tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post5014789178233250228..comments2024-03-26T21:29:07.190-07:00Comments on Rejoice, and be exceeding glad...: Its All in the Birth NameJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-14584338593460532632018-05-15T14:15:54.941-07:002018-05-15T14:15:54.941-07:00When records were combined on new.FamilySearch.org...When records were combined on new.FamilySearch.org all of the information about the additional entries was preserved. This created what they called IOUS or Individuals of unusual size. These huge entries were eliminated in the present version of Family Tree. Merge and combine are not the same at all. Yes, the name changed but the numbers did remain the same. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-8745567815497117712018-05-15T08:48:50.673-07:002018-05-15T08:48:50.673-07:00Duplicate entries in new.familysearch.org were COM...Duplicate entries in new.familysearch.org were COMBINED. Now, in Family Tree they are MERGED. Same principle, different name.<br /><br />Another nomenclature change was the use of PID numbers (Personal ID #) in new.familysearch.org, now ID numbers in Family Tree.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01572739124200052085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-57228535804135001872018-05-14T14:07:04.069-07:002018-05-14T14:07:04.069-07:00Thanks for your detailed comment. It was not possi...Thanks for your detailed comment. It was not possible to merge people in new.familysearch.org. So I am a little bit puzzled by you reference to a merger before the Family Tree was fixed in June of 2017. You probably meant that the two individuals were combined on the previous program. That does create some issues. As I indicated, if you see a different or strange name you need to look further at the entries. You may also find that someone has already created another copy of the merged individual. Where there is on merger there will likely be more. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-13501172644655872992018-05-14T11:47:28.187-07:002018-05-14T11:47:28.187-07:00Today, it is usually impossible for most of us to ...Today, it is usually impossible for most of us to tell if any of these alternate names are the result of incorrect combining of entries in the now defunct new.familysearch.org, before Family Tree was in introduced. <br /><br />I found a case where a Linus was combined with his brother, Jerome. Jerome's name appeared in the Vital Records section at the top of the page and Linus' name appeared as an alternate name. The merge took place before Family Tree was in place so I could not separate them but FamilySearch was able to do it. <br /><br />In another case, twin sisters, Irena & Ivena, were combined before the existence of Family Tree. Thankfully, that has also been resolved<br /><br />While the reason behind some of these alternate names is innocuous and obvious, as in the case of different married names, the reason behind others can no longer be determined unless one is alert enough to ask for a Support case to FamilySearch be escalated to a software engineer who can see if more than one individual was merged. <br /><br />Another clue to an incorrect combination before Family Tree, could be where a person is apparently incorrectly connected to different sets of parents or spouses. If this is the case, the change log would not show an incorrect merge.<br /><br />I suppose it might be less time consuming to redo some temple work lost by creating a new entry for someone, than for engineers to do the separation, but I don’t know. Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01572739124200052085noreply@blogger.com