currently have to delete one, could be much better to merge and retain all info without having to write down and re enter and then delete one.......
I quite agree with you! MH are dragging their heels about implementing this feature, with many lame excuses that it will be passed to the "team" to react! Get your fingers out MH or the world will pass you by and you will be left in the by-water of genealogy passed :( A simple split screen, as per "Smart matching" (with all tabs/fields available) would suffice.
I wasted many hours going through the duplicates list (three times), operating on the clearly naive assumption that if it was showing me duplicates then it was going to merge them. Oh no, twice it happily accepted my labour (my arm is still aching from all the mouse clicking) and did nothing about it. I've had enough; time to check out WikiTree.
I would recommend that you check the settings on your Family Tree Builder to make sure that you have the 'duplicate warning' on. That way, from now on if you add a duplicate person on your tree, you will receive an alert before actually adding the person.
1. Click on the 'Tools' option on the menu bar on the top of the Family Tree Builder.
2. Click on the 'Options' option.
3. On the window that opens, click on 'Warning' on the left side menu and in the middle select 'Yes' for the option of 'When adding possible duplicate person'. (See the screenshot below)
I think you missed the point that Marcin was making regarding the fact that though the is a way to find duplicates, there is NO methed to merge them! Other than physically retyping the information and relationships of one person onto the details of another and then deleting the original.
Indeed, that was precisely my point. Without the ability to merge databases, MyHeritage cannot call itself a serious genealogy website. It is inevitable that users will want to merge various data sources as they become available. Take my case in point: 5 years ago, when I joined MyHeritage I had a GEDCOM with over 1000 individuals in it. At that point MyHeritage GEDCOM import feature was next to useless, so I couldn't bring it in, but I assumed this was a temporary shotcoming and invited various family members to contribute to a new tree online. The assumption was that eventually the data from the old tree can be imported and merged with the new one. 5 years later the online tree is still only 620 individuals with lots of photos and few real facts, and I still cannot bring in the original, well researched database, because of the lacking merge feature.
I am a software engineer, so I know it's not a trivial problem, but it's not rocket science, either. I've solved similar problems in the past.I'd be happy to pay for a premium membership if it came with the merge functionality, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't. This single fact tells me that MyHeritage is a shoestring operation, with pretty web front end but little serious expertise or commitment at the back end.
Issue : I have got to the point where I check 40 to 50 smart matches only to find no new information, in fact mostly the match does not have as much information as I already have (e.g. I have day/month/year of birth and the match only has the year). In every 40 or 50 matches, I might only get ONE piece of information. Given that I have over 10,000 matches, and more are being added faster than I can accept or reject them, it is getting a little tedious.
Now I accept that you may say that it might lead to new family connections, but since I decided to arbitrarily cut off adding people who are more than 10 steps away from me sideways, this has not happened much either - in other words, my tree is about as complete as it is likely to get as far as relatives are concerned (though I have recently get a few distant ancestors through discoveries - great addition to MH). What I am currently doing is "filling in the gaps" with details such as days and months instead of just years, and more specific places, as well as anecdotes.
Suggestion : On the smart match page, it would be a GREAT help if there was an indication as to whether the match contains a) less, or b) the same, or c) more information that already in my tree, and even more importantly, allowed me to search for and view only the ones that contained more.
Perhaps so, but being a programmer myself, I also know that it might take years to implement even a fairly simple suggestion - after all, how long was it between FTB 6 and FTB 7 . Maybe you're right, but I 'll continue supplying ideas on the belief that they will eventually be taken on board, if they are good ideas. Let's see what happens when FTB 8 comes out !
Have a look in a file called "comm.log" (open with 'notepad') in the "sync" directory of the treename (project) that you have updated (found in "tools>options>general>project directory"). It takes a bit of interpretation, but it does list most of the changes.
The front page of an online family tree very briefly lists each contribution.
Usually this includes only the first four names of persons who were edited. E.g. "Family Member updated details of Person One, Person Two, Person Three, Person Four and XX other people in the FAMILY TREE. "
While this is helpful, it is terribly incomplete. On large sites with many editors it is very insufficient.
Can we please have a detailed change log. That is, a page where Site Mangers can see a full list of everyone of the changes that are made on any given day. Where the XX other people are also listed.
A listing as described above would be a very good addition to the online site and would be much appreciated. Even better would be a description of the actual change that was made - if this is also possilbe.
here are additional arguments for implementation detailed log/audit feature.
Real situation: Today my uzed lost photo's links completely.
If detailed log feature would be available I would never inquire support @ MH but I would look for my backup file and log/audit file only. Having restrored the project from the backup I would make the edits made from the last backup - that's it.
While not having detailed log we need to initiate the support process, which cost a lot.
Implementaiton of detailed log must be a major motivator for MH, having implemented this you would need less support work, you would only need to write few additional lines in the manual.
Users who are using MH Online and FTB know that time to time, in the situation of tree versions conflict, they face the dilema which version of family tree to take. In other words, the user need to decide which data is he accepting to loose. While not having deailed log file is it not so easy to make the decision. If detailed log/audit file would be available, it would not be the questions "which data to loose" anymore.
Log/audit data shall be part of family tree.
Keeping in mind that edits can be made online and ftb both, detailed log shall be implemented in mh online and ftb both.
Sync process shall not take one of or overwrithe the log but append the new portion of log from the last backup.
We have received the file you sent with the integrity problem and we are taking care of it at the moment.
Regarding that you described with the lost of links of photos, I would recommend you to first and foremost be sure that the file you are working with (or trying to) on Family Tree Builder is the same that is now synced online. I see that you have many different trees on your family sites, and each of them has and 'ID' higher than 2 or 3 (some even with ID 15), which means that those are not the original files yet might be a copy (you might have saved the file as a new file with a different name, restored a backup, imported a GEDCOM or other similar action).
I would recommend you to manage the files you might have in your FTB, by clicking on 'File' on the top menu bar and then on 'Manage projects'. See if you have more than one file for the same tree, and maintain only the most updated one, deleting the others.
The photos are also an integrant part of an FTB file. So it's important to keep the file to which the photos have been imported.
If you have now problems with the photos, I would suggest you to try to restore the correct tree from the site (if the tree on the site is correct, with all the people and their photos), following the steps on the links below: