Confusion: Or variants in Web Indexing fields versus Edit index in Records Search Results
This conversation did not answer my questions to my satisfaction so I am deleting out content since I cannot delete my posts.
UPDATE: The main purpose of indexing is to help the images be located by the researcher. I now understand that a 'perfect' index is not required to do this - if the researcher has multiple names, etc to search for that record. This can be done with search> alternate name currently.
Suffice it to say from my understanding of users that responded: FamilySearch Indexing requires Indexers to put their ONE best input for each field and DOES NOT allow Indexers to input variant guesses in an Indexing field. This is apparently a 'contractual obligation' and should therefore be followed strictly. I have not seen any responder state that they are officially representing FamilySearch in these responses but do refer to 'official' published documentation.
My concern in this discussion is that while indexing - if I cannot input multiple variant interpretations into a field - the indexer interpretation is 'lost' and MAY make it more difficult for Researchers to find a Record. The responses indicate that using a wildcard is preferable. I assume this means Record results will appear when the applicable wildcards apply to a Search. But I would think this might be more difficult for the Researcher to sort through wildcard results - but I am stating this without being able to test or see that type of data in Search Result statistics. I just know as a Researcher the large amount of Results at times has made it more difficult to filter through results - that's my experience in Search> Records where wildcards are included.
Once you do find a Record you can add variant field input for Records that have an Edit function available. Subsequent Searches will find your variant Edit input and the original Indexed input. Any user will find your variant in Search Results - I have been able to test and verify this on at least 1 record.
Best Answers
-
Yes the reviewer can use the 'or' option. Not sure how many variants can be included but you are welcome to test that out!
Geotagging is not something indexers do but you are welcome to post that idea in 'Ideas'. You can find the Ideas category on the left side of your screen. We are always happy to have guests submit ideas!
0 -
The "or" option is not for a name that has been written once and looks like it can be one thing or another. If a name looks like it could be Roy or Ray, we must choose which we think it is, or use the wildcard for the o/a. The only time we enter different versions with "or" between is when the name is written more than once and the spelling of the various instances is different. This article explains when we use "or": https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-index-alias-names-and-other-name-variations
1 -
Indexers should not use "or" between various guesses. That is to be used only for name variations as mentioned above by Barbara Gail Smith.
If you can't read a name completely you can use wildcards. ? for one letter and * for multiple letters.
"Wildcards allow for possible variations to appear in the searches. For this reason, it is often more helpful to use wildcards to replace illegible characters than it is to try and guess at them. This way, researchers who recognize the correct spelling may able to step in later."
3 -
Editing of the index in Family Search is usually done by someone who knows what the name should be because he's a relative. Once he edits a name that was spelled wrong, either on the original document or by an indexer, that document can be found on Family Search by the corrected name.
If an indexer can't choose just one spelling and puts different possibilities and the reviewer chooses just one, then that name would be marked as incorrect. I was reviewing one yesterday where the indexer put two different spellings with 'or' (the name was written only once). One of the spellings was correct and one was way off. When I correct it, it's marked as an error. After a certain percentage of fields is corrected by the reviewer, it has to go to another reviewer. So being indecisive instead of using your best judgement could possibly deter the batches getting through to publication in a more timely manner.
1 -
Thank you for this discussion on how to handle the indexing of these precious records. While it might be nice to be able to enter all guesses we have for a name, FamilySearch is actually under contract with various groups, states, countries, etc and they are the ones who determine how they want the records indexed.
We have General Indexing Guidelines as well, which all legal entities expect us to follow. In the case of Unreadable, or partially readable names or places, we do have this intruction located in the Project Instructions, General Indexing Guidelines:
Unreadable Information
Some information may be difficult to read because of damage to a document or other factors. You can represent unreadable information in various ways, depending on how much information is unreadable.
- One character
- If you are unable to read 1 letter or number, use a question mark (?) to replace the unreadable letter or number.
- Example: H?ndley
- Multiple characters
- For consecutive unreadable letters or numbers, use an asterisk (*) to replace the unreadable group of letters or numbers.
- Example: Di*son
- One field
- When all of the information for an indexing field is unreadable, to mark the field as Unreadable, click in the field, and press Ctrl+U, or on the indexing toolbar, click the
- icon.
- Entire record
- When all of the information in an entire record is unreadable, including the name, date, and any information for other required fields, to mark the record as Unreadable, press Ctrl+Shift+U.
- Entire image
- If none of the information to be indexed on the image is readable, mark it in Step 1: Images as No, No Extractable Data.
barbaragailsmith1 is correct that we only use Or between two names where there are different spellings listed for those names. i.e. Smith or Smyth You will often see this in some of the City and Business Directories batches where a surname is listed and it says: See also...and then lists spelling variants for that surname.
Reviewers also follow these guidelines; you would actually be making it more difficult for a reviewer by putting in several spellings for a single name as they would have to remove each incorrect name. If you put in a ? for one letter, or an * for a group of letters and the reviewer can read the name, they would only need to replace the one letter, or few letters rather than deleting several words.
If you find a handwritten project where you are having a lot of trouble reading the names, etc., you are always welcome to return the batch and choose another project.
Whether you return the batch or continue with it, we appreciate the diligent efforts you put into making these precious records searchable for those looking for their ancestors.
3
Answers
-
genthusiast 1 , When you want to edit your post you can go to the gear at the upper right of your post. But I'm glad you left it readable so that other indexers can see it. You're sure not the only one who thinks we can use "or" when we can't decide a spelling, and I hope others see this and learn. If we could put all possibilities for a name, that could get out of hand and the reviewer would most likely change it anyway because he might be able to read it more easily. This forum is a good place to ask for handwriting help when something is iffy.
0 -
If you clicked the link I provided, you will see that quote in its context as part of an official article by FamilySearch.
FamilySearch contracts with record owners to index according to set guidelines and particular rules for every project. As indexers, we are asked to follow directions particularly including the Project Instructions, Field Helps and General Indexing Guidelines. The use of wildcards is part of the General Indexing Guidelines.
When a Reviewer gets a batch, they may be able to decipher something that the indexer could not. Quite often, the Reviewer will be able to improve upon the indexer's guess, but we do want to leave the final interpretation to the researcher, which is why FamilySearch introduced the option for users to edit indexed records with alternate values.
2