What is the grantee's name on the left side of the page, 36 th line down?
Indexer thought it was Jeming E Graft. I think it is Jemima E Lafft or maybe it is Tafft? Not sure about the last name, but I definitely don't think it begins with a Gr. Also, 4 more down is the name Znik or Zink? Any suggestions?
I am also removing the 19 from the year. Changing it from 1985 to 85. Yeahs? Nays?
https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/7676d338-3a99-4db8-aaea-26cbaef6c101
Thanks,
Lisa
Best Answers
-
I believe that it is Jemima E Tafft. Look at the ff in Buffalo on the next line to the left. Look at the T in Taylor on the second page in the Grantee Column, about the 15th complete Surname from the top (skip the ditto). And I agree with correcting the Deed Year back to two digits (85, 86, or 87 as appropriate).
I think that the Surname in question is Zink. The recorder has a habit of trailing the dot over i and the crossing of t. That is, they wind up a letter or two later than where they should be. Another contender would have been Zwik, but other exemplars of w have more rounded bottoms, so I go with Zink for that reason and also because of the habit of trailing the dot for i.
2 -
If you click in the box titled Deed Year, a purple circle with a white question mark in the center appears above the box, a Field Help box will come up. The first statement is "Type the 4-digit number for the deed year." The year should be 1885 since the project date range is 1630-1975.
My husband and I both think the name is Jemima E Tafft. We compared the T 's on the page. We also looked at the G's on the page and ruled it out. The T's and L's look a lot alike but we think it is a T in Tafft.
0 -
The year cannot be determined. It could be 1685, 1785, 1885. So the two digits should be indexed.
1
Answers
-
I agree that it's Jemima E. I think it's Tafft based on John Thomas on the left side of the page about 5 lines up, but you could just as easily put Lafft. I'd definitely change it to 1885 :)
0 -
I meant John Thomas on the right side of the page...
0 -
Without reference images I would guess this document is 188? but I wouldn't bet my life on it - so yep two digit years I guess. The Project title says it goes until date 1975 which would imply these dates are likely from 188? The beginning date being 1630 doesn't help decide the 4-digit year unfortunately - unless you had a reference point for whether this page occurs later than 1700s. So I would vote 2 year until you could have a reference. I would bet it's 1880s but just don't know for sure.
Jemima E Tafft
Zink
1 -
Thank you all for your input! Jemima E Tafft, Zink, and 1885
0 -
@Lisa Kay Horlacher I definitely cannot speak for @Melissa S Himes but @Norma J H D is a moderator and likely would not be giving you incorrect information - they had access to the image reel. So the batch you were working on must be after this point in the reel. I would enter 1885/6/7 etc. as a 4-digit year for the Year entry fields.
0 -
I'm with Melissa. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with looking at the Reel label for the 4-digit date information. Here is a citation from the Field Help for the Deed Year that is very clear regarding where we are allowed to look for the first two digits of a Deed Year. That step of incorporation the reel information should be reserved for pre-publication processing.
“If only a 2-digit number was recorded, you can sometimes determine the first 2 digits of the 4-digit year from other information, such as the project dates or other contextual information on the image.
Do not calculate a date from other information on the document.”
It does not also say “but you may use Google, The Library of Congress, look at previous images, or look way way back at the reel label. Or anywhere NOT on the document”
If this is OK, then why shouldn't I, on any project I wish (e.g. Military Roster and Muster Rolls), for any Field I like, look at previous or following reference images for information missing from the batch image?
So, am I to conclude that If instructions don't explicitly disallow looking around beyond the batch images, then I am free to roam anywhere for the missing info? Even when the instructions include the words “on the image”? It is a very slippery slope. How do Reviewers enforce the rules if the are no rules?
1 -
Thank you, John. I agree, the moderators should follow the projects instructions and field helps and not look to the reels for additional information. Reels are available to anyone who would like to see them. But, apparently they should NOT be used for indexing since the instructions for accessing them are not given to the indexers/reviewers. It is a slippery slope, indeed.
0 -
@John Empoliti "That step of incorporation the reel information should be reserved for pre-publication processing."
To me it doesn't matter at what point the correct information for the document is entered unless:
- the instructions explicitly forbid it - which is what you have pointed out here.
- it can be done in an order that helps the indexing process be completed more efficiently. It's good to know that we both support multiple passes for processing a batch prior to pre-publication. Not to hijack the thread - but again if the Date or any other field that could easily be defaulted to a value prior to or using your terminology 'pre-indexing processing' - i don't see why not do that in a pre-indexing process and just allow the indexer/reviewer the option to edit that value for the case where it needs editing from the default. I think this would help the indexing process.
0 -
Hi, @genthusiast 1
Pre-processing is a good place for such activity if possible, and perhaps providing a default value would be good as well. Now I'm going to belabor the point below as I often do.
The problem with allowing/encouraging Indexers to consult information outside the confines of the batch images (and reference images when allowed) like the reel label is that it makes the job of being a conscientious Reviewer difficult or impossible. And, IMO, doing so could delay the publication of the indexed information by causing second or even third Reviews. That is why I think that it should be reserved for pre-publication processing.
Using what I think is a conventional/traditional/accepted way of interpreting the Project Instructions for this Project, the Indexer who follows those instructions should index only the two-digit years. Likewise, a conscientious Reviewer seeing those 4-digit years should change all those "correct" but unknowable-from-the-batch "illegal" 4-digit entries back to 2-digits. In this case, those corrections alone to that one Field won't reach the 20% threshold and trigger a second round of reviewing because so many Fields are available.
Now consider the Military Muster Roll and Roster Project, where the Field Helps don't explicitly allow looking beyond the batch image for the Military Month and Military Day but do specifically allow it for the Military Year. This disparity strongly suggests that we should not look back for the Month and Day. I don't understand why the difference, nor agree with it, but there it is. Suppose that an Indexer did "look-anywhere" indexing and looked back at Reference Images (not as extreme as looking at a reel label) to get the Military Month and Military Day Fields. The conscientious Reviewer's proper (IMO) corrections could trigger a second Review because there are only 7 Fields in that Project, and 2/7 = 28.6%, greater than 20%.
1 -
@John Empoliti I agree; however, I tend to be a little more 'flexible on rules' - 'they be more like guidelines' to me as an indexer. I do need to follow project rules better - i'm learning what they want from indexing as I go along and hopefully that's ok - it's the best i can do.
1 -
I have only been indexing for 11/2 years. I don't have the luxury of being flexible on rules. My experience is limited to a few different kinds of projects. So I feel the responsible thing for me to do is leave 2 digits for the year and even though it might take a little longer, it is good to know there is a pre-publishing process that will hopefully put the full 4- digit year. Thank you all. I understand each point that has been made and admire and appreciate your different points of view. I am in awe of your wealth of knowledge and grateful for your willingness to share.
Lisa
3 -
No one should be flexible on the rules. We all must sing from the same hymnal or these projects "go south" (deteriorate) pretty quickly. I noticed the post that caused all this discussion has been deleted. Just follow the project instructions and when you don't understand them, keep asking questions!
1 -
@Melissa S Himes I am sure if my 'flexibility' becomes a problem FS Indexing will let me know.
0 -
PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY WE DON'T WANT INDEXERS TO DEVIATE FROM THE PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS AND USE "SUPERPOWERS" TO FIND INFORMATION NOT ON THE IMAGE (or wherever the PIs say we may look):
I am reviewing a batch from the US—City and Business Directories, 1749–1990 [Part C]. As you can see below, there is no Directory Place and no Directory Date given in the usual spot at the top of the two pages of this batch, nor anywhere I can find on those pages.
However, the Indexer has determined from somewhere that the Directory Place is Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Directory Date is 1883. So now I have to change those 2 out of 8 Fields on all the Entries to Ctrl+B <Blank>, which makes a 25% correction rate (>20%). Easy to do, but guarantees that there will be a second review. Or I can send it back for reindexing with reasons (Help>Labs option), which is what I will probably do. Either way, an extra, unnecessary step is added to the publication process for this batch.
My point is that deviating from the Project Instructions, however well-meaning, is actually counter-productive and can slow down the publication process.
0
