How can I collect updates from several people without letting them overwrite each other’s rows?

Separate collecting an update from changing the source list. Give each contributor an intake form or other designated submission area, and leave the authoritative roster editable only by whoever reviews and applies changes. Ask for a stable record key—an ID already assigned to each record is better than a name alone—and the proposed change. The reviewer checks each submission against the current roster before accepting it. This makes competing proposals visible before they alter the source.

For example, a submission might say: “Record key: R-104; field to change: shift; current value: Tuesday; proposed value: Thursday; reason or context: [optional].” Treat those values as placeholders, not as a real record. The reviewer can compare the proposal with the roster and other submissions, resolve a conflict, and then update the source.

Keep the form focused on identifying the record and describing the requested change. Useful fields are:

1. Stable record key, required.
2. Field or fields to update, named explicitly.
3. Proposed new value for each field.
4. Optional context that helps the reviewer assess the request.
5. A submission date or other tracking label if your process needs one.

Avoid relying on a person’s name as the only key when names might be shared or entered inconsistently. If contributors do not know the key, provide a way to look it up or have them submit the identifying details to a reviewer rather than guessing. State whether a submission is only a request or is expected to take effect; the form itself should not imply that a change has already been approved.

That can support a separate intake path: Google Forms responses can be viewed in the form or a linked Google Sheet, so the sheet can serve as a review queue rather than letting respondents edit the source list directly [S1][S2]. Check who can respond and who can access both the form and the linked spreadsheet. Form collaborators may also have access to the linked spreadsheet, and removing someone from the form does not automatically remove their spreadsheet access [S2].

If submissions should be treated as fixed after they are sent, check whether respondents can edit their own submitted responses; that option may be available in Forms [S1]. These documents describe response collection and management, not an automatic approval or conflict-prevention mechanism. You still need a human review step and a deliberate process for applying accepted changes.

Direct shared editing may suit a small group with clear responsibilities and a shared understanding of which fields each person maintains. But if updates need approval, contributors should not all edit the authoritative list. Choose a review queue instead, and define who resolves conflicts and who makes the final change.

For two submissions with the same record key and field, do not silently apply whichever one you notice first. Hold both, compare them with the current value, and ask for clarification if needed. Record the decision and update the source once the reviewer has resolved the conflict. A simple status such as “new,” “needs clarification,” “approved,” or “applied” can help prevent a request from being lost or applied twice.