Edit system will not allow me to edit a field that was indexed incorrectly as a blank, nor others
😥Here's a situation in which the indexer just left something blank rather than simply type what was there. In this case, the 1850 census enumerator wrote:
Anderson, co
which in this case means, literally, Anderson County. That's where the census was, so it seems like a reasonable entry. Ok, fine, I will correct it. Nope! Since this field is blank I presume, the Edit ability is missing, too. So I can edit the name, event date, and event place, I cannot edit:
- The Birthplace
- The age
- The sex
- The Race
- The occupation
What is going on? Why are several fields available to edit, while others aren't? The age and sex aren't blank, the birthplace and occupation are...
Best Answer
-
In addition to @Julia Szent-Györgyi's accurate answer, the fields in a census are limited to what is supposed to be recorded. The county is not a legitimate answer for that field in the 1850 US Census, especially since the state is not included.
9. Under heading 9, "Place of birth." The marshal should ask the place of birth of each person in the family. If born in the State or Territory where they reside, insert the name or initials of the State or Territory, or the name of the government or country if without the United States. The names of the several States may be abbreviated.
Where the place of birth is unknown, state "unknown."
0
Answers
-
The index correction function on FamilySearch is very limited: it only applies to some collections, and only to some of the fields within those collections. It also cannot add or delete entries or fields, so for example if the indexers missed a line or a field, it cannot be added, and if something like pater ignotus ("father unknown") was indexed as a name, those fields cannot be deleted or blanked. (The best one can do is to replace the nonsense with a dash.)
The thing to keep in mind is that the index is not the data. It is merely a finding aid for the data. If you're trying to correct the index for a relative, then by definition the index has done its job: you found the record.
1 -
May I offer the long term problem that incorrect information in the fields generates, namely when references are not available the information is accepted as correct,
For example, over time jobs that once existed and are no longer known loose their meaning, as well as the significant clue for place. In this instance reference, "United States Census, 1870", database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6DH-ZS9 : 29 May 2021), William F Pike, 1870.
The Indexer typed “sla coptain”. When I viewed the record I could easily see that it was “sea captain”. I am older, always lived in coastal communities and familiar with such jobs, so I know this
It is sad that the future arrived so quickly such that particular indexer had never heard of a Sea Captain. How many years need to pass before more information is lost and adults are repeating that their great-great-grandpa was a sla coptain and what type of stories are they going to create to make it fit?
Regarding the the comment above that the index, even if wrong finds the right people, I’m not finding that. The above example was suggested in email and not the same party and I m not finding information that should be available and wondered for years, if it was wrongly indexed, which means I will never find it.
I pray that you will see the value of correct information and put forth the vehicle to have incorrectly indexed records rectified.
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile, what a wonderful resource (i.e., enumeration instructions). I'm going to bookmark that one! Just as an aside, I'm skeptical that the marshal actually asked each person for anything. Just a "thanks" for this additional resource.
0
