thank you for the message. Yes, you are right. The match is not accurate. However, a new mechanism for calculating Smart Matches is already in our developer's hands and is on the road map as part of Smart Matches improvements. This new mechanism will reduce the number of false positive matches you get. It's much more robust than our current system. I'm not making any promises about time frames for release of this new system - there is still a lot to understand about the scope of the project before we can define and promise a time - but I thought you would be interested to know it's in the works.
We are also looking at the possibility of allowing you to configure your matches to show only a certain percentage of quality. It means you will be able to say "I only want to see matches that are above 80%" and then you won't have to be bothered with all the other, lower quality matches. If we can add this feature relatively quickly we will.
I agree that it is annoying when you get notified of a very high number of Smart Matches and very few if any are actually matches. But there have been times when a match of 35% was really a match that I have confirmed - and the other site manager confirmed it as well !! The percentage of accuracy given all depends on how much matching information is in both trees. This can really help the person with the lesser amount of information in their tree. I have found out a lot of information about relatively recent relatives, information that I have confidence is accurate because it comes from a living person closely related to the information. (This has happened to me more than once where someone with the name of "Unknown" was in the other tree but the birthdate, death date or other information was accurate.) If it were not for the inclusion of the lesser accuracy percentages those matches would not have been found and the other person would not have known the actual name of their "Unknown" !!
The biggest problem I have found with the Smart Matches is that occasionally I get notification of a match and when I go to check it out there is no match with anyone. And because of that there is no way to get rid of the match-to-no-one and it just hangs around forever. There is one way to get rid of it but you have to wait until an actual match is made with that tree. Then you click on "confirm all matches" or "reject all matches" to finally eliminate that false match. These options are not available if there is only the non-match with the other tree. This is something that needs to be rectifed and hopefully this will be part of the revisions made to the Smart Match feature.
I think it should be possible to configure what conditions need to be met in order to qualify as a Smart Match. Right now I am piling through a huge stack of so called Smart Matches, most of which are completely irrelevant. New ones keep popping up all the time, and the quality is no better.
As for myself, pretty much all of my entries have been checked and vetted with official records. So if I get an Anders Andersson (and yes, that's like John Smith to you), born 100 years earlier, in a completely different area of the country (or better still, in Norway or Denmark, yes, I get that too), I already know that that record is of no relevance to my research. And when you start getting 50-100 of the same it starts getting really annoying.
If I would be able to configure the conditions in order for a match to qualify, I believe I would get less irrelevant matches.
There are big efforts invested by our developers to update the smart matching system and we are working very hard on it. We have already achieved impressive results. It will take a little bit time though to implement the changes.
We will update you when this update will be available.
I'm so sorry for the any inconvenience that you are having currently!
There are big efforts invested by our developers to update the smart matching system and we are working very hard on it. We have already achieved impressive results. It will take a little bit time though to implement the changes.We will update you when this update will be available.
I suddenly have 91 (!) matches on a very odd named relative, and found that "Unknown", "Olsson", "Petersson" matched "Yllman", and difference in life was more than 200 years. The only thing you missed were a woman for a man. Your "smart match" is keeping me too busy checking off all your irrelevant matching. I think this is a scandal!
I have noticed that I every now and then get SMs for the "first" time from other trees "203(203)", even trees I recognice that I have handled before. I have thought that the owners has started up a new tree and removed the other (they only own one if I look). Today I was matched to a totaly new tree but the tree has not been edited for more than a half year ago. Many of the matched persons are persons I entered long ago. How is that?
Reasons I can think of:
a) when SM runs it stops after a maximum number of matches
b) a trees SMs are reseted for some reason
I think that when SM is run I would only receive matches on new trees and newly added people (in my tree or the other) not people I added ages ago matched to trees not touched for several months if reason is not one of the above.
"I have thought that the owners has started up a new tree and removed the other (they only own one if I look)"
Generally this is the answer that applies almost always, though you told me that the tree was not updated for half a year. We would be glad if you could give us the link to the smart match and we could check it for you and provide you with an explanation.
Another complication that could have occured is that they did sync a new tree - but then deleted it. Which means that the SM database was fast enough to detect the smart matches but then it didn't update that these matches are gone now. You can check this by using the "Compare trees" function - if it shows you the other tree, it means that it still exists and this argument is invalid.
Let me know once you get me the link to the smart matches!
You are right, the other tree hasn't been updated for a very long time.
There is a phenomenon that could explain this situation though - it could be a bug that is related to the family tree builder 7. Where individuals would sync their trees, they will lose the smart matches for a short period of time and would get them back again as "new" and would appear again as they were recalculated.
Let me know if that could of happened in your situation.
I'm REALLY hoping it combines our respective trees to effectively make one larger tree. I'd like all of the data they match has of my family and I'd love to have my tree extended with theirs. Is that what's happening when I confirm a Smart Match or is it only creating the ability for me and the matchee to contact one another?
Related thought, I've confirmed a Smart Match with a cousin who didn't know we had a family tree here. There is no reason for the cousin to keep working on their own tree.
It directs you to another tree and another person working on the same or related individuals
It gives you the opportunity to merge data between another tree and yours (one direction only)
It offers an opportunity to contact another researcher with similar interests
Confirming a SM really does nothing except tell the other tree manager "I see you". After the first month of using FTB, I stopped confirming SMs because there's no point; it's a total waste of time.
If you want, you can merge their data with yours, and the manual merge lets you check what data is going where. I avoid the automatic "smart" merge because it copies over things that I know are inaccurate or false.
A SM gives you the opportunity to contact the other tree manager. "Hi, there. I see that you have a date of birth for my grandfather of 27 March 1920. I'm curious where you got that date, and what documentation you have to support it. Looking forward to hearing from you, Tom"
After the second month, I stopped sending those notes, as nobody ever responded with anything other than "I have no documentation, I got it from another Smart Match."
So, while it's amusing to find a SM to a tree that links you to King Henry VIII, don't bother to merge the data. And don't bother to confirm the SM.
Thanks Tom, this validates, disappointingly, why a potentially incredible, unique, and game changing feature on MyHeritage is actually quite meaningless. If we don't have the ability to, at our discretion, actually combine two trees into one, what's the point? It's just a contact/communication feature that automatically identifies other people with similar data.
I'm not proposing that trees should automatically merge into one; rather, that we should have the option to do that. I discovered that my 1st cousin had set up a MyHeritage account and built a smaller version of our extended family tree. What a waste of time and energy?! We should be able to combine ours into one so that we're both working on the same tree.
"But what if I don't want another person working on my version of the tree? I don't want someone else putting in data that isn't researched or documented as much as I do." I hear this all the time in opposition to the idea. And it's a fair point. But that doesn't mean don't make it possible; that simply means, give the users the choice.
I've since discovered 6 distant family members working on their trees. We're ancestors through our great-great-great grandparents which means ANYTHING we discover at that point in history and beyond, applies to us both. Sure, she has her tree and I have mine, we're so unrelated now that we'll probably never even meet. But when she uncovers something, from 1632, I don't want a SmartMatch to popup one day saying there might be data out there that I then have to research and add if we have the exact same ancestor.
I hate to tell you, but all confirming a Smart Match does is to let the administrator of the other site know that you feel your person matches the person on his/her site. Nothing else happens. If he/she has info that your tree does not have yet, ie a spouse or a child, you still have to add them to your tree yourself. It does not automatically add their info to your tree or your information to their tree. Sorry. Happy hunting!
Seems kind of silly doesn't it? That as a web service that facilitates creating a family tree, managers of separate but related trees can't combine them into one??
I get that some individuals might want to be more strict about documentation and sources but over the years that I've been on MyHeritage, I've come across 6 different trees from unknown individuals with whom I'm related. Why would the option not exist to combine those into one?
Yes, but I don't use it because I'm a stickler for having a good source before adding info to my tree. I prefer to do my own research and be sure that everything on my tree is accurate. But, your post did not ask that question, only what confirming a Smart Match accomplished, or at least that's what I thought you asked. Have a good day!
As FPS wrote here, we are working on better optimizing the smart matches with more accuracy.
We would be glad if you could give us a link to the smart matches that are cross-matched between two brothers, as it may be a bug that we are not aware of. We would also be glad if you could check whether or not you have already confirmed or rejected the matches between (XX and XX) and (yy and yy) - and thus not showing in the pending queue.