South Africa Deceased records
I've been reviewing these records and nearly every batch has either mistakes, some images not recorded or wrong info put in. The odd one or two I would expect but not nearly every one . I have sent most back to be re indexed with the labs form but concerned that the people that are making these mistakes will go on to be reviewers and not know what they are doing Unless they are told of their mistakes they will never know and carry on.
Best Answer
-
Thank you for correcting the indexing batches that have many mistakes. If you can tell right away that a batch is going to take significant time to correct, simply send the batch back for reindexing. Click the tab in the top left corner of the screen labeled Batch, followed by Reindex. (If you don’t have time to review the entire batch, click Batch, followed by Return.) Also, On rare occasions, you may find a review batch that has many records that still need to be indexed. A few examples where you might see this are listed below:
- The indexer only indexed a couple of records out of many on the image or marked many blank that should not be.
- The indexer marked an image as having no extractable data, but the image has many records to index.
- None of the information that the indexer entered matches the information on the image.
When something like this happens, you should send the batch back for re-indexing or index it yourself and resubmit it. Note that sending a batch for re-indexing should not be a common occurrence. If you see a lot of batches that need to be re-indexed in the same project, contact FamilySearch to report the issue.
If you put time into a batch before you realize that there will need to be significant additions, you can finish the batch and submit it. Your changes will not be preserved if you return the batch for re-indexing.
You may also report it as Malicious Indexing and there will be someone who will make the right people aware of this issue.
0
Answers
-
@KlaRees - Would you describe the process to report it as Malicious Indexing?
0 -
Based on the criteria given in the article, I would report it as Malicious Indexing.
0
