Need to update instructions on returning a batch
The instructions on this page https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/the-batch-i-am-reviewing-needs-reindexing require review to reflect current procedure
Specifically, Step 1 says
Contact FamilySearch Support, and let them know what the batch number is.
and links to this page https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/ which is the landing page for the helpcenter
I spent some time with the chat to establish that the required procedure is to post a question on the Indexing Community page which would then be condsidered by a moderator.
The rest of the instructions are correct
Thank you for updating the instructions
Comments
-
Good points @Ontymay . And in connection with this update, I suggest that they “prime time” and integrate with your idea the “experimental” Labs option to Reindex a Batch With Reasons. This important and only “direct” (it’s really indirect) Reviewer-to-Indexer feedback mechanism has been hidden deep in the Help>Labs location for at least a year if not much longer. And I’ll bet that many Reviewers don’t even know that it exists. For those who may not know about it, here below is the alternate Reindex Batch form that appears when that Labs option is activated.
Obviously, this form is meant to be used for the most severe cases of poor indexing, but it is part of the spectrum of tools a Reviewer has, and should be highlighted and mainstreamed, I believe. In fact I have proposed an opt-in (on both sides) direct feedback feature so that those Indexers who wish can learn what (even lesser) mistakes they are making so that they can correct them going forward. This is a controversial topic with a history from the Desktop Indexing days, but worth the effort to do and get right this time, I believe.
2 -
@John Empoliti thank you - I am going to have a look at that - I had no idea it existed
I remember when we used to get feedback on how accurate our indexing was (back in the days when batches were double indexed and then differences arbitrated). I loved having that information, firstly because it is horrible working in a vacuum and not being sure you are doing it right, and secondly because it was my challenge to get my "score" as high as possible.
Thank you so much for the tip
2 -
You're welcome, @Ontymay . Yes, the access to detailed “feedback” was valuable for an Indexer’s development when the Arbitrator was skilled, committed and careful and was therefore generally accurate in his or her corrections. But enough poor Arbitrators irritated enough good Indexers that in the Web Indexing Program they did away with giving Indexers the capability to look at the corrections made to their work. That's why I have suggested an opt-in approach. Both Indexers and Reviewers would need to agree to participate, with ground rules. And such a system could possibly include feedback in both directions. Without corrective feedback in near-realtime I don't see how Indexers can efficiently develop their skills. Likewise for Reciewers.
2 -
Totally agree John, I would opt in on both scores.
Thanks again for the tip which I am using for those nasty big batches all done wrong 😀
0 -
You're welcome, Ontymay.
0
