Indiana Marriages,1811-2019 for Montgomery County, Indiana - marriage place incorrectly transcribed
RE: An entire batch of Montgomery County, Indiana marriages, with few exceptions, have the place incorrectly transcribed as Montgomery, Medocino County, California instead of Montgomery County, Indiana.
I believe this link contains the batch number: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Z1VL-T86Z
I’m sending this with great hopes this batch of records/ images can be reindexed.
I received a notification this week that someone had attached a record for Reuben Faust who is one of my ancestors that I follow. The record showed a Robert Faust instead of Reuben Faust. I also noticed that it showed he was married in Montgomery, Medocino, California. I pulled up the actual image. The record does match other details from other records – It is likely Reuben sounded like Robert to the recording clerk.
Reuben Faust, LZ36-2F4 and Caroline Beck, KCR3-9K3
Source: Robert Foust, “Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019”
Robert Foust in Indiana Marriages, 1811-2019
Name: Robert Foust
Event Type: Marriage
Event Date: 10 Jun 1869
Event Place: Montgomery, Mendocino, California, United States
Event Place (Original): Montgomery
Spouse's Name: Caroline Beck
Officiator's Name: Henry Cliftin Thomson
Additional Person's Name: Wm K. Wallace
Certificate Number: 7169
First Page Number: 238
In this record it is shown that Robert Faust married Caroline Beck. The given name of Robert is an error in the original record and should be Reuben. The marriage date is correct. The place is correct on the record on the image as well.
However, the location has been transcribed incorrectly. It should be Montgomery County, Indiana. This is also the case for the second entry on the same image which shows the record of marriage of Enoch White and Catharine Munger.
It’s likely the autofill completed the place to read Montgomery, Medocino, California, United States. Montgomery is a city in Medocino County in California.
This is, of course, incorrect, as Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, Indiana is found throughout the documents.
The most serious problem in these batches is that almost without exception through most all of the images – the same error is repeated.
Is there any way to have these reindexed?
Is see the errors and I know the place is transcribed incorrectly. I can fix my family’s particular information.
But what about all of the images? There are almost 672 images that for the most part are done incorrectly.
This will make research as well as temple records incorrect as well.
I would hope there is a way to go in and fix the errors.
I'm happy to help any way I can.
Your question will be forwarded to the Search team for review and assistance. You may be contacted by that team if they need more information.
Also, as a protection to you I removed your personal information (name, phone and email) from your question. This is a public community and so I removed that information. If someone from the Search team needs to community needs to communicate with you individually they will message you privately. If that is the case you will see a red dot by the envelope icon in the top right of your screen.
Otherwise they will respond to your question above and others can see that response as well.
Thank you for contacting FamilySearch. It has been a pleasure helping you. Best wishes as you continue finding records for your family.1
Julia Szent-Györgyi ✭✭✭✭✭
If you look at the index entry you linked to (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Z1VL-T86Z), you'll see two entries for the place:
Marriage Place: Montgomery, Mendocino, California, United States
Marriage Place (Original): Montgomery
You can see from this that this is yet another instance of a background standard-association routine Getting It Wrong.
The indexers entered "Montgomery". At some point (relatively recently), FamilySearch revised its search algorithms such that places (and dates) are no longer searched as text fields, but as standardized data entities. This requires that all place and date fields in indexes be associated with such a standardized entity. Unfortunately, the automated process by which FS tried to achieve this association Got It Wrong more often than not. Sometimes it's off by an entire continent; the state and country of the collection was apparently not taken into any consideration by the interpretation routine.
At this rate, FS needs to come up with a new "correct place names" volunteer opportunity, applying to indexes rather than Family Tree conclusions.3
@GardnerBetteAnn1 Not reindexed. They will go in and correct just the event place that was inaccurately standardized.1
Thank you for your answers. I'm so glad that I was "led" to this problem. It has alerted me to be more meticulous in reviewing sources that have been attached to my ancestors and their descendants, such as cousins. I believe it is part of my heavenly calling to do this. Along the way, not only do I find errors, but also, it is precious to find infants and children who have been forgotten and people who died and left no children so often forgotten over so many years. It is a great joy to follow and see their ordinances performed. Often I have gotten to go to the temple and done the work for the0
@GardnerBetteAnn1 The problem you described is an auto-standardization issue. We will report it to the engineers. They have been fixing them as we report them. It takes a while, but they are getting fixed. Thank you for reporting it.0
Will this batch be reindexed?0