Complete Intermittent Indexing on film102477152
This isn't so much to suggest a new idea, but rather to let you know that a particular film indicates it has been indexed and is searchable, but each individual page is just partially indexed. I decided to scroll through and read all the names in the file looking for someone when I realized that each set of pages was only about half indexed. The indexing would start part way down the second page, leaving all the first page unindexed, or would index a set of maybe 10 or so events out of 25 on a two page spread. I am accustomed to scrolling and searching records, that's not an issue. But partially indexed records are deceiving to the searcher - you think you don't have to scroll each entry, so you just think something is not there, and you stop looking, when it may in fact be there.
Would suggest that film 102477152 be reviewed and that an indexing project be set up to complete missing entries.
Thanks for your consideration!
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Believe it or not, I raised a similar point many years ago. There are so many examples of this that I said there should be some indication of when a film was only part-indexed. There are probably a number of reasons why this happens (including human error), but sometimes there are whole pages involved, other times just the odd individual.
Perhaps other users can present their views, I don't think you'll get an "official" response. The main problem is that in being led to believe these films / collections have been fully indexed. Yes, many of our ancestors and relatives are there, but we cannot trust the FamilySearch information that implies they are not!1
I agree. There needs to be a way of indicating 'completeness' of the index - especially if reported as incomplete/incorrect by researchers (they are doing a service when they provide that notification). This brings up the idea of being able to add/delete Entries to an Index - not just edit existing Entries. Sadly I don't think FamilySearch nor the record custodians will allow - nor do I think they should really trust records to be open-edit - as the Tree is. Therefore these corrections will have to be reported and then handled by FamilySearch to keep them largely read-only.
Perhaps your idea could extend to allowing such feedback be indicated per page (ideally each page should be 'complete'). And then once it reaches that 'complete' indication either through FamilySearch review or researcher indication - it could be 'locked'? The per-page indication could be calculated to indicate collection completeness. Something I don't think researchers would find too onerous to indicate as they peruse pages?
Generally, I am 'a little' disappointed in the pre-publication process for not identifying/correcting these issues as 'ReIndex needed' - as part of the Indexing process. Rather than letting them slip through and be published anyway. But I can see the point of 'rushing' to pulication - so that at least researchers can search the collection - as well. I guess it's all an imperfect balancing act - but I wish it were 'more perfect'. I also don't know how FamilySearch can work with partners where maybe the index is shared - and work through these issues - it adds a layer of complexity that I wish were not there.
That's why every once in a while - I advocate for an 'industry-shared indexing platform/solution' ... but there again I don't know that it is achievable ... too many differing interests ...0