Wouldn't it be better to have DOB be the default ordering on surname search results?

Question

When doing a surname search, it looks like the default ordering is by most recent activity.  I'm thinking that if DOB was the default ordering, maybe fewer duplicate profiles would be created.

Comments

Colleen, I'm not sure the DOB activity feed is a handicap. If you mean on the surname Index for a (surname) pages those can be order by first name, activity feed, DNA connections, and 11 more choices and one can change the Index listing 14 MORE choices ... and further on down by selecting a forename you can romp through even more narrow definitions 

---

I know there are a number of choices if one wants to order the search results differently, but I'm wondering what the benefit is to having activity feed be the default?  At least DOB has genealogical significance.

---

Susan is right--you can easily re-sort the list.  By the way, I find that, in their initial order, the lists often have what I'm looking for near the top.

Edit:  Colleen, I wrote my comment before your latest post, but I think I've partly answered your question.

And, also by the way, once I discovered that I could select "only exact last name matches," that made the results much more manageable.  I find that that usually works well, but if not then I can try again with the alternate spellings included.

---

I think you are spot on there Colleen !

It would save us from creating dublicate profiles if that was the default system.

Answer 1

I think she is talking about the profiles that show up when adding a new profile; In which case, it's a very good idea.

Sometimes the names are different and they don't show up on the possibles -even if you have complete information, it's possible to create duplicate profiles.

Comments

Lisa, I learned, over time, that it is best to do an initial search before starting to add a profile.

---

Ah, LISA, you think she means the ones when you are creating the profile of Henry Baker and 57 other Henry Baker from 8 other nations and from the 1400's to the 1990's  are listed as a possible match? Some of them with surnames NOT "Baker". ?? 

 you should see what it does with "John Smith". 

A "fix" on the DOB as the default will not "fix" that listing 

---

LOL!     

But wouldn't it make that list shorter?

---

what would make that particular list shorter would be the same sort of selectivity that one can use when investigating the Index to a surname -- if one could specify exact surname for instance and country (nation)

---

Thanks for all your comments.  I was trying to think of something that might help reduce duplication.  Yes, one should probably do a general search even before starting a profile, but in that case, duplicates can be easier to see when people are sorted by DOB, unless it was the same person who created both the duplicate profiles around the same time.  Of course, I have not  dealt that much with really common names like John Smith, where it's going to be a headache no matter what.    One problem is that even if the two profiles have same date and location of birth and same date and location of death, but one lists parents but no spouse or children, and the other lists the spouse and children, but no parents, somebody will consider them different people.  No method of sorting would probably help with that issue.

---

Colleen, in the example you mentioned, I'd encourage you to propose a merge.  Let the PMs sort it out.  At least you've brought it to their attention.

I've done a lot of work on my Brown ancestors.  To be honest, when I do a search and find 20 John Browns with no dates, I ignore them.  If I find a reasonable match, I investigate him, but in my opinion we shouldn't be expected to clean up 20 profiles every time we want to create a profile, and they probably can't be cleaned up anyway..