Problems and Concerns
Since this record is for my mother-in-law, I'm going to leave off her name and ID number. If someone needs that to analyze what is going on here, please send me a private message and if I recognize who you are, I'll send it to you.
1) Date is not displaying properly.
2) The routine is looking at the linked standard, not the real entry. This place name was entered when the Places database lacked an entry for Fana as a borough and so the full name was linked to the next level up which was the municipality of Bergen. Fana has since been added so I could improve this but there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of places missing in the Places database that need to be entered as Fana was here. The way this place name is entered is neither incomplete nor incorrect and such structure should be accounted for and given proper credit. Maybe instead of looking just at the linked standard, the routine could count commas in the user entered complete place name.
3) This phrase needs work. The /etc. structure looks clumsy. Also, I had an English teacher once insist to our class that etc. should never be used because all it means is "there should be something more here but I can't think of what it should be." Since there is a wide variety of what the 4th level place designation should be, maybe you should just say the data "is missing a 4th level in the place name in the linked standard."
4) For almost 800 years of it's history, Bergen was an independent city directly under the county of Hordaland and not included in any of the municipalities in Hordaland. I do need to improve the place name for this particular entry, but if the event had been between 1070 and 1837, then this place name would have been correct and no 4th level needed unless one wanted to add a street address or something. There needs to be an allowance for such place names.
5) There are no indexes for this area for 1937 and onward. And privacy laws are such that there will never be until at least 2037 if that is the end of that volume of birth records. If that volume of records actually starts with 1937 and covers the next fifty years, then the record may not be available for FamilySearch to even start negotiations to film until 2087. Then it would have to be filmed, then indexed. So her great-grandkids might be able to attach an indexed record around 2100. Until then she can't get any stars?
6) Display problem.
7) It looks like the "error" being flagged is that she was not buried until 15 days after her death and 8 days is set as the upper limit. This is another incorrect conflict. The data is correct. After her passing, the funeral had to be scheduled so that one of her sons and my wife and I who live in the US could make arrangements to be away from work, get plane tickets, and spend a couple of days traveling to be able to attend. Fifteen days was the quickest all this could happen. Would it be possible to mark such non-conflicts as "Not A Conflict" and dismissed?
Kommentare
-
We have talked about the possibility of dismissing issues. First we will have to start storing them all instead of calculating them as we currently do, and that's a ways off.
We intend to mitigate some of the issues you identified by having more and more specific birth segments that define what we score against for a given person. So people in one region and timeframe won't be expected to have the same precision in dates places as another, and might be expected to live longer, etc. We currently only have specific segments defined at the continent level in the 1700s and 1800s, not really segments for specific countries yet.
The scoring also doesn't really work well for people who are living or died recently, since the records haven't had time to be indexed and attached. 1937 is still be bit too recent. Maybe we should define a segment for 1900s that doesn't currently require sources to be attached?
We also need to communicate that we are not looking for perfection or trying to make people feel frustrated. There's no penalty for not having 5 stars, and valid, correct data will in many cases not be able to eliminate one or two issues. But we do want this to help people quickly identify issues or more easily see which people in their tree really need their attention and which are actually in a fairly good state.
2 -
Thank you @jamesdouglasnelson That explanation helps to understand this process and its purpose A WHOLE LOT!
0
