Indexing Guidance re Subsequent Name Change from Original Data
I am indexing a batch from the United States—Enlisted and Officer Muster Rolls and Rosters, 1916–1939 project.
I have come across an entry where there is a handwritten Remark that indicates that the name as shown in the original typed unit Roster was changed after the date of the original Roster.
My question is how should this entry be indexed - (1) use the name as shown in the original typed Roster, or (2) use the new/changed name as indicated in the handwritten Remark?
I need to complete this batch by December 14th or it will expire and the batch will be taken back by FamilySearch.
Thanks in advance.
Hi @KennethReed4 . You should include the Share Batch Code when you have a specific question about a batch - so we can examine your batch for ourselves. That code is the collection of letters and numbers (starting with M) within brackets found at the end of the batch name - it looks like [MXXX-XXX].
But in your case, the answer is that you index the corrected name if you can read it. I've seen this many times, usually with the clerk's initials who made the change above or next to it. Below is the guidance for this situation from the General Indexing Guidelines (GIG) section - the 3rd section - of your Project Instructions (PI). It's important to consult the GIG for every project when you don't find the answer to a question in your PI's specific first two sections. Good luck.
Crossed-Out, Corrected, Canceled, or Void Information
When information was crossed out, corrected, canceled, or marked void, follow the instructions for "crossed out" that match the situation.
- When information was crossed out and then replaced, type the new information in the appropriate fields.
- When information was crossed out, was not replaced, and can be read, type the crossed-out information.
- When information was crossed out, was not replaced, and cannot be read, mark the field as unreadable by pressing Ctrl+U, or on the indexing toolbar, click the
The icon mentioned in the last bullet to mark a field unreadable was tiny and unreadable itself unless I clicked on it, so here is a somewhat larger image of it:1
Thank you for that information John.
I will remember to indicate the batch number in the future. Like you, I have had numerous times where corrections have been made in an original entry and I have indexed the corrected data. I did not equate that with what I encountered in this instance although they are identical. A senior moment (I am 83)?
Again, thank you. 😊0
You're welcome, Kenneth. I have those nioments too.0