YM/YW Indexing Challenge
Our ward youth just started an indexing challenge. It is a contest between the YM and YW to see who could index the most. We noticed tonight that we are no longer able to see how many each group is indexing on the web indexing page. Any ideas of how we can keep track of names indexed for our challenge?
There is not a way to know what any individual contributes. Ward and stake councils and the temple and family history leader of the ward have access to the indexing group report. The information in this report shows only a summary of the records indexed and number of people participating in indexing.
Competition versus Challenge
Be aware of the differences between indexing challenges and competitions. Some types of competitions tend to detract from the intrinsic rewards of indexing because they pit individuals and groups against one another instead of encouraging them to work together toward a common goal. Successful indexing challenges inspire participation, cooperation, and unity and allow everyone to celebrate together to form happy, motivating memories.
The above is an excerpt from this Blog article:5
Brett . ✭✭✭✭✭
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ...
PLEASE; Please; please ...
DO NOT hold an "Indexing" Challenge/Competition in your Ward or Stake ...
"Indexing" is about QUALITY.
"Indexing" is NOT about "Quantity".
Indexers should be MORE concerned about the QUALITY of their "Indexing", rather than the "Quantity".
I am certain, that too MANY records, are INCORRECTLY "Indexed", by those Indexers, who participate in Challenges/Competitions.
Please TEACH the, Young Men; and, Young Women, of your Ward or Stake, of the NECESSITY, for QUALITY of their "Indexing", over "Quantity".
That is the MOST "Important" thing that you can do, not only for the, Young Men; and, Young Women, of your Ward or Stake; but, ALSO for ALL of us in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' that rely on the "Indexed" Records in 'FamilySearch'.
I know that is NOT "Fun" ...
And, that we like to make doing Genealogy/Family History (including: "Indexing") "Fun" for the younger generations ...
That Said ...
QUALITY "Indexing" is so IMPORTANT.
I would rather, that NO ONE, does "Indexing", that, HAS to; or, do so, in the form of a Challenge/Competition.
That Said ...
I am so to be a 'killjoy' ...
I just wish, people would try to UNDERSTAND, that "Indexing" should be about QUALITY, rather than "Quantity".
There should be NO talk, about the "Quantity", of Records, an Indexer, indexes.
There should ONLY talk, about the QUALITY, of the Work of an Indexer.
[ ie. HOW to IMPROVE the QUALITY of the Work of an Indexer ... ]
As an aside ...
The "Quantity", of Records, an Indexer, indexed, was "Deleted"/"Removed", for the various Reports, that were available, to the Leaders of the Wards/Branches/Stakes/Districts; BECAUSE, such was being used, by SOME Leaders of the Wards/Branches/Stakes/Districts to ... "Name" and "Same" ...
Can you image such?
I am sorry ... 'Off my Soap Box' ...
IF, any one, even mentions, the likes of "Indexing" Challenges/Competitions; THEN, that is concerning to me.
And, I am certain, that such is ALSO very concerning to, MANY; Many, many, other Users/Patrons, of "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', who rely, on the QUALITY, of the Records, that are "Indexed", in 'FamilySearch'.
Just my thoughts.
John Empoliti ✭✭✭✭✭
I agree with Brett and Dellory. However, there is a saying in quality control/ process improvement and other business management practices areas: “You can’t manage (/control) what you don’t measure.”
We can easily measure the number of indexed records/entries produced by an individual Indexer or groups of them, so we do. By revoking the ability of “supervisors” to see the Individual results FS tries to send the message that the sheer numbers of indexed records produced are not as important as their quality.
But with the advent of Web Indexing (for various reasons), we have taken away the ability of just about everyone involved in indexing to know anything about the quality of those numerous indexing results. And we provide almost no consistent feedback, real-time or otherwise, to brand new or developing Indexers. Plus we have a very low threshold for Indexers to become Reviewers.
We need to devise some form of feedback mechanism regarding the quality of their work to Indexers, and even Reviewers (360-degree feedback?). The Labs “experimental” Reindex with Reasons” option is a tiny start. I have suggested an opt-in (on both) sides procedure.
My opinion. In the context of Dellory’s, Brett’s, and my comments, for a YL and YM Indexing Challenge I would recommend focusing on one project, maybe even one batch, where the goal is explicitly NOT quantity, but quality first and foremost, and efficiency. Quality indexing among other things flows from learning to read and understand ALL parts of the Project Instructions, Examples, Field Helps, General Indexing Guidelines it also means learning about the Help Resources that are available. Efficiency comes from knowing the toolbars, shortcuts, and their meaning and usage and other workings of the Web Indexing program.
I would pose indexing “problems” and have moderated group discussions on how to solve them using the various tools and guidance provided with a batch. The goal is maximum participation. After the moderator and young ladies and gentlemen are comfortable with their shared understanding of the process and specific instructions for that particular project, I would perhaps put them in subgroups to do some actual indexing. I would follow with friendly discussions of who did the best job of properly interpreting and applying the Project Instructions to properly interpreted records. I would also like to know what they felt they learned about indexing and working together and from each other, versus what they expected from the day. Did they learn that quality is key? Did they learn that quality with efficiency produces just the right number of correctly indexed records?
indexing is mostly a solitary pastime, but IMO a network of indexing peers to call upon for advice, support or a second opinion is a valuable backstop and promotes and helps sustain a long-term indexing “career.”
I suggest that Family Search should create a “toolkit” of materials to encourage, promote and facilitate the right kind of "challenge" events. There are some excellent existing videos that might make a great introduction to any such group challenge.4
From my own personal experience, successful activities are those in which everyone feels the joy of participation and accomplishment. So, you could set a group goal.
I suggest avoiding any activity in which half the people feel like losers.3
Our ward had indexing parties. No competition involved. Cookies but not competition. It was interesting to see that many of the indexers worked on a computer together with someone else. Those that worked alone actually still worked with their neighbors and friends asking for help and giving help. It was amazing and lots of fun.
We do not need competition to learn together. Even in these times with Zoom and Shared batch codes we can still work with each other to help not to beat.3
Oh, I'm glad parties were mentioned! When I was Ward Indexing Director, we did those 4 times a year with great refreshments and sometimes games as well. We would concentrate on one project for anyone who was new to indexing, and we'd have at least 3 Consultants there all the time to answer questions. Saturday morning 9 to noon was the usual time and we'd roll out the 3 computers the ward owns and bring extra laptops and extension cords.3
Great comments by all concerned!1
Short answer: Your Ward Family History Consultants can run reports for the various groups.
Long answer: The reported change as of last night is correct - totals are attributed to the group not the individual. Prior to last night reports displayed individual totals. It would be up to the individual to decide whether they shared that information with the group.
@EVHLHM obviously if they shared that information - it would be their decision.
The 'quality' is not something I see in reports. Quality is more important but with crowdsourced indexing you trade some quality for increased quantity - that is why many of my questions -recently returning to indexing - have been focused on understanding the current Familysearch indexing process. It appears to me that the trade quality for quantity - in the process- is based on the first Reviewer pass. If that first Reviewer changes more than 20% of the - not sure if it's fields or records but I assume fields - then the batch is scheduled for a second Reviewer pass. This process continues review for a 3rd Review pass if the 2nd Reviewer also has 20% change. After the 3rd review if there are 20% more changes - Familysearch takes the batch for internal review. Anything not caught on that first review pass under the 20% threshold therefore - could be in question IF it is assumed the remaining 80% agreed to by the first pass Reviewer is correct.
This makes Reviewers extremely important in the indexing process.
I have no problem with a 'competition' for quantity where the indexers have been taught the importance of quality. I don't care how fast someone indexes a record if it is correct. What I have problem with is incorrectly indexed records - my own included' - and educating myself to get it more correct next time. If a large/significant percent of Reviewed batches turn out to be incorrect then there needs to be some more 'quality' education of the crowd.
I am unaware of the ability of a Project to assign specific groups of Indexers and Reviewers - this certainly might make sense but I am unaware of this capability in the Web Indexing app. For example I can create group(s) of Indexers within the group I have admin rights over - but I cannot assign certain Reviewers from the group to a certain Project. And I cannot presort/specify that those Reviewers will be receiving the Indexed records from the Indexers of the group. Anyway just some other features to be aware of.
Conclusion: So IF such a 'competition' were scheduled - I would want to stress the importance of Reviewers and have the capability that Indexed records be reviewed by Reviewers from the group. Without this capability the indexing for publication can't really be seen by the group. They won't see how long it takes a Reviewer to verify their Indexing.1
Just a couple of clarifications:
This change to protect the individuals was made in 2020 or maybe even late 2019.
The batches don't go through unlimited passes to reach the 80% threshold. They can only go through 3 reviews and then get booted out to a FamilySearch team.
I don't think that the batches that are Returned for Reindexing show up on a report. The batches that are Returned are batches that the person returns for whatever reason. For instance, I return a lot of batches that I only need to read the instructions for in order to answer a question.
I recall that the problem with competitions was seen years ago when batches were being submitted during these events that were 1/2 complete (maybe only a name was indexed to get a point). I think that is why they now frown on these types of events. Arbitrators also noted that the quality of indexing was shown to decline during the world indexing day events. They didn't conduct very many of those events either (maybe two years?). I'm sure that FS internally looks at these quality indicators.3
There is no need for anyone to know that information but the indexer themselves. This is a privacy issue. Embarrassing indexers is not a good thing.2
I appreciate all of the feedback and will reevaluate our activity. Thanks!3