Just want to check on multiple names, doing a City Directory

BouldenClaudiaRuth1

I've been indexing forever. Doing City Directories, if I read the instructions right, only positive duplicate names should not be indexed. Some of these big city directories have 30 or more names like John Smith, which are not duplicates. I have been listing all those names, afterall, they are individuals and shoule be accounted for. Now I'm reviewing, and batch after batch I'm finding the indexer did not list all these individuals. Now I'm questioning myself.

Can anyone tell me which is right?

crib642@gmail.com

Melissa S Himes

Thank you for asking this question, Claudia Ruth. There is only supposed to be ONE John Smith indexed before John A. Smith. We only index the first incidence of the duplicated name. The ones with initials, or those records where it lists a spouse for the John Smith's would make the records unique and that is why you see the indexers list those. We are not indexing individuals, we are indexing names - so their addresses and occupations listed in the directory are of no concern for the purpose of indexing. The goal is to get the researcher to the image where they will see the 20 John Smith's and can decide which, if any, is their ancestor.

The program automatically deletes all of the duplicate names that are in sequence when the batch is submitted. This not only happens on indexing, but, it happens on reviewing. If you were to add in 19 John Smith's on the review, the program would delete them. In other words, if your batch had 120 entries, and 20 of them were for John Smith, you will notice that you only get credit for 101 entries.

Thus, you should review them and not return them for reindexing.

Pennyrose

you only index 1 John Smith and not all of the others unless there is a middle initial or spouse, when someone searches after it is on familysearch they will be able to see all of the duplicate names, it doesn't mean duplicate people, any name that is the same as other names is indexed one time , I think that when these directories first came out for indexing they wanted every name indexed even if they were the same but then changed the directions to one time for names that are exactly the same

John Empoliti

Hi, Claudia. Unless I misunderstand this comment, you're still uncomfortable only indexing one instance of John Smith to represent all the John Smiths in a row, who may, for example, have different professions or different addresses.

The key is to notice that the only differences that matter- to a Researcher seeking an ancestor - are those captured for indexing purposes - ultimately for the FS search engine. Indexers create entries from the records on images. These entries have specific fields in them (agreed upon with the owners of the data). Some of those fields are searchable, and some are not. Professions and addresses are not indexed (captured) and so are certainly not searchable. But the Researchers searching on the name John Smith (for example) will see all of those John Smiths and their various professions and addresses and can decide which one might be their ancestor.

Here to the right is the entry for Harry C Bates, the salesman in the above clip. This entry is identical to the entry for Harry C Bates, the secretary of The Johnson Bros. Hardware Co. You can see that those professional facts and differences are not mentioned/captured anywhere in the entry. There is no point in providing both entries to the system, and that is why, as Melissa said, the system would delete all but the first. One of them is sufficient for the system's purposes. The very first Harry Bates in this clip - the one with no middle initial - does get a separate Entry that I have not shown because that entry is different from this one in an indexed field (the Given Names field). He happens to be the only plain Harry Bates in the directory.

Back to John Smith. Notice that there is no Suffix field (for Jr), so John Smith, and John Smith Jr, would both be represented adequately by the entry for John Smith. If one John Smith had a spouse and the other didn't, then a separate entry would be needed for that one. We do index spousal information in this project.

Honestly, early on, it took me a while to get comfortable with not indexing every single name, especially in older records for some reason. It seemed "unfair." But, as Melissa mentioned, we're indexing names for the search engine, not necessarily individual persons. The personal/professional information is there on the Record for the Researchers to see and use once your index draws them to it via a search.

Mirevo

Hello Claudia,

Generally, we are instructed to Index each unique name. Some names may be duplicated. When names are exact duplicates, index only the first instance of the name listed. Skip the other exact duplicates and then index the next unique name. Unique names include names with different middle initials, spouses listed with the individual, and different name spellings. 

You can always refer to the project instructions of the project you are indexing or reviewing.

We would be more accurate and able to help you better if we get the batch code of the project you are referring your question. You can post the code or the link to your batch in a new comment if you would like to.

Steps

1. Just above the toolbar, click Help.
2. On the drop-down menu, click Share Batch.
3. The Share Batch window opens, giving you two options:
   • Copy the batch link, or
   • Share the batch code so the helper can enter it in the web indexing tool and open the batch.

• A second way to find the batch code is by clicking Batch, then About Batch. The Batch ID is the same as the code.

Thank you for your question.

BouldenClaudiaRuth1

thank you for responding. I'm more sure that I'm right about my concerns. I'm just amazed at how many batches I have to return for reindexing because the indexer only lists one John Smith for a list of 20 John Smith, before John A. Smith. Then than indexer(s) list all the John Smith's with middle initials.

Claudia Boulden