Yes I truely believe you. However, sometimes it is not possible to get everyone's birth dates, especially for the older generation. I like the power of Familiy Tree Builder for being able to arrange the children in the right order but why couldn't MyHeritage.com take advantage of that? Of course it requires more software to be written.
I also use Geni.com (I prefer MyHeritage.com) and they allow you to specify the birth order and use it.
The online site dosen't recognize a seperate 'adopted' status. The only way to indicate that is a comment. I think all it recognizes is a seperate mother from the rest of the children, and birthdates. If you want to have adopted children, you have to put them on the tree last, and if they are older than any of the natural children, you would have to leave off the birthdates of the other children. When none of the children have dates, it puts them in order that you placed them. If a child has no dates, while the others do, the dateless child will always be listed as last
As I said, I use Family Tree Builder. It allows you to designate a child as "Natural" or "Adopted" or "Foster". When I designate a child as "Adopted", the online site shows it as a dashed line from the parents, rather than a solid line.
I also disagree with you that dateless children as listed last. I have a case where child1 is adopted and has birth/deceased dates. The other natural children also have dates and some don't. So according to you the dateless children would be listed last. However, child1 is listed last.
Sorry, I guess since I had never published(I do everything online) I had figured that they only used the dashed line to indicate a divorce. So I figured it automatically translated what you had into terms that the online site recognized as if it had actually been written there from the start.
What progress is being made on the accuract of Smartmatching. It is about a year since this thread started and I started another one under a different thread,
I have received a load of Smartmatches this morning and most are wildy inaccurate. For example, what is Smart about matching Mary Martin Collison who lived between 1815-1891 with Mariq Isabel Marron who was born in 1947?!
As a software developer I know that just a simple line of code would have prvented that match on birth dates alone. And even without the date inconsistency, it is difficult to understand how three names that are so obviously different could get through.
Could we please have a report on progress beng made with Smartmatching? Issues such as the above are really so straightforward I would have thought they would take no more than a few days (if not hours) to eliminate. How about if we the users are given some tools that could set some filters at the client-side to eliminate such tedious and time wasting matches?
Mary MARTIN (COLLISON)
1815 - 1891
Mary Ann, John Henry, Frederick George, Elizabeth and Ann Jane
Nooooooooo! Please stop doing that to the rest of us! If you glance through all the different threads in this "Support" site, you will find dozens and dozens of us who have the same questions and irriatations about "Smart ? matches". Sending a private email does not help the rest of us, so please stop doing that. We all want to know if any progress is being made to get rid of matches that are not even close to being Smart. Thank you. Charles
Sometimes users ask questions in the forums that require us to get more information from them in order to solve the problem- and this information is not relevant to all forum readers and could also be private.
Therefore we prefer to answer some questions directly by email.
If you have the same question, we'd be happy to explain the answer again, but we can decide if it would be better to give it on the forum or in a personal email.
Well, that's just baloney! There is nothing "PRIVATE" about why poor quality smart matches are showing up on ALL of our sites. I just had 23 smart matches to Confirm/Reject this morning from one site. The first 15 or so were good matches, the rest weren't even close...(first names didn't match, or first name matched, but last name didn't, or the birth and death dates were centuries apart). Please, in the future, tell ALL of us why you feel this is happening and what progress "the appropriate persons to whom you sent the problem" are making to correct these problems. OK, so I got a little upset, Sorry!
In our newly released Enhanced Smart Matches, we now show you ALL of your matches, the high quality matches and the lower quality ones. The list is sorted by quality, so you’ll see the best Matches first, but we also show you the other matches below, so that no information will be hidden, and all your research potential will be met.
When a user reports specific matches that are poor quality, they usually include personal information, so sometimes we prefer to investigate the issue and correspond with them via email. However, in your case the match problem with a certain site that you reported on the forum was taken care of directly.
Thank you for reporting these problems- they help us forward issues to our developers to investigate corrupted matches and improve the algorithms.
Thank you, Isolde. The underline on the home page of course works fine. For the AWOL bolding I have used the work-around of CAPITALIZING--not very satisfactory, but only a minor annoyance. I wish the team would fix the much greater annoyance of paragraph breaks in the Biography section!
I think all you can probably do is add a comment about this. Or a census record or something. One of my great aunts was raised by her uncle, but my tree doesn't show anything different than the normal descent. I just noted the census record to that fact.