* Redundant family records - same parents

[Danielbaker2]

I've run across two sets of redundant family records. I suspect that it came from some synch with Family Heritage; I don't know. I just know that I had two sets of the same parents, with differences of children or not.

OK, I found the resolution, but I suggest you make a clear description of the problem and resolution in the online help.

I hadn't realized that the problem was two marriage records for the same husband/wife. The Merge function didn't make sense because I wasn't seeking to merge persons. So... I needed to recognize the nature of the problem.

The resolution was to
(a) Click in the preferred marriage record, and in the property box, note the number. Example: "Family: ... of (husband) and (wife) [14]" and write that family record number down; you will need it for the final step.
(b) Then click in the other marriage record, and in the property box, note the number. Example: "Family: ... of (husband) and (wife) [630]" and write that family record number down.
(c) NOW you can go to Edit -> Merge.
In the Families' side of the dialog, enter the record id (example, 14). Click the ">" to select.
Then in the Familie's side, enter the record id (example, 630), and click ">" to select.
Click OK to merge the marriage records.

[tatewise]

Since you know the names of the husband and wife there is a simpler solution.
In the Records Window, open the Families tab, and enter the husband's Last Name and First Name into the Filter.
The resulting shortlist should include two records with the same husband and wife names.
Those are the two records to merge using the Edit > Merge/Compare Records... command.

[AdrianBruce]

... In the Records Window, open the Families tab, ...

I suspect that Daniel might not have the Families tab showing in the Records Window - otherwise, his route to the merge might have been less complex and closer to yours, Mike.

Do we (in the User Group) advise people to show the Families tab?

I note that in Calico Pie's Help Files for FH, they say

Family Records are created automatically for you, when they are needed. If necessary, they are deleted automatically too. ... Because they are created automatically when needed, and deleted when no longer needed, there isn't usually much need to be aware of the existence of Family records.

This is one bit that I totally disagree with - while most of the time, we don't need to worry about Family things, when we do, we really do... And the classic issue is with merges. So many times we've seen problems arising that might not have cropped up if the Family Records were visible and therefore (we hope!) thought about.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Correcting Duplicate Spouses/Families demonstrates how to fix this.

[tatewise]

I suspect that Daniel might not have the Families tab showing in the Records Window - otherwise, his route to the merge might have been less complex and closer to yours, Mike.
Do we (in the User Group) advise people to show the Families tab?

Yes, FHUG KB FAQS Key Features for Newcomers Records, Fields and Multimedia has advised just that for ever

I agree with you Adrian. Why hide those tabs?

[Jean001]

I agree about the benefit of showing the Families tab in the Record Window.

In my early days of using FH I got in a bit of a muddle with some of the family records. Being able to see them in the Records Window clarified matters. Now I make extensive use of family records with a number of custom facts.

[LornaCraig]

This issue has been raised with Calico Pie more than once over the years. The last time I remember was during V7 beta testing, when CP said that because (according to them) the user rarely needs to be aware of the existence of Family records it would confuse people if they were shown by default in the Records window. Unfortunately the result is that a lot of other people are confused because they don't know they exist or can't find them when they need to.

[tatewise]

Sometimes with CP it is like bashing your head against a brick wall.

[davidf]

I agree about the benefit of showing the Families tab in the Record Window.

In my early days of using FH I got in a bit of a muddle with some of the family records. Being able to see them in the Records Window clarified matters. Now I make extensive use of family records with a number of custom facts.

I'm another in agreement but I do wonder whether those of us who are in agreement are also those who are happy thinking about abstract concepts such as data structures?

The argument that "I want to do genealogy, not software" I think has a lot of validity and is probably what CP is trying to respect. However, many may just plug on trying "to do genealogy" whilst getting horribly tied up through not understanding how FH/GEDCOM is structured.

I have always been grateful for being taught a bit about data and process analysis and being able to apply that to FH and see how record types are organised and structured and how links are created between them (or not in the case of places and addresses!)

Can we be too fearful of exposing the data structures more widely?

[AdrianBruce]

... CP said that because (according to them) the user rarely needs to be aware of the existence of Family records it would confuse people if they were shown by default in the Records window. Unfortunately the result is that a lot of other people are confused because they don't know they exist or can't find them when they need to.

And the classic case is, as we've all said, I'm sure, when John Doe is (correctly) merged with a duplicate John Doe and his spouse Mary Roe is (correctly) merged with her own duplicate Mary Roe - but something's not quite right in the diagrams or children or... That is when, with the current software, you do need to be aware of the existence of Family Records because you need to merge them as well.

I guess the answer to CP's contention is - we will agree that you don't need to see Family Records if they alter the software so that merging the John Does, followed by merging the Mary Roes is followed by an option to merge the Family Records. (Of course, if people haven't seen Family Records they may not understand the question... )

[AdrianBruce]

... The argument that "I want to do genealogy, not software" I think has a lot of validity and is probably what CP is trying to respect.
...

And I think that's a fair argument. Except in this case, the detritus from dodgy merges is evidence that the application of that principle is counter productive in this particular case.

... I'm another in agreement but I do wonder whether those of us who are in agreement are also those who are happy thinking about abstract concepts such as data structures? ...

There is that danger - my feeling is that many of the users who immediately take to FH are the sort of people who, perhaps unconsciously, deconstruct what they see on the screen. (I remember seeing a slogan on YouTube - "Don't memorise it. Understand it" - That's me. How did people do A-levels where you had to memorise stuff? ). However, repeating myself, I think the dodgy merge case shows "something must be done".

[tatewise]

There are innumerable other scenarios that create redundant/duplicated Family records. I won't list them all
If users are unaware of the existence of Family records then they have no chance of perceiving a solution to such issues!

When we explain to users that by clicking on the Marriage blue bar below Individuals it opens their Family record they often are surprised by its existence.

What harm can it do to have a few extra tabs in the Records Window?
CP seem to think it a good idea to 'Always hide' Family records, Source Template records, and the Header record by default in Tools > Preferences > Records Window.

[ColeValleyGirl]

When we explain to users that by clicking on the Marriage blue bar below Individuals it opens their Family record they often are surprised by its existence.

Shouldn't that be 'the Marriage blue bar or whatever colour it is now you've spent hours customizing your colours'

[Gowermick]

"Don't memorise it. Understand it" - That's me. How did people do A-levels where you had to memorise stuff?

It's not just me then