Should line be indexed as though it were a ditto?

Lisa Kay Horlacher

The author of the document has been quite consistent in using ditto marks. On line 19 he just put little checks in 3 of the columns. I have seen other clerks do this to indicatate a blank line. I think it should be blank but the indexer thought it should be indexed as though ditto of Frances Gordis. What do you think?

https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/12095d30-ce89-4588-b186-87c164618b11

John Empoliti

That is a tough one, Lisa. But I think that there is at least one more clerk at work here, maybe three (e.g. the one who used “do” for ditto) higher in the image. And I see other subtle handwriting differences.

Now, for the possible Entry 18.on the page, look at the R in Radner and the G in Gordis versus the other exemplars of those letters on the page. I can’t see the reference images (why not?) to look for other examples to that clerk’s work. But, all-in-all, I think that it is a valid entry, that those are the clerk’s special brand of ditto marks, and I’d index it. Plus, I think that the greater harm comes from omitting a valid entry.

As always, the Researchers have the final say, and let’s give them that opportunity.

Dellory Matthews

I don't see anything indexed twice. Perhaps you deleted the duplicate?

The Project Instructions tell us:

Index each unique name. Some names may be duplicated. When names are exact duplicates, meaning that all required fields are the same, index only the first instance of the name listed. Skip the other exact duplicates and then index the next unique name.

Lisa Kay Horlacher

I did not yet delete it. Entry 17 is Frances C Gorwick. Entry 19 is Frances Gordis. I am not sure if entry 19 is a valid entry. That is were the clerk put a check mark instead of using ditto marks.

https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/12095d30-ce89-4588-b186-87c164618b11

Melissa S Himes

I would delete that entry. Frances is not written on the line, and it is not a ditto as used in the other records. The grantor is solely Robert Gordis & o by ref.

I think the scribe was showing by using that mark is that there is no one else on the record, and they have taken up two lines for the description. When there is a deed with two parties as grantors, the scribe uses a bracket } to make that evident.

John Empoliti

Good point, Melissa. I do believe that there is more than one scribe working on that page. But to your point, I see evidence of that same scribe below using brackets with the same style of G for Liber=6896, Page=213. So, I'll side with Melissa on this.

Lisa Kay Horlacher

@John Empoliti Good call on the differences in the G's and R's. I agree that there is more than one scribe.

@Melissa S Himes I thought the scribe was using the mark to indicate an empty line because I have seen that in other records specifically at the end.

Thank you for your responses. 😀