When the quality score sees a place conflict when said place not in events
So, this effects Micah Saylor (KT72-LJ4) and his wife Elizabeth Hillary Monnett (KLG8-MZV)
For much of their lives, these two people live in what is now Pickaway County, Ohio, Elizabeth moving with her family in ca. 1805, Micah by 1815. They marry and continue living there until after 1840, when they move to Hardin County, Ohio. There are no sources on either profile that places them in Crawford County, Ohio. However this message appears as a Conflict on their scores:
"This person had life events in Pickaway, Ohio, United States, then in Crawford, Ohio, United States, and then in Pickaway, Ohio, United States again. These places are 83 miles away, making this unlikely. This may indicate a bad merge."
As it would happen, Micah was part of a badly thought out merge based on assumptions, not facts when he was assigned to a man not his father, the man's two wives - neither his mother - and his real birth parents were listed as well. All of the incorrect parents have been detached.
I have gone through all of the sources, and no mention of Pickaway County exists on either of their events. I can dismiss the the warning, but I did not for reporting purposes.
Is something hidden that we can't see triggering this warning? Or is it just left over from the badly done merge?
Comments
-
One thing I find impressive with the routines in FamilySearch is the way they look at not just individual profiles but entire family clusters. The new merge routine even looks at inconsistencies in grandparents of the person being merged. One feature of the data quality score is that it, at least to some degree, analyzes places entered for the extended family. That is what is triggering the conflict you are seeing:
The routine is not thrilled with the fact that Micah and Elizabeth were married in Pickaway, supposedly had their first daughter in Crawford, then their second daughter in Pickaway. Apparently the current triggers for the flags are set to say that two 83 mile moves between Nov. 1819 and May 1822 is not very likely.
Looking at Ann Nancy's sources, it looks like that Crawford birth place came from a death certificate for her son. All other sources on her that list a birth place only state Ohio.
So this is actually a very nice example of the Data Quality Checker working well. Now you just need some type of record to show that her son's death certificate was wrong and to document what her birth place really was.
2 -
Interesting. And a good catch. I'll correct it.
I do wish I had thought of looking there. But if I couldn't find it, the average user isn't going to see it.
It would be nice if the incosistencies were better directed towards telling us where to look "See Ann Nancy Saylor Birth" or some such.
3 -
I think one place that gets overlooked as an easy way to check event place errors is the Timeline. I also forgot to look there when checking this out. The timeline shows the standards linked to place names for the events recorded for a person and the map can quickly show places that don't look right. I see you have corrected Ann Nancy's birth place so this is how it looks now:
If we had looked before the correction, the map would have looked like this, based on the location of Crawford Ohio seen in the Places database:
and that stray dot would have been a clue to where the problem was.
But I agree a clearer statement in the flag itself would be nice.
I wonder why the routine is not bothered by the fact he was buried so far from where all his children were born? Or that he was born so far from both of those areas? Maybe it has to do with the length of time between the events?
0 -
Thank you for the input. A ticket has been created to help with this issue :)
0
