I Found a Batch that needs to be re-indexed.
Batch Number: M02279-0
I've been flipping through these records, and it appears that everyone was born after they got married. Some, by more than 100 years. The very first entry was married March 1921, but born June 2012. The marriage dates match up with the images. The birth dates do not. I have tried, but editing the index is not available.
If this went through the index & review methods, how did no one catch these errors? (Rhetorical question).
Comments are not needed. If someone could just send this for re-indexing, that would be great!
Answers
-
I think the very thing you want here is a comment! Otherwise, how will you know if any action is being taken to put this matter right?
Hopefully, a moderator will elevate this issue to the relevant FamilySearch department and you will be updated on what (if any) action they intend to take. I say this because certain errors (with Catalog references, incorrect collection headings, etc.) are not being addressed for the time being, so you might have a very long wait for the action you are requesting to be taken.
Hopefully, my assessment of your issue is wrong - especially as this whole batch has been subject to such awful errors.
1 -
Thank you Paul. Your's is the helpful type of comment.
0 -
@Sarah Kienzle Unfortunately, FamilySearch does not reopen closed indexing projects to make corrections. And, just based on the batch number you provided, it looks like you are referring to one of our older record sets where the indexes were prepared before our current way of doing indexing. So we do the best we can with the information we see. If you see an Edit button on the record details page (it'll be near the top in the dark bar), you can edit the information for your ancestors. And, you can click the Feedback button on that page and report the errors in the batch. Using the Feedback button gets the info directly to the group that maintains the record collection. We do know that the engineers are exploring various options to make it easier to fix errors like the one you are reporting. Hopefully, we'll see some postive changes soon.
1 -
That's an IGI-style batch number. Some parts of the IGI are older than personal computers, and regardless of the specific age of this particular index, there's no correcting the data in any of it.
Given the widespread but consistent nature of the error you describe, I'm wondering if it's yet another example of recent background processes Getting It Wrong in FS's efforts to associate indexed fields with standardized dates and places.
Looking at it even more closely, I see that the original records have ages, not birthdates. This means that the date of birth field has to be a calculated field, added at some point after the indexing was completed. It also looks like something has gone seriously wrong with the calculations. (Specifically, it looks like some assumptions about constants have not survived an update: "date zero" is no longer equal to 1,900.00, or something similar.)
0
