Indexing Batch Does Not Indicate What the Data Is
I'm quite an experienced indexer. However, no one should have to guess whether names and dates are referring to baptisms, births, or deaths. The batch I accepted, I can read. Nowhere on the record does it indicate whether the names and dates fit any of these three possibilities.
Here's the batch of my dilemma: Image Name008483368_00649, Batch IDMSPD-5TG
While I suspect these are deaths or burials, there is no way to be certain given what's NOT on the page. What is one to do?
Answers
-
Hello,
These appear to be burial records. I have checked a few of the names on other indexes and that is how they are listed. I do agree, though, that it is very unhelpful not to have the necessary information on the actual batch you are given.
Hilary.
0 -
I think they are christening records. When you look at the film, you find this image on 647 of 1,087. Going backwards, the first indication of the record type is on image 614. "Here beginneth the Christenings in the Parish of Hackney from the yeare 1555." There is never another indication it is not Christenings until image 721 when it becomes Marriages. https://www.familysearch.org/records/images/image-details?imageGroupNumbers=008483368&rmsId=TH-909-82608-163092-88&imageIndex=646&singleView=true
You may want to check this out. I admit I hurried through the film form 614 to 647, and again to get to 721, but, that's what I see at quick glance.
1 -
Hello,
Yes, Melissa, I think you are right about the christenings. I have looked at the film again and on several of the pages it says at the top "child's name" for one column and "father's name" for another.
What is worrying is that I checked several of the names on the Family Search search page and they all came up as "Buried" and when you click on the camera icon to view the image, it takes you into this very same roll of film. There is more than one entry for each name and they all say "buried" and are linked to the film, so it looks as though these have all been wrongly indexed previously - more than once.
Is there some way to get these checked?
Hilary
0 -
Perhaps that is why this is an advanced project? IDK but it is unfortunate that these have been indexed incorrectly over and over again. This also proves why looking at previously indexed records isn't always the best idea. Clearly on the film, we can see they are christenings beginning on image 614 up to image 721. Perhaps this would be picked up post indexing, in pre-production, but apparently it hasn't been in the past. It is definitely something that the moderators should report to Indexing Ops for further investigation and as a head's up to the pre-production team.
0 -
I found the same film using FS Records Search and made the same observation – many of the pages in this register have been indexed as burials when they should be indexed as baptisms (you can see the indexed names as you scroll though the images if you open the tab at the bottom). A few of those pages even had Christening written at the top, although not very clearly! They’ve not only been indexed incorrectly but have gone through the review process without anyone querying the record type. I think Family Search needs to pick up on this type of issue as soon as someone queries what type of record they are indexing and pull the relevant batches from the indexing pool if they can’t find a way of pre-labelling them (I know – it’s not going to happen!)
Melissa, Hilary – you’ve both suggested that the records that have already been indexed are older projects. I don’t think they are; I think they are ‘this’ project (Mdsx Part A or B). If you look at the citations for the indexed records they are dated Oct 2021. The film has three copies of the page in question here (images 647-9) and two of those images have already been indexed as burials with citation dates of 8th and 10th Oct. Right now there are volunteers incorrectly indexing this register, reviewers accepting the indexing and FS pushing the work out to be found via the wonderful new search interface. 😕
1 -
I am not certain, but, I think the dates on the citations are the dates that you access them, not necessarily when they have been indexed or uploaded. On this film the date available is August 5, 2018. It shows it was last changed April 28, 2020. But, this isn't really my forté - I let my family tree grow without any maintenance on my part. (It is fascinating to watch what sprouts and the people I meet along the way, both living and dead).
2 -
The citation date did used to be the record access date, I was disappointed when that changed, I found it useful! I was making an assumption about the dates but my curiosity has been piqued; I keep a record of the batches that I index/review and I've just checked entries from a few past review batches. Every one that I've checked on Record search has led to a indexed record with image and a citation date that matches the date that I submitted the batch! Big coincidence?😊
0 -
I don't know. But my understanding is that the reviewed batches don't jump from your computer to publication. There are several more steps after indexing that have to take place. They usually take months before being published.
0 -
Thanks for all the input. After seeing all the various replies, I returned the batch.
For me, guessing is not an option. I don't like guessed input without sources on the Tree Side of FamilySearch, and I don't do it with indexing.
FamilySearch must find a way to provide vital associating information. Somewhere before such batch dilemmas, there must be images showing to what the names and dates refer.
0 -
I am sad you returned the batch @kennethlynnshelley1 . This was not a guess. I used the image number to find the film and went through it to find your batch. That is why I shared the link so you could see for yourself. Hopefully the next indexer will index them correctly. This is an advanced project. Perhaps FamilySearch thinks that advanced indexers and reviewers will know how to look these up. (I was actually late for an appt this morning due to working on finding the correct information.)
1 -
Sorry to have caused sadness.
FamilySearch must not presume to know what advanced indexers know or do not know. People like me are advanced indexers/reviewers because we can read old records and have vast experience in doing it.
I've indexed nearly 400,000 names and reviewed nearly 100,000 -- many of them have been 16th and 17th-century records from the British Isles.
Without a link in the batch instructions that leads one to a readily understandable solution to this dilemma, many batches like the one I had will continue to be returned by people like me.
0 -
I hope that the moderators will make sure that this thread is shared with the people creating the project instructions and the project managers. There are so many issues that need to be addressed in these parish record projects. This is just one more for the list.
1 -
I thought I would chime in on this as it is not an uncommon issue and clearly needs some attention. For example, I encountered something similar while reviewing and raised the question How do we know these are burials? UK, England, Lancashire—Nonconformist Church Records, 1647–1996 and there was this question just the other day from someone else What kind of a record do I mark this as. There has been one previously indexed as death/ burial
The answers that came back on those questions did not provide an explanation as to how the conclusion had been reached. Indeed when I asked for more detail on my question (to help me learn and make correct decisions in the future) I received a private message saying Moderators have access to sources others do not. Happy that we do since this was a very difficult one to figure out!
I feel that it would be great if such information were accessible to all or shared, so that we could all learn. Like kennethlynnshelley1 I am an experienced indexer and can read old script but I don't have endless time to sleuth about trying to figure these things out.
In relation to this question @Melissa S Himes clearly explained how she came to her conclusion and now I have a better idea of how I can quickly check things should such a question come up again.
Salutary lesson learnt about not taking previous indexing as gospel too
So I learned lots from this question and the answers given - thanks all
2 -
Hello,
Yes, this is a problem - even for experienced indexers. It would be so helpful to be given all the known information for a batch that you need to index/review it - type of entry, year, parish etc. I checked the entries already in Family Search for several of the names and they were all listed as burials - more than once, which I took to be quite reliable proof that the records were actually burials. I, too, have learned not to rely on this! In this instance, it was possible to check the original document to gain more information - but that is not always the case. There are many instances where the original image is not available freely online. It was clear that these same images had already been indexed/reviewed at least twice - so why are they being done again - (even though it's a good job they are!) Of course, when indexing or reviewing it is possible to see the previous/following 5 images in the batch which may give some help, but we can no longer do that when opening a shared batch.
If there are moderators who have access to more information than the rest of us, it would be good to think they apply that to batches that have no obvious designation of type/date/place before publishing the results.
Thank you all for the input which really helps when trying to do these difficult batches.
Hilary.
1