Age designation on records
I am a service mission serving in replying to feedback comments and one of the comments I received was:
Giving the age of an obvious adult as "0" can be misleading/confusing. Perhaps showing "n/a", "not given" or "not documented" would be more appropriate.
Thought that may be something to consider.
We have service missionaries now who reply to our feedback? Figures, those behind the desk, and in the big office building, don't want to hear about our complains.1
Is "LegacyUser" a missionary for FamilySearch?, or FamilySearch employee?0
Simply a user. Not missionary, not employee0
I'm fairly certain that FS already knows not to use zero in place of "unknown", so whatever it was that prompted the comment must be an anomaly. What section of FS was the person responding to? Was it an indexing error? Without more context, it's impossible to tell what exactly the commenter was talking about.0
(@Michael Stenberg, you wrote that you're on a "service mission". By most people's definitions, that makes you a missionary. 😐️)0