is in a constant flux, improvements being made as the need arises, but I would be interested to see if anyone can offer constructive ideas to resolve a problem that seems to have been accumulating for some considerable time.

---

Hi Tim, the good way to address two ppp profiles would be to let a leader (preferably of the project that ppp'd the profiles) know. They can remove the ppp on one or the other. It would be helpful if you know the correct profile that should be ppp'd in the case of different spellings. I have been known to ppp two (PGM) profiles, so that the merge can't be completed, but the 30 day default doesn't get lost. That prevents it getting merged into the wrong profile, while some decision is made. You can ask here in G2G, there are always leaders reading.

---

Agreed, Anne, but one would presume that whoever proposed the merge has good reason for the merge, other than the fact that the profiles look similar. Quite a few proposed merges are very clearly not the same person, different dates, different parents, different spouse, yet they get proposed simply because they have the same name. Why propose a merge unless you have conclusive proof that it is a duplicate ? I'm thinking that if the proposer has some responsibility, and you are unsure if a merge should go ahead, you can then refer back to the proposer to resolve any problems.

Also, what happens to a proposed merge, where the manager is unresponsive, and they have provided no sources. Do they get deleted, or do they add to the ever growing list.

---

If profiles are ppp they should (by now) have a project account associated with them.  That project is then alerted when there is a merge proposal. If both are ppp then the project leader can be asked to remove the ppp from the higher numbered profile if for some reason they don't catch the merge request on the project account feed.

---

O.K., that sounds fine, Jillaine, as long as someone takes responsibility for them. Hopefully, I won't encounter that situation again, (Well, we can always hope.)

---

Can i humbly suggest, Tim, that hopefully is an adverb meaning doing the thing with hope, while I hope that a thing may happen has a different meaning — the one you want in this case.

---

I have to agree, Sir William, similar wording, same intent, but rather different usage. Sometimes you have to use the spurs to get forwards.

Answer 3

For #1, I think I'd rather see the default approval continue for green privacy, but permit the merge to be completed by any member when there is default approval.  None of the green profiles are for living people, therefore they are not impacted by any new legal hoops that have to be jumped through.

It should not be too difficult to add in a programming step to distinguish between green and other colors when determining both default approval and permission to complete merges.