I could see on your site that you already have 539 matching family trees produced 7,685 Smart Matches at the moment.
The reason of the delay is because when you add one tree all at once to the site, the Smart Matching system has many more calculations to create, between your big tree and the whole lot of 72 million users on MyHeritage to give you the matches. That of course takes much longer than when you simply go adding a few people at time, whilst editing and/or syncing one same family tree (and not deleting the whole tree and coming up with a whole new file).
When adding a new big tree to the site, there has to be some patience from the user to allow that in the next few days, the Smart Matching system comes up with new results for you.
I have always found the Smart Matching system great, but limited.
I can go along and start adding new records based on confirmed matches and then at some point the system decides that a newly added match that came from some other tree no longer matches at which point I can not longer add preceding generations from that match.
Also, it would seem obvious to me, that if I add someone and there are more generations available (certainly preceeding) then why doesn't the system simply give me the option of importing all the succeeding generations from the tree that gave me the match! Clearly if I make a definate match, then everything else should match also, so give the choice to just import it all. It would make this much easier to build out.
Finally I encounter numerous trees where the builders neglect to mark people dead that are clearly dead - born in the 1800's and before. It shouldn't be too difficult for the software to determine by place in the tree and surrounding information that someone is clearly dead. This is getting in the way of the smart matching merging algorythms. Esp adding superfolous records.
I have just recently startet my own heritage-tree, and far out in the tree I have some SmartMatches, and the people have a lot more people that i didn't. Now I have tried to copy a lot of the persons from the other trees, but there is allmost never any notification of the origin of the name, death, birth an so on.
Which boils down to - if ONE person make an error in the tree, a lot of people would/could copy that error and in no time, there are 17 different trees with the same error. But every 17 people have a SmartMatch on the false name/person.
Does enough wrongs make a right? Do people not tend to tell where they have gotten the heritage-info from? Without a reference, it's allmost worthless because of the above mentioned; a lot of people think that they have the right name because they have 17 SmartMatches on the one person - but if it was an error in the beginning, then it's an error all the way through!
How to avoid that a lot of errors makes it seem right because of the SmartMatching?
This excellent thread highlights the main problem with SmartMatches: most people on MH are hobbyists, not genealogists, and as a result they make well-meaning but unfortunate choices. The terrible lack of accuracy is the reason I have chosen to totally ignore SM.
Here's my take on smart matches. Most of them are in fact "Dumb Matches" . Sugested matches are useless when the info being compared is in fact private, what was the point? My other gripe is that some/ a lot of my ancestors only had one name but this site has to create "Unknown Bill" or "Bill Unknown" for a person only called bill. So I have a lot of Unrelated people now related by the addition of "Unknown". I have been asked by Relatives to accept smart matches. When "Dumb Matches" and "Unknown" are handled better then I will be happy to become a finacial member. Untill then I am happy to use the site for what it is for my personal use and not for everyone elses benefit.
Sorry, not sure if this is the correct place to rage against the storm.
Yes, but the smart match will not show you the reference, even if their is a reference. The only way is to ask the site manager if you can be invited for a short time and review. I have a cousin who documents everything and I am a site member, and I can't even see his source, which I know he has. Turn off your smart matching and just do your own research, because some people will not share their hard work and research with strangers nor should they have too, after all they are paying for their a very healthly yearly premium, and have a right to block this from you.
I think I'll have to skip the smart-matches. Unfortunate i have allready added 150 people from smart-matches. I thought it was fun at the time. Some of them can stay, because they have sourcereference in the notes or elsewhere in the text.
The Idea to be able to flag errors on data is a great idea if it was public data as an article in a wiki. Here we have "private" family trees made public on MyHeritage. I'm not sure if I want to have public comments on my data about errors someone thinks exists due to his/her belief due to outdated sources. I think there would be a lot of hard discussions to try to make someone to back of their opinion (mine included). This I dont want to show in my tree. And how shall flags be handled if there has come to some sort of solution (correction or not)? Shall the flag(s) be removed, if so by whom? The flags could automatically be removed if there is a correction but if a correction is not needed a manual removal would be needed.
If the flag (with comments) would be only for the manager to see, then I think I could accept it since I could ignore it if I feel it is unwarrented. Problem is when the flags keep on coming from tree owners who has the data wrong.
I have difficulties today to have time to take care of all false SMs and to also take care of false error flagging would make me leave MH.
I agree that it is frustrating to see all wrong data and it realy itch in my fingers to point it out. Sometimes I get message about a confirmed match where the person in question has a difference in birth with several centuries. Managers that add children where the parents are born 200 years after the children. All probably due to a smart smart match they beleive is true without comparing the data and dont notice the differences in existing birth dates (which would hint that it is wrong person). In FTB there is warnings if you try but I dont know if it warns about this in the WEB tree.
I have no problem with the flagging as long as there ARE errors in the data. But what I have problems with is if a lot of correct data would be marked as "POSSIBLE DATA ERROR" because the reporter is the one with the error.
If a system with flagging data errors it must be a minimum to point out which data, correct data and the source that points this out. It should not be possible to point to a source that says "Because this SM I copied said so".
I cant say that it will be a problem with false reports but just the possibility of it makes me a bit doubtful. Perhaps if it was possible to keep some statistics if a reporter was leaving many false reports he would be at least informed by MH that he needs to check his own data before he report others and maybe as a ultimate "warning", restrict possibility to leave reports during a period with a message "Due to to many incorrect reports you are restricted to leave reports. You need to check your own data!". With to many incorrect reports I mean if the reporter leave incorrect reports to several trees and several persons desided by a algorithm made by MH. To make the report incorrect the reported need to leave a rejection of the report and need to tag it with a valid source. And now we have a circular problem: whatif you disagree about the sources... Which is the valid source? If I have the correct data I dont want it tagged!
I can only agree. It is to easy just to copy a smart match and do no check. People just seems to be happy to extend their tree without any check. The one with the most people in the tree wins. At least it seems so.
I almost never add a person from smart matches. I use the info to check out if I have missed something. When I can not find any proof that the info is correct I just leave it. I have 2 branshes in my tree I have copied in the beginning where I had contact with one of the tree mangers and we had much in common. I have not yet checked all but much in the beginning of the branshes so I at least is certain that we are related.
All my own research is checked with church records and I try to add all sources I can come over to follow each direct ancestor from birth to death.
I have also added some nobels that are related to me from literature and have the sources added to that literature. However I now and then get confirmations/rejections where the persons are clearly mismatched where older literature with outdated data gives my counterpart right. So how can you tell who is right when sources are missing. At least I know that I'm right :)