"Volunteer Project" User
Many times, in working with a wide variety of guests, we find information attached by "Volunteer Project". There is no source, just information has been added to a person. You cannot click on the name and send a message. Does anyone know who/what this is?
For example, Sarah Street KLBR-76H. "Volunteer Project" had added a death date on 21 Oct 2021 but no source attached?
Best Answer
-
It's the place-standardization project, which anyone can contribute to: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/improve-place-names/
On Sarah Street's profile, the death date was added on May 28, 2012, by "FamilySearch", i.e. it was imported from FS's prior system, and contributor information has been lost.
The only thing the "Volunteer Project" did in October was to associate the standardized place "Wayne, Lafayette, Wisconsin, United States" with the entered text "of Wayne, LaFayette, Wisconsin" (which also came from the prior system). If you look through the profile's Change Log, you'll see that neither the date of death nor the displayed place of death have been changed in nearly a decade now. The only thing that has been changed is the associated standardized place.
4
Answers
-
Just a guess:
otherwise some user registered an 'official sounding' name ... And they don't have messaging turned on ...
I'm not aware of 'Volunteer Project' group specifically nor whether it applies to Record Linking Lab - although that name seems to indicate 'attaching records' - which doesn't seem to apply in your specific example. Since FamilySearch could have many Volunteer Projects perhaps a name - Placenames, Volunteer Project - or generally [specific project], Volunteer Project (i.e. RLL, Volunteer Project - but I can't recall if RLL links with your user account display name) - would be more informative in the future?
Comment: I don't find 'guest' offensive - thanks for allowing me to be a FamilySearch guest (and yes - been contributing many years). 'To each their own' - be offended or not ... I prefer to be more offended at 'data structures/functions' that may allow too easy 'edit/bad data entry' (but maybe I shouldn't be offended either)... For example, I don't find a problem with indexing/pre-publication processes extracting relational information. I don't care whether I match trees or link individuals to Tree. That the record indicates relations (most times) seems obvious to me - but if Source Linker is required I guess that's how I'll do it (grrr)...
1 -
Kori
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ... ]
[ And, I have been a Staff Member, of Family History Centres", of the Church, for many Years ... ]
Just in passing ...
Firstly ...
In future, can you please, NOT, use, the "Term" (ie. "Honorific"), of "Guest" (Plural: "Guests").
Many of us, find the "Term", somewhat ... "Offensive" ...
We are ALL Users/Patrons of 'FamilySearch'; and, when one participates in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, one is a "Participant".
Many of us, have complained, here in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum , about the use, of the "Term" (ie. "Honorific"), of "Guest" (Plural: "Guests").
And, the instances of such, has been significantly reduced.
'Thank You' in advance.
-----
Now ...
That Said ...
----
Secondly ...
[ And, most importantly ... ]
Please be, aware; and, advised ...
That the "Volunteer Project", is part of 'FamilySearch'; being, a "Project" (and, a "Process"); whereby, "Place Names", that evoke a "Data Error"; because, they are NOT "Standardised", are addressed/corrected.
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/improve-place-names/
Quote
------------------
Improve the accuracy of Family Tree.
You can help by associating a user-entered place with a standard place found on a map.
What you will do:
1. See the user-entered place. Compare it to the places in other life events.
2. Add the standard place that is most similar to what the user entered. What you add will not overwrite or delete the user-entered place. Skip to the next person if you are unsure.
Note: If you prefer, select a country or location below to review places from a specific country or location.
Select Country or Location
[ ... ]
[ REVIEW 10 PLACES ]
------------------
The "Volunteer Project", involves Users/Patrons, working, to HELP "Improve", "Place Names".
There are NO, "Sources"; nor, "Reason Statements".
Hence, the "Contact Name"; being, that of "Volunteer Project", rather than that of an individual User/Patron.
As an aside ...
Perhaps, the the "Contact Name" SHOULD be something like "FamilySearch, Volunteer Project"
[ just a passing thought ... ]
Now ...
That Said ...
Here are some Articles, in the 'FamilySearch" "Blog":
Improve Place-Names
Online Volunteer Opportunity: Help Improve Place-Names
https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/online-volunteer-opportunity-help-improve-place-names
I hope, that this may help/assist, somewhat.
Brett
1 -
This project is drastically screwing up place names for my county. I am so depressed. Why can't you use reviewers who have knowledge of a location instead of just letting people mess things up willy nilly?
1 -
@Judy Crook_1 Can you post a couple of examples? They can’t fix anything without seeing what is happening.
1 -
Here is my great-great-grandmother Mary in the 1900 census: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-H731?id=KP7V-P18
If you look at the document itself, it clearly states that they lived in Rifle precinct. The house is currently in the city limits, but wasn't then. Still, it's only a mile or so from the post office in Rifle and is still lived in today.
The place name assigned is Parachute.
Here's one assigned to Carbondale, Colorado, when they live on Divide Creek (which is between Silt and New Castle). https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-3FZV Even as the crow flies, the two places are 40 miles apart.
Here is the Coe family, who owned a ranch in Antlers, Colorado, which is halfway between Rifle and Silt. It's been assigned willy nilly to New Castle, even though the image says Antlers. I know where they lived. This is depressing. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-QJY8
Here is Olive Crook, The family lived in East Glenwood Springs. They have been given a place name of Cattle Creek: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-8PP8
David Heaton. Lived in Rifle. Assigned to Parachute. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-KRCB
Aunt Alta lived in Austin, Colorado, a place about 10 miles north of Rifle. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-D82G She has now been stuck in Carbondale, Colorado, a location 50 miles away.
1 -
So those are all indexed records. I have a lot of those that need fixing, too, but other than the ones that can be edited one by one, it doesn't seem like that is feasible for FamilySearch right now even though people have been complaining about this issue for years.
This topic has been about place names in Family Tree that do not have a standard attached and the Volunteer Project that links a standard, as found in the Places database, to those place names without changing those place names. It's relatively easy to get corrections in the Places database, but that doesn't help the indexed collections any.
0 -
@Judy Crook_1, as Gordon says, those are all auto-standardization errors in the database of indexed records. Notice how they all have both an "Event Place" field (with the incorrect location) and an "Event Place (Original)" field (containing the correct location)? The Event Place is what an automated process came up with as an interpretation of the actually-indexed Event Place (Original) field.
These errors have absolutely nothing to do with the volunteer project under discussion in this thread. In fact, the whole problem with them is that no human being had any input into the process that assigned these often-ridiculously-wrong standardized locations.
There is another thread where we've been collecting auto-standardization errors: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/426286
1 -
This is a recent phenomena. I noticed the Volunteer Project associated with one of the place names at one point, so that is why I posted the issue here. I would happily review and fix my county if they'd let me.
1 -
I (humbly) think you guys need to check more closely. I have no idea what volunteer project is, but I challenge you to look at the improperly indexed 1900 census record Judy mentioned, (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66VK-H731?id=KP7V-P18) then go to the ancestor it is linked to, Mary Matilda Mullen (L261-446).
Now go down in Mary Mullen's record in "Other Information" to the residence record for 1900. You will see the incorrect information added by user Volunteer Project.
I think saying this is not related to the volunteer project is a bit premature?????
0 -
@Gail S Watson, the entry under Other Information that was most recently edited by "Volunteer Project" has the correct location of Rifle, and it wasn't added by the project. All that the project did was to associate a standard with the entered text -- and it did so correctly: "Rifle, Garfield, Colorado, United States". It's the index that has the wrong place of "Parachute", and that only recently (like, within the past year or maybe two). Before that, the index only had the one place field, the one that's now labeled with a parenthetical "Original", which is the one that's correct.
So no, the volunteer project has nothing to do with the errors that Judy noted.
1 -
To completely clarify and demonstrate the answer to the initial question that @Kori Robbins posted, since @Gail S Watson says she has "no idea what volunteer project is, and to take up Gail's challenge, let's take a look at exactly what the Volunteer does and does not do.
Entering the activity, you see this screen (emphasis added):
Starting the review, I am given this:
If I go to Anne's person page, her christening looks like this:
The Christening editing box looks like this:
This record was imported from a previous system, thus the 2012 last changed date and FamilySearch as the place holder for the empty contributor spot. Looking at her change log, filtered for christening, you see this:
The one and only goal of the Volunteer Project is to get rid of the red exclamation point since as long as it is there, the christening place information cannot be used in the Search, Hint, or Possible duplicate routines. The computer has no idea at this point what Vaagaa, Opland, Norway means. I know that this is the parish of Vågå, Oppland, Norway so I enter it:
After I save this, I return to Anne's page to see:
The red exclamation point is gone and the contributor name is now Volunteer Project, but nothing else has changed.
The Christening editing box now looks like this:
What gets confusing is that just adding a standard does trigger an entry in the change log but what the change was, was not shown. An update put in place very recently helps a little:
The evidence is subtle, but at least you can see that something happened.
Once again, the only thing this Volunteer Project does is remove red exclamation points by linking a standard to existing data. It does not change user entered data, it does not enter new data, it has nothing to do with sources and it has nothing to do with indexed records.
Looking at the Change Log for Mary Matilde, and pulling out the entries for the Residence event in 1900 Gail refers to, as Julia pointed out, we see:
- J entered the event without a linked standardized date or place.
- FamilySearch performed a background administrative event that did not cause any change in the data.
- Volunteer Project linked a standardized place to the existing displayed place without changing it at all.
4 -
This may or may not help - United States Census, 1900 Problems - I'm offering the link because of Gail's post about the census record.
0
