tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post5974503402073929561..comments2024-03-26T21:29:07.190-07:00Comments on Rejoice, and be exceeding glad...: Loss of Life Sketches on Merger?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-81562567595175064122016-05-29T21:54:33.799-07:002016-05-29T21:54:33.799-07:00Okay, I resolved not to just rant here, but to sub...Okay, I resolved not to just rant here, but to submit my suggestion of keeping the older record. https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/preserve-older-not-newer-record-during-a-mergeJohannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103752514868008230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-13021433562362443352016-05-29T21:44:30.766-07:002016-05-29T21:44:30.766-07:00Nice to bump into you (virtually) again, Cathy!
A...Nice to bump into you (virtually) again, Cathy!<br /><br />Any news on this bug? I faced the same issue, and attempted to undo the merge and redo it the other direction, only to discover the reason the merge had been done the direction it was.<br /><br />Do we really have to keep the *newer* record? This is counter to my history-preserving ways; yes, I know the history isn't truly deleted, but it is obfuscated. I believe the older record be the canonical source--it was there first. {end rant}Johannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103752514868008230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-4567207699537570062016-05-24T18:59:04.394-07:002016-05-24T18:59:04.394-07:00We informed the engineers today. They'll be on...We informed the engineers today. They'll be on this one.Cathy Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10461484882494138496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-17776614071658931832016-05-23T19:23:28.354-07:002016-05-23T19:23:28.354-07:00Yes, I have experienced exactly the same problem. ...Yes, I have experienced exactly the same problem. After switching the duplicate record to the left and then merging, the Life Sketch disappears. As your daughter suggests, I have learned to always copy the Life Sketch to Word before merging. I have pretty much given up on trying to bring these issues to the attention of FamilySearch so I guess we are just going to have to live with it. Unfortunately, it another indication of just how buggy the program still is!Ted Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09810743230086342147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3793782800729950147.post-81505547327652259462016-05-23T18:47:14.064-07:002016-05-23T18:47:14.064-07:00This should have the attention of the engineers / ...This should have the attention of the engineers / programmers of FS - FT. We have been given the promise that information in all the entry fields will not be lost in such a merge. Some programmer goofed and this should be classified as an urgent "bug" to be repaired ASAP.<br /><br />Please let the engineers know through a notice in "Get Satisfaction".<br /><br />This problem illustrates the need to keep a personal database with all of your important data in it. Then when someone comes along and changes things with a merge or edit, you can get a notice because you have a "watch" on the person. You can then evaluate and decide if the change reveals data that you have missed or if someone is munging the individual's identity.Family Legacy Keeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17164988214774196228noreply@blogger.com