Help with batch

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Should images such as this be indexed?.

Cheryl Hasychak

Good evening. I am confused. This is my first attempt at reviewing. Ref US, Missouri—County Marriages, 1806–1969 [Part O][M9LV-HPH]. There are no page numbers for the entire register on these two particular pages, so the indexer, correctly as I thought, listed the number at the end of each line/listing as the reference number. I assume these are page numbers but there is no heading for the column so it could be something else? But these numbers should be used because there are no register page numbers? For entry #90, the last digits are unreadable so the indexer has listed the last number as an " * " in the reference block. Is this correct? Thanks, Cheryl

maryellenstevensbarnes1

@Cheryl Hasychak I am including @Melissa S Himes to answer this question for you - she is one of the most knowledgeable people I know for Missouri---County Marriages Have a great New Year -- Mary 😎

Melissa S Himes

Thanks for the tag, @maryellenstevensbarnes1

@Cheryl Hasychak No wonder you are confused. I am also confused. There is a pop-up on the project that says:

Attention

Some images to be indexed may contain only a name. Images that contain only a name should be

indexed regardless of whether the image contains any other fields that are being indexed in the

project. This rule does not apply to book indexes, where only a name and page number are to be indexed.

Then in the project instructions we see:

• Index any primary marriage record or associated document that has the name of a bride or a groom, even if the document does not contain a date. Documents to index include marriage licenses, indexes, marriage applications, and so forth.

I thought that the decision had been made long ago on these Missouri records that the indexes with a bride/groom and a page number get indexed. Not sure how that pop-up fits in with that or the conflicting project instruction. (A moderator should bring this to Indexing Ops attention).

Anyway...your indexer has diligently indexed 196 records, so I surely wouldn't mark this No Extractable Data and delete all the information based on conflicting instructions!

So, to answer your original questions:

The column is the page number on which the marriage record can be found. There is an instruction in What To Remember About This Project that tells us to use that number:

• For entries on a marriage index, type the appropriate reference number associated with the entry on the index, not the page number of the index itself.

This is becoming a frequent instruction for indexes that have a unique page number where the image can be located. It is a change from the old instruction to index the page number of the index itself. (That is what was being discussed in the some of those posts above).

As for #90 and forward, they would not use two asterisks to show those missing reference numbers. They just need to use one asterisk: i.e., 3*

The general indexing guideline for unreadable letters or numbers is to use a ? for one unreadable character and to use an asterisk * for consecutive unreadable letters or numbers. This project also never was corrected to have the link to General Indexing Guidelines. It takes indexers to a "404 error page" a broken link.

Here is the link for the unreadable characters instructions: https://prod.familysearch.psdops.com/cmsa/idx/unreadable-information

Very good questions, Cheryl, and your confusion is completely understandable.

Happy New Year and Happy Indexing!

Cheryl Hasychak

Melissa, thanks very much for the information - always learning something new! So or this particular project, US Missouri Marriages 1806-1969, continue to use the appropriate reference number associated with the entry - even if there are register page numbers, correct?

And thank you or the info on “ * “ - much appreciated - and the link for unreadable characters.

Happy New Year to you as well!

Melissa S Himes

You should use the reference number that gets the researcher to the primary record (the license itself). Does that make sense? If not, share your next batch where there is an index and we will be able to discuss this further.

Cheryl Hasychak

Thank you, yes that makes sense - much appreciated!

Melissa S Himes

Can someone please explain this @System .testing (not a real person) and its function? Discussion created from comments split from????

PiperTWilson

@Melissa S Himes - The starting post in this thread was originally added to an existing thread from about six months ago. The starting post stood on its own just fine, so I split it out to create a new discussion.

Melissa S Himes

Thanks for the explanation @PiperWilson - it was very confusing to see that name system .testing. (so weird)... but, this platform is really not very user friendly, so expect the unexpected, I guess.