I've just read through a couple of the entries in this forum and can see that I am not alone with my frustration at the quality of the Smart Matches I receive. You invite suggestions for improvement, and although I have not "aced a Mensa test in 13 minutes" as another user in here (is that a qualification in itself??), I still think the following should be possible:
Provide users with the option of receiving Smart Matches of specified, selected percentages only.
I understand that some might still find information from a 35 % match useful to them (I haven't had such luck yet, in fact, I have had very high % matches that have been utterly useless), and if people want to see such low matches, then it is great that they have this option. For the rest of us, it would be wonderful to be able to choose 100 % matches only and maybe a couple of other options. Or be able to set the match value individually.
This does not seem to be a problem in other computer programs, so surely, you are up to the challenge of adding this little feature that would make a lot of users happy?
I really appreciate your candid post and your good humor in understanding that we're not perfect.
We try very hard to give you the best matches possible. We recently made improvements based on feedback from interested users like yourself and are working overtime to release more of them.
The idea of letting you filter matches by things like percentage is on our minds already. We know it's something you and other users would like to see implemented and it's in the plans.
I sent your post to the management team and specifically to the developers of Smart Matches. It might seem like they don't really do anything with your feedback, but I can tell you personally they do! We all take your suggestions very seriously and appreciate the time you invest in telling us about them.
This morning alone, I went through more than 50 suggested 'Smart Matches', and not one of them matched anything whatsoever in my family tree. The match percentages, however, were above 50 in many places. Makes me wonder, again, on what the matches are based. Maybe it is a calculation against the letters in the respective names?
Hi All & Anyone who receives this; When SIMPLE, QUICK & EASY, becomes HARD, LENGHLY, & ARDEROUS I do not believe it meets anyone's Goals or Objectives. Currently I'm Having Trouble with THREE THINGS 1) a misattributed record match for Mary A Scully nee Donahue to a Middletown, NY Newpaper dated May 14, 1917 & 2) the fact that I'm totally unable to contact the attributor of that record match. 3) I'd like to have ir removed from my Family record.
Therefore that does not meet my Criteria of SIMPLE, QUICK & EASY & if so, then why is it being done???
Lastly why isn't it the choice of the Family Record Manager to accept or reject Record Match??? Thanks, Jim
Record Matches is a new feature that we have worked for a long time on. We are still working on perfecting it, and making it better and better.
The new Record Matches feature runs for free for everyone who has one or more family trees on MyHeritage.
Viewing the matches is free, but viewing full records and their scanned images or newspaper articles requires a Data Subscription which is the same subscription used to view records on MyHeritage SuperSearch – our new search engine for historical records.
If you have a Premium family site subscription you get full access to Record Matches from free collections: Find a Grave, 1940 Census, and Ellis Island Collections.
There are aspects of the Record matching that are a Premium feature. This is to support the feature, and enable us to continuously improve it. Pay-as-you-go credits may be purchased to view specific records in smaller quantity, in lieu of a subscription. Credits can be used to review a few matches of high interest, but if there are a great deal of interesting matches, a Data Subscription is a more economical way to review them all.
If you can send me a specific name or the name of the matching tree in your list of matches where the incorrect matching names occur, I can have the developers look into the specific case.
We are working on a solution to prevent such bad matches from occurring in the meantime.
That's very kind of you. I must admit I think that would be a hopeless effort, as the mismatches are a daily occurrence and there are loads and loads and loads of them, but just as a random excample, here's a 56 % match from today:
My tree (Gitte Hovedskov Hansen)
Johanne Jensdatter?
Father: Jens
Husband: Peder
Children: Dødfødt Dreng and Else
'Matching' tree (Marianne Filsoe Svenningsen)
Estrid Julie Larsen (Nielsen)
1910-1996
Husband: Karl Kristian
Children: Bent 4 Private
They have NOTHING in common, so why is it a 56 % match?
I forwarded the examples you sent to one of the Smart Matching developers to look at. I told him about your problem yesterday and he will take a look as soon as he can.
I'll let you know when I have more information for you.
Earlier this week, I was excited to find about 250 new smart matches waiting for verification one morning. I did not set my hopes too high, and in the end found that the 6 (yes SIX) that were REAL matches gave me a lot of new information that was very useful to me. In that light, I was willing to 'forgive and forget'.
Still, it would be so much nicer not to have to ponder whether Jørgen Christian Sørensen might possible be a good match for Marius Andreas Knudsen and many, many similiar hopeless matches.
I still look forward to an improved version of MyHeritage...
Thanks, Jim 
