The suggestion that you have brought forward is a very legitimate one that I have now forwarded to the development team for them to take into consideration with future upgrades to the site and software.
Darn it-- you are thinking logically== Silly man- uo=you cannot extrapalate normal logic to myheritage logic ..goood good man what next . they will be up all night pondering the aplhabet next-- and then the numerals.. Steady on..
Myheritage has its own logic just like the supermarkets.. no one know how or why but it just IS.
Is there any reason whu I can't open a smart match page ("View Matches") by right-clicking the button, and selecting "New Tab". like in most other programs. I find it is eating up a lot of time and download, to open the new page in the same window, reject some and select "Confirm All", then have to go automatically to the "confirmed" tab on that same page,and then have to go back to the smart match page.
I'm ploughing through almost 30,000 smart matches, yet to be confirmed, looking for new data.
I posted previously suggesting different colours for different data - as per FTB matches, where different data is highlighted in red, and similar in blue. This would be a TREMENDOUS help.
But also, I have spent the last hour rejecting the same mismatches over and over. I have two suggestions:
(1) A database of previously rejected matches, that automatically rejects the same match in future. That is, once I've rejected a match between Robert Leeson (b. 1824) and Henry Leeson (b. 1829), I don't see any future incorrect matches between those two - I've rejected about 60 of these over the last year or so, and it's getting quite (expletive deleted) annoying.
(2) Part of my aggravation with the above is that in each tree I get 100% matches, for both Robert-to-Robert and Henry-to-Henry, before getting 60% (and incorrect) matches Robert-to-Henry AND Henry-to-Robert! If the database idea is not feasible (though I don't know why that would be - it's simple enough to program - all you'd need to record is name, dob, and dod) then at least could a less than, say 90% match check the match list to see if the same person has a greater than 90% match in the same tree, and if so, reject the lesser match?
I think the flaw in your argument is that you are using rational thinking- Now who on earth would consider that the MH genius team would use rational thnking to solve an annoying operation. It does NOT annoy them and they can keep on advertising that people get thousands of matches- if they fixed it and users like you- only got VALID matches- the count would be down and the TEAM would look to be unworthy of their renumeration.
I am in total agreement with this one! A clickable alternate line of descent would be awesome! I believe I seem to remember that about 5 years ago, just after I joined, there was this function, but it disappeared after a few months. The classic view on-line still shows cousin relationships.
Glad you agree with my suggestion. For some reason, MyHeritage deleted the original post. So that your response is not "Context-less," I thought I would recap!
In MANY families, related-marriages happen. The current system does recognize but does not report or display these fully. For example, if my Grandmother and Grandfather were also cousins, then I have dual relationships to almost everyone on our tree. I am my father's son, and I am also his cousin via the linkage between his parents. In fact, I am MY OWN COUSIN.
It would be really interesting (entertaining!) to be able to display or report on the FULL relationship(s) between people in the Family tree.
The system "should" be able to analyze and report on this by crawling backwards through both parents when asking for relationship(s).
FYI: THis kind of "interesting artifact" has been very useful to interest and engage the next generation in the maintenance and ongoing management of our family history.
Unfortunately when you invite family members from a family site than they get to see all of the trees that are within that particular site.
The best alternative would be to create a seperate family site for that particular family tree and invote them from within this new site. This would mean that they get to see and edit only that fmaily tree as they would not be members in the other site.
If they are already members within the first site then you would have to remove them from within this site by entering your site memebrs list via the Home tab and then clicking on site members. To the right of the persons name in the list you will then have the "More" option which you will need to click and then click on remove from site.
Yes I know I can export a tree as GEDCOM and import it into another FTB BUT I will loose my photos. A function importing a FTB-tree into an existiing FTB-trre with EVERYTING merged (photos, information, links, SmartMatches ans so on)
Your suggestion is a valid one and thank you for brining this up. I will forward this as a suggestion for future updates to the software and hopefully this will be taken in to account by our development team.
In FTB, when comparing matches, different data is shown in red. This is a great thing, as it means I can quickly see what is the same and different beteen the matched people. It would be great to have the same colours used on the smart match page of the website. Currently, as I go down the list, I have to read the names, and dates, and sometimes parents etc before confirming. It would be SO MUCH better and quicker if different colours were used to highlight the same or different data.
It would help if the smart match page on the site would, under the other site manager's name, also show the last date that that site was updated. I find that I get "new" matches to sites that have not been updated for up to 6 years, and very seldom find anything worthwhile in those sites (since more recently updated sites have frequently already copied that data anyway). I would happily ignore any really old sites, and maybe make a dent in the number of smart matches waiting confirmation(cuurently over 28,000 - and whenever I check a couple of hundred, I seem to gain a few hundred more!)