Research Hints - Please add a third option
I have a Research Hint to attach a marriage certificate to an ancestor. The hint is correct but I already have the marriage certificate attached to my ancestor. I do not want to add duplicate source as it clutters up the list and makes it more difficult to review my sources for completeness and accuracy.
Right now the option from Research Hints are: 1) Attach or 2) Not a Match.
Please add a third option: Source Already Attached.
Thank you.
Comments
-
If the system is working correctly, no such option should ever be needed: the hinting system does not normally suggest sources that are already attached. If it does, then either there has been some sort of glitch or error, or it's not actually the same source, just a very similar one (due to multiple filmings and/or indexings of the same register, for example).
If you could give some examples of profiles where you wish for this "already attached" option, we could help you figure out what exactly is going on.
0 -
Here is my example: for Anna Katherine Schopf: LLQ3-DJR
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPM1-TRLF
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPMT-HHFG
These both link to the same location for Ann's marriage certificate.
Thank you.
Joe Mott
0 -
Joe
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Further to what 'Julie' has already proffered ...
'No', we DO NOT need such an option ...
Many (like in your EXAMPLE) are DIFFERENT "Indexing", of the SAME "Event"; and, SHOULD be attached.
Too many User/Patrons, DO NOT understand, that there can be a number of "Indexing", for the SAME "Event".
Sometimes:
▬ There is a "Re-Indexing" of a "Event", at a LATER date; where, MORE "Data" has been "Indexed"
.... [ BOTH, "Indexing" are valid; and, SHOULD be RETAINED ... ]
.... [ As, many of the EARLIER "Indexing" (ie."Sources) have ALREADY been attached to individuals/persons ... ]
▬ Different "Organisations" (eg. FamilySearch; Ancestry; FindMyPast; etc) often "Index" the SAME "Event".
Thus, we have MULTIPLE "Indexes" (ie. "Sources"), of the SAME "Event.
But ...
That Said ...
They are NOT "Duplicates" ...
They SHOULD "All" be attached ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: Personally, I like such ... the more, the merrier ...
.
0 -
@josephnephimott1, those are two different filmings (and indexings) of the same document, so they are not actually the same thing. In this case, they happen to be equivalent in terms of readability and usability, but sometimes, one filming is clearer than the other. In any case, both should be attached, because this prevents erroneous attachments to someone else, and also keeps the hinting algorithm running smoothly.
You can see that it's two different filmings by looking at the Document Information on the index detail page, or by looking at the images themselves. One of them is film 102458971 image 551 of 2393, while the other is film 5015786 image 299 of 1066. Notice how the latter has more background material showing and is slightly askew compared to the former.
1 -
I agree with the comment about creating 'clutter' with sources. Often there are many records associated with the same event, especially for marriages.
The sources might be technically different, but since they apply to one event, it would be nice to be able to group them under a single event. That helps reduce 'clutter' in the source view.
It's not unusual to find a marriage record with no image, then the same record with an image, then an index to the record, the event recorded in a statewide index, the event recorded in a county index, etc. It would be nice to attach all of them, but group them to the single marriage event.
Just my thoughts.
1 -
Thanks for the thoughts and comments.
I completely agree that if there is a state record and a county record and a church record all of the same event, I want them all. They are unique sources and strengthen your evidence.
My concern is that when different indexing events have found the exact same source document, it does not add to the strength of my evidence to attach it twice unless there is new information included. If one is only an index and another is an index with Image, of course I'll take the more thorough, complete reference that includes the Image. And if another index project adds no information, I see adding it as cluttering up my list. What if a particular document was indexed 100 times? Is my research more complete if I attach all 100 references to the same document? I feel like my job is to be thorough in sourcing documentary evidence of my ancestors, but my job is not to be thorough in referencing redundant indexing projects.
Just my 2 cents.
1 -
One value that multiple indexes of the same document can have is to resolve handwriting-interpretation questions: if three saw Lemuel and one saw Samuel, it's probably correctly Lemuel.
Now, granted, once you get past a certain number of different indexes (or better yet, indexes of indexes), everything kind of loses its utility, but hopefully they're the outliers. FS staff in charge of creating new indexing projects does pay attention to not repeating effort needlessly. (They haven't necessarily always been successful.)
0 -
Another reason for adding ALL the different, but for same event, is to MINIMIZE duplications in the FSTree. (One of the original 3 goals of FS - Sources, Collaboration, and avoiding Duplication.)
0 -
Yes, I think that if they allowed a 3rd option when checking a research hint- that said yes this is the correct person, but is a duplicate source, then perhaps it wouldn't mess up their algorithm or create duplicate people in FSTree.
Don't know if that's possible, but it would be helpful to have all the correct documentation, without having too many duplicate documents.
0 -
Rebecca
In just about, every case ...
They are NOT "Duplicates".
They are simply DIFFERENT "Indexing", of the SAME "Event"; and, SHOULD be attached.
Too many User/Patrons, DO NOT understand, that there can be a number of "Indexing", for the SAME "Event".
Sometimes:
▬ There is a "Re-Indexing" of a "Event", at a LATER date; where, MORE "Data" has been "Indexed"
.... [ BOTH, "Indexing" are valid; and, SHOULD be RETAINED ... ]
.... [ As, many of the EARLIER "Indexing" (ie."Sources) have ALREADY been attached to individuals/persons ... ]
▬ Different "Organisations" (eg. FamilySearch; Ancestry; FindMyPast; etc) often "Index" the SAME "Event".
Thus, we have MULTIPLE "Indexes" (ie. "Sources"), of the SAME "Event.
And ...
They SHOULD "All" be attached ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0
