Duplicate Records

When merging databases from different centers we've found duplicate/triplicate records.  Obviously we need to merge records. 

Does anyone have an opinion regarding which record takes priority?  For example, do records with ticketing or donor information take priority over records with more limited information?   If you can share your thoughts regarding prioritization orders (or anything we need to look out for), we'd be grateful.


Thank you.  I will also post on the Marketing Forum.


Elizabeth Weisser / eweisser@92y.org / 212-415-5596

Parents
  •  

    Hi Elizabeth

     

    Our consortium established a cascading hierarchy of rules controlling which record is allowed to be the Keep ID.

     

    1.       Ranking based on Constituencies

    This was mainly done to establish the relative ‘value’ of Constituencies for each partner in our Consortium (as in ‘my board member is more important than your subscriber’).

    While the need to establish strata of like Codes across organisations is unique to a Consortium, the principle could apply to single orgs just as well.

    We prioritise these ‘important’ records on the assumption that their address and other details are likely to be more complete and well-maintained than casual ticket buyers etc

     

    2.       Transaction recency

    If Ranking is the same on the two records (or if both have no Constituency ranking), then transaction recency is the next priority.

     

    3.       Activity recency

    If transaction history is the same, or both records have no transactions, then “Activity” recency  (i.e. the “Activity”/”Elevated Events” functionality) is next.

     

    Otherwise let the person scheduling the merge choose.

     

    Regards

    Peter

     

    Peter Nelson

    Business Analyst, Information Systems

    T 02 9250 7180  M 0401 714 246 

     

    Sydney Opera House Bennelong Point

    GPO Box 4274 Sydney NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA




    [edited by: Todd Lantry at 2:17 PM (GMT -6) on 13 Jul 2011]
Reply
  •  

    Hi Elizabeth

     

    Our consortium established a cascading hierarchy of rules controlling which record is allowed to be the Keep ID.

     

    1.       Ranking based on Constituencies

    This was mainly done to establish the relative ‘value’ of Constituencies for each partner in our Consortium (as in ‘my board member is more important than your subscriber’).

    While the need to establish strata of like Codes across organisations is unique to a Consortium, the principle could apply to single orgs just as well.

    We prioritise these ‘important’ records on the assumption that their address and other details are likely to be more complete and well-maintained than casual ticket buyers etc

     

    2.       Transaction recency

    If Ranking is the same on the two records (or if both have no Constituency ranking), then transaction recency is the next priority.

     

    3.       Activity recency

    If transaction history is the same, or both records have no transactions, then “Activity” recency  (i.e. the “Activity”/”Elevated Events” functionality) is next.

     

    Otherwise let the person scheduling the merge choose.

     

    Regards

    Peter

     

    Peter Nelson

    Business Analyst, Information Systems

    T 02 9250 7180  M 0401 714 246 

     

    Sydney Opera House Bennelong Point

    GPO Box 4274 Sydney NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA




    [edited by: Todd Lantry at 2:17 PM (GMT -6) on 13 Jul 2011]
Children
No Data