I understand that the system is set to hide the details of individuals who are still alive.
However, I often encounter issues where someone who was born in the 1700s has their parents, siblings or children flagged as "private" because the default for all individuals is that they are alive unless marked deceased.
Can we implement a filter that automatically flags any individual who is more than 150 years old as deceased (the exact threshold need not be exactly 150 ... but you know what I mean).
This would enable us to research families using the smart match feature even where individuals have forgotten to flag their long dead ancestors as dead.
I know how to get smart matches up and running faster than anyone.
Simple really- publish your tree, wait three days and then COMPLAIN and COMPLAIN and COmplain and the majic will happen. One of the Darlings from MH will FIX IT.
Just read throgh the postings on the forun of time delay and just about EVERY one is fixed by the little sweetie - she is a jem and can always get things fixed.
So dont stress just complain and your tree will be smat matched in no time.
When I first started using FTB, I was a bit excited about the Smart Match thing.
After a while, though, I found that the places to which I matched were poorly researched, totally undocumented, often just plain wrong. I wrote the the people managing those sites and asked, "How do you know that X was the father of Y? What documentation do you have for X and Z marrying on such a date?"
The usual answer was, "I got it from a smart match with somebody else." In other word, a copy of a copy of a copy...maybe somewhere, somebody has done some research or checked some original sources, but how do you know?
Lately, any smart match I check, I find that I've got more data, and more accurate info, than any of the matches. I've even found a few with data and photos that obviously came from my site (not that they bother to attribute those photos to me!)
So tell me, what's the point of smart matches? Hunting them down and confirming them seem to me to be a total waste of time. Am I missing something?
I worry about this, too, and am overwhelmed by the volume of probably useless smartmatches. I would like there to be other options for handling these matches so I can get rid of many of them without either confirming or rejecting. I'd like there at least to be an IGNORE or ELIMINATE option. If I know a branch on my tree is flimsy, I don't want to confirm a match. That just lends it too much false credibility. But at the same time, I don't want to reject it, if it's obviously talking about the same alleged twig on the branch. If I don't choose one or the other--confirm or reject--the match just sits there cluttering up my smartmatches list. It would also be nice to have an option accompanying the CONFIRM button that adds, I have documentary evidence that I'm willing to tell you where to find.
You are missing nothing sir. You are spot on the money and one of many disgruntled by the smart-match concept that is the core of MH.
I am concerned that when incorrect data is published- either in ignnorance or by malice, then as it is taken up by one user after the other- it BECOMES the fact by virtue of the numbers of users who have "matched". If the originator of the data has - expired or walked away from myheritgae there is NO WAY to have the data corrected or withdrawn.
I have many "discussions"wtih users who justify their situation by saying- I cant validate the info - I just smart matched.
The MUST be a process by which inferier data can be challenged and or removed.
I completely agree. But I don't have any good ideas about how to have the benefits of SmartMatching, which has enabled me to find hundreds of relations, without the problems you have so well described.
I did suggest some time back that we should be able to put, say, a big green question-mark 'watermark' on any member 'card' or 'profile' while uncertain of the validity of information. That won't solve the problem but should help a lot.
I am currently researching a new family with heaps of discrepancies and I am checking ALL of them (that are old enough to be 'historical') against the details from the Victorian Birth Death and Marriage historical index for that surname. Only cost five dollars, fortunately the name is not common so I got the whole hundred or so entries for that. I am recording the details and the source in the Notes for all to see. And I will have to do something the same for my main tree.
Is it possible to use Smart Matches to ensure that two of my trees (which have some common members) are simultaneously up to date. At the moment if I add information about a person in one tree, I then have to save and close that tree and then load the second tree and repeat the input. Is there an easier way to ensure I have the same information about the same people in each tree?
I would be interested to hear if anyone has found a way to avoid having to do the work twice!
I am sorry that i not offer simple solution, but by my meaning, these technology is not created for this purpose. But, regarding that you have unlimited PremiumPlus subscriprion, i think, the best and simplest way is, merge partial trees to one common tree. Then SmartMatch technology will work for you on 100% of power.
For a tree published on april 29 with only 250 entries why it not smart matched by now ( may 13) - that is 14 days- how long must I wait or is it a conspiracy that you dont or wont let my tree be matched because its not Premium.
My site says- extend your account to premuim and get more and faster matches.
Please explain how fast and how many MORE matched would I get - compare basic to premium- I very interested in your results.
Same question here. In my case, I only added my tree yesterday ,yet is very telling that a question opened a week ago still has not been answered by MyHeritage.com's support.
I would like to know the same thing, though I haven't been waiting as long as he has. I was given the impression from the Rootstech presentation that it would be instantaious results, and so many it would be hard to get through them all. I added a GEDcom of 1600 names and don't have even one match.
Why is Smartmatch showing match where they have "private" flag on. Have a lot of match, where the only thing I can see is <Private> <Private>. How about cancel match on private people.
What I have noticed is when it says private, its usually because the site manager has not marked this person as deceased. I usually go into more information on the smart match , and usually the information is there, just have to look deeper than the surface....means it takes longer.
The thought behind this was that you might want to contact the site manager and ask for details- It means
that there is a possibility of a match but we can not let you see the information because the site manager marked it as private/The person you matched with is alive.
We will discuss this approach and might change it.
Well...I wouldn't go so far as to give up on smart matches. I have found a good many gold nuggets in the chaff, some major big ones, and made some great genealogical friends with whom I have formed a mutual aid society. The 'private' annoyance thing is a small price to pay.
You are absolutley right. What I dont understand is why people use a share facility like myheritage and then make it impossible by setting private. It must be counter productive and very annoying.
Hi, I seem to get matches from a fairly small group of members who share relations with me; but few if any of the people in the trees are marked private except if they are still living and I am not a member of the particular tree. Geoff
My resources tel me that you are not the only one who has matches öff"- I know of casses where they have disappered then retuned and the usrer has to accept/reject all AGAIN. I cant say that is an improvenet.
Perhpas the developers are asleep.
I just joined a few days ago. I have had 0 record matches and 0 smart matches. I have a tree of about 1500 people. So what's up with this? Obviously things are not working. And yes, I have turned on smart matches. I'm seeing no reason to continue membership.
