Report error: SS Anchoria (ship) indexed as Auchovid for hundreds of passengers in 1884
Please make this change. The system only allows changing the individual indexed records.
Auchovid --> Anchoria
Go back one page to image 945, and you can read Anchoria from Glosgow. Ship arrived April 10, 1884 in New York.
"New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1891," database with images, FamilySearch
: 21 May 2014), 474 - 11 Mar 1884-12 Apr 1884 > image 945 of 1042;
citing NARA microfilm publication M237 (Washington D.C.: National
Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
This issue has been reported to the team that handles corrections.
@GaryKing, there's a team that handles corrections? What kinds of corrections do they handle? How can we report corrections that need to be made?
I know about Áine's thread on auto-standardization errors, which N Tychonievich has been dutifully sending up, but what about the many, many thousands of index entries from multi-part films? They automatically get the place assigned from the beginning of the film, even if they're from a completely different county (or heck, country). Is anyone in charge of fixing those errors? Or what about waypoints? Does anyone even know who creates those?2
Please clarify your comments. Firstly, as you are not shown, on your profile, as being either a moderator or an employee. Secondly, as Julia points out, we have never been made aware on this forum of any "team that handles corrections". So we are very confused as to how, or to whom, this issue has been passed on.1
@Paul W Based on some of Gary's earlier comments, it appears he is a member of staff. See, for example, https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/133306#Comment_133306 "There was a problem with the servers. An alert went off and woke up 7 of us around 1 AM our time, the same time your reported the problem on your side of the world. Yes, we do try hard to keep the systems running even if it is an early hour."0
Thanks for confirming that, Aine. Hopefully, Gary will still respond to the other part of the query and update his profile to indicate his status (as an employee).1
Yes, it would be great if we could have a list of contacts. We've learned about some contacts, such as N Tychonievich for auto-standardization, and P Jeffrey for the FHC locator, but more information would be appreciated.
@Mark McLemore any chance that list could be posted? I know that staff changes over time, so perhaps a generic contact list - FHC Fix Team, and Index Correction Team, for example. Thanks!2
Hello @Áine Ni Donnghaile,
Gary is staff, and he is awesome!
I hesitate to build a list of points of contact because of how frequently they can change. Let me do some digging to see if what can be done to get this kind of report to the correct team via a process.
It looks like all of the same folks are in my thread as the discussion that I read before I posted this error. You are welcoming the newbie, I see! Anyway, I'll try to update folks when I see the index change for this particular error. And for those trying to look it over, I had trouble with the URLs from my previous posting. Perhaps this will show the issue better.
Ship Name: Auchovid
Thanks everyone for chiming in! This is encouraging, even if FS is not implementing the DIY fixes on every bit of every record. I think Find-a-Grave has a way to suggest a correction, so not to rehash your previous discussion, but it would be super nice to offer that on more fields. (Edit for records, Suggest for global changes)0
Thanks @Mark McLemore. Fingers crossed!0
It's still Auchovid. How long will it take to get fixed?0
It's still messed up. No fix, yet!0
Hello @WuNee & Friends,
The issue has been reported to the appropriate team, but FamilySearch is not able to commit to a timeframe of when this issue will be fixed.
Ahoy, Auchovid! Shiver me timbers & anchors a-weigh!0
@WuNee, don't hold your breath. I'll be extremely surprised if this is fixed during this decade, never mind this year.2
@WuNee, I am afraid that there is no "anchors aweigh" for this one.
There was a time when we were reporting these types with few if any changes actually being made. Today we no longer report these indexing errors. When an indexing project is completed, they simply do not reopen them to correct the errors.
It is possible that, In time, additional editing options will be available; however, that is not the case today.0
@Mike357 - @Mark McLemore indicated above that this error HAS been reported.0
@Áine Ní Donnghaile, yes, I saw that, although it didn't cause me to change my response.0
@Mark McLemore Clarification would be appreciated, please and thank you.0