When asked to approve a merge, do you read all the comments on both profiles before proceeding?

Question

After all, with a wiki, collaboration is key. [[Guédry-20|Augustin Guédry (abt.1690-aft.1765)]] is a good example of why communication is so important on WikiTree, and how some attempts to communicate can fail. An unsourced profile-- not this one-- was created, and it languished, because the person profiled never existed. This man, with similar name, locations and dates, did exist, and a decision was finally made by project leaders, who had extensively researched the problem and discussed it in the comments, to merge the nul profile into the valid Augustin Guédry. 

I was the first to reject the merge because I didn't read the comments. After I did, red-faced, I re-initiated the merge, with more comments, pointing out my mistake. Yet it was rejected again-- for the same reason I rejected, and, clearly, again unread comments. I commented again, in bold, when I again re-initiated the merge, but it was a third time rejected, again for the same reason, so obviously again the comments weren't read! 

I'm putting this cautionary tale on G2G to remind folks to please take a moment when you've been asked to approve a merge to remember to always look for and read the comments on both profiles. 

I might add for leaders and arborists that when merging away a non-existing person into a valid one, it wouldn't hurt to preemptively remove the invalid, fictional obstacles to the proposed merge, such as conflicting connections to other profiles that can't possibly be correct if the person didn't exist.  This was the sticking point for all three rejections in this case. Maybe we just have to assume the comments won't be read?

Comments

I liked it better when the comments were near the profile.  I still have trouble checking for comments if I am hot on the trail of sources to be entered.

---

Augustin Guédry - 20 seem's to have had a son named Claude Augustin that might represent Guedry - 817 the date's seem right 

---

The Acadian and Louisiana Project leaders are pretty good researchers, with a lot of sources at hand. Part of the discussion was about Claude, and whether or not there are sources for his existence. Do you have any?

Answer 1

Stephanie, thank you so much for mentioning this.  It is frustrating when you suggest a merge and provide an explanation of why you are wanting the merge, yet people reject it without reading your message.  It's even more frustrating when someone that isn't the PM (or even on the trusted list) rejects it, and you can tell by their comment that they didn't read your comment(s) or allow one of the PMs to review and respond.

Something else to point out is that a merge shouldn't get rejected solely because the dates aren't an exact match.  When two same-named people share common parents (and usually a common spouse), and it is obvious they are duplicates but the date of birth is (for example) 1802 for one and 2 Feb 1803 for another, this isn't a reason to reject the merge.  If you are interested in the profile, then research and see if you can determine the correct date.  If you can't, then choose one for the date field and put a note in the biography section as to the other date (ditto with location).  And please don't set them as unmerged matches for this reason.  That is basically an invitation to forget about the duplicates.  If you don't have time to research, then please leave the merge alone and let someone else review/research it.

Answer 2

Maybe the instructions for merging need to be re-written to make it clear that sometimes merges do need to happen between profiles that are clearly NOT the same person.  Now, they say: "If these are not the same person, reject the merge." So perhaps the people rejecting the merge are only following the instructions.

Comments

Good point.

---

I think the second half of the question above is the concern for me...we shouldn't be merging profiles that are not the same person....see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Disproven_Existence

---

That is a reasonable position, Robin, but it entails a significant change in current practice, as I see it.

Answer 3

Thank you for bringing this up. It is so very important to read all comments and notes on both profiles before acting on a merge proposal. Sometimes the answer seems obvious at first glance, but other issues become apparent with a closer examination of the evidence.

The point about removing false conflicting relationships is well said. I admit to not thinking about doing just that until after discovering the third rejection, but by the time I went to do it Cindy had already jumped in and completed the merge. (Thank you, Cindy!)

Comments

Hi, Joyce and Stephanie, it was probably my fault for not removing the bad evidence to begin with.  I had thought that the explanation in the merge comments should have been sufficient, but this has happened before even if ONE field is different.  Somehow I feel it's wrong to remove all the different information but it would probably make it easier to get these types of merges done.  Unfortunately, my other experience is that potential merge completers won't research anything.  Joyce, your research helped tremendously on the non-existent person.  It was definitely a good example of two projects working together and I feel great about that.

---

Hi Cindy,

Thanks for joining in! What happened wasn't your "fault"-- if I'd just let it alone you would've completed the merge in no time. A couple of times when I'm on for La Fam I will have started a merge, gotten interrupted, and come back to find you'd completed it! But maybe this way it all worked out for the best. I think this has been a productive discussion! 

But to address your comments, "Somehow I feel it's wrong to remove all the different information..."  -- That's what ==Research Notes== are for! I personally feel it's wrong to leave any potentially confusing information, which is why I rewrite and reorganize so many profiles.

And, "Unfortunately, my other experience is that potential merge completers won't research anything." -- Bingo. A well-respected WT'er on this forum shocked me awhile back when he said he expects the research to have been done by the proposer of the merge! And yet I did the same thing, not bothering to read the comments because I respect your work and know how thorough you are. I was expecting a simple merge, with everything that was there lining up, so the different but related fathers threw me. I just thought you'd made a mistake.

So, you're right-- all the comments you and Joyce added to the profile "should have been sufficient" -- and would have been, in a perfect world. Anyway, I hope I'll do better with merges in the future! There are some good suggestions here from all of y'all that should help!

Answer 4

When there is a discrepancy and it has been agreed by Leaders, PMs, etc that the merge should be done, in addition to removing anything that could be conflicting information, the 'merge proposal' statement should state why it is being done.  

Unfortunately, the merge proposal comment is only put on ONE of the profiles, which is what causes some of the problems.  Comments on one profile are not seen from the other profile.  Often, I have copied the comment over to the other profile to make sure that both profiles have the same message, if it is something other than standard duplicate profiles.

Comments

That's a good observation and very good practice, thank you for mentioning.

---

Linda, I have often been frustrated by that.  Thank you for suggesting that the merge comment can be copied over to the other profile.  It would be a good improvement suggestion as well.

---

I also have wondered why merge proposal comments are not reflected on both profiles.  (and have copied them over to get around that.)  So, how do we propose this (very slight, but useful) modification to WikiTree Central?  Will they monitor this thread and just pick it up and do it?  Or is there a specific "Suggestion Box" we should drop it in?

---

It would be a new posting on G2G.  With the tag Improvements.  If you post it, I'll jump in to support it.  It's a real problem when the manager of the other one that didn't get the comment doesn't see it.

Answer 5

Yes, this is an issue especially where people are doing the merge to meet some goal.   I see it all the time.   I actually keep a list of the merges I propose that have "questions".   That way, I can check back on the merge when it becomes default approved.

Comments

Hi, Robin, wouldn't you see the merges in your own Find Merges section?

---

Yes, but, that is ALL the merges I propose....I keep a list of the ones that are "questionable", which is a subset of the total.