Should a person that's properly listed in two sections of a muster roll be indexed both times?
United States—Enlisted and Officer Muster Rolls and Rosters, 1916–1939 [Part J][M37T-9RH]
In the above listed batch, George H. Arthur is first listed under the heading for "Privates" and then again under "Losses During Month". Although I suspect this question has been asked and answered many times, I can't seem to find the guidance regarding whether the name should be indexed both times. I imagine it should NOT be indexed twice, but then I wonder if the reviewer will know why I skipped over a properly-listed name, not remembering that it's already been indexed earlier. What say ye? Thanks
Answers
-
Dear @Scott Haycock ,
Thank you for asking this question about indexing. After reviewing all of the Project Instructions and General Indexing Guidelines it would be my opinion that it would be better to index the name twice rather than skipping the second occurrence of the name. However, I will ask a Supervisor and get back with you soon below. Thanks for your patience.
1 -
The response from a Supervisor is as follows:
In some projects, it's included in the directions to index each unique name only once. Such as City Directories. But I don't think that advice is included in the Muster Rolls project.
It would be a non-critical error to index a name twice.
It sounds like you would be doing it right to only index the name once. But if you index it twice that would be alright.
Thanks for asking!
Best Wishes!
0 -
There really is no reason to create a second entry for a person on the same UNLESS some of the indexed information is different. In this case, you will be creating an exact duplicate record. If the goal is to create a record so a researcher finds the images, once is enough.
2 -
Melissa S Himes, You are right. One more thing to consider though is that there is a possibility that there could be two different people with the same name.
I don't think the indexer can go too far wrong with either choice.
Thanks, all for your help and comments.
1 -
It doesn't matter if they are two different people with the same name. We are indexing names to get people to an image, not individuals. We know that this is the same individual because they have a service number. There is absolutely no possibility that it is a different person with the same name.
2 -
Thanks for the comments/insights. I'll proceed by indexing the same name only once, but I suspect the reviewer will usually add the name a second time simply because they'll assume it was an oversight by the indexer. No harm done, I guess...just another duplicate record created.
1 -
I have been reviewing these records and actually did realize why the names were skipped but I also wondered if others would realize as there is some distance between the entries.
I am glad you asked this Question.
Thank you
1 -
Hi @Scott Haycock,
Thank you for indexing and reviewing these wonderful Military records. While there is the same name on this document in two places, we would still index this name each time it appears. The reason for this is that FamilySearch does not own these records, but is under a legal contract with the owners of the project to index the records in the manner the owner wants them indexed.
If you look at the Project Instructions under What to Index, the 2nd bullet point tells us to:
- Index all military records, including muster rolls, monthly rosters, losses lists, transfers lists, and all other types of military records.
This soldier appears on both the Monthly Roster and on the Losses List.
In those projects where we are Not to index exact duplicate names, we are specifically told this in the Project Instructions, such as the U S City and Business Directories. In fact, when we first started indexing these, the owners wanted Every name indexed, no matter how many times the same name was repeated. In later versions of the project, the owners decided to change this and have us index only Unique names.
While our goal as indexers is to get as many names out to researchers as possible, FamilySearch does have a legal responsibility to index the records as set out by the owners of the records. This is why it is so important to look at Project Instructions from one project to another. The owners have their own reasons as to why they want their project indexed in a certain manner; and we as indexers have a responsibility to follow their instructions to the best of our ability.
Thank you again for the amazing service you all provide for those searching for their ancestors; and for your understanding of FamilySearch's legal responsibility.
1 -
Hmmm...okay, thanks for your guidance, LindaCP. I will follow it in the future.
However, I would say this: I realize that specific instructions cannot be included in each Project's Instructions to cover every, single question that might possibly arise, but if it's so legally important that each record be indexed exactly as written - including indexing the same name as many times as it might appear in the record, then perhaps that fact is important enough to be included in the Project Instructions. After all, I know nothing at all about the legalities involved in indexing or about FamSearch's contractual responsibilities, and I suspect that most other indexers are in the same boat.
The 2nd bullet advises which records to index but does not suggest (to me, at least) that names appearing more than once should be indexed as many times as they appear.
Perhaps it would help to modify the 3rd bullet to read: "Do not index the name of the person preparing the record of monthly rolls and monthly rosters unless the person is also listed on the roster or roll itself, but do index every other name each time it occurs in the record."
Again, appreciate your input. I've learned something.😊
2 -
I think if they want every name indexed, even duplicates, then it should say index EVERY name, even if it is a duplicate. This would be very unusual for an indexing project, at least for any that I have worked on over the last 7 years. I certainly would never think to do this without such an instruction.
1
