How/where do I report a transcription error?
I have found a transcription error in a census record, but the edit function isn't working on the record. Could someone please point me in the right direction to report this error or guide me on how to fix it please?
I have reviewed the original document and it's very clearly an error.
Thank you :)
Answers
-
Depending on the census collection in question, you might not be able to make an edit at this time.
There are lots of errors in indexed records (including census ones) that we cannot fix, so it would be a help to know which one is involved here.
0 -
Thank you for your reply Paul.
The error is in the England and Wales census 1861. The error is in the event location. It is showing as Chichester St. James, Chichester Sussex when in fact it should be Colchester St. James, Colchester Essex. Here is the citation if that helps track down the page.
"England and Wales Census, 1861," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7HC-FDG : 3 March 2021), Emily Scott in household of Sarah Scott, Chichester St James, Chichester, Sussex, England, United Kingdom; from "1861 England, Scotland and Wales census," database and images, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : n.d.); citing PRO RG 9, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey.
I am sure I used to be able to edit the errors before the new system (which i am not at all fond of). The image isn't available here but I have access via FMP so double checked it.
0 -
That's not a transcription error. It's an auto-standardization error. Notice how it says "Event Place (Original): St James, Essex, England"? That's what was transcribed, because that's probably what the document says. The Chichester location was erroneously associated with the index entry by an automated process connected with an update to FamilySearch's search algorithms.
In the past year or so, FamilySearch has transitioned some of its search fields from a text-string-based search to a faster and more efficient entity-based algorithm. As part of this, they needed to associate standardized entities with the text strings found in all of the existing indexes in the database. They used automated processes to generate these associations, and unfortunately, those processes have Completely Messed Up the entire database. It primarily affects place fields, but it has also performed sex changes on thousands upon thousands of babies (nearly all Hungarian Catholic baptisms have turned male), and it has also removed the month and day of events from many thousands of index entries.
Unfortunately, nobody at FamilySearch has even acknowledged that there is a problem, never mind its enormity. I believe they need to revert all of the changes made by the automated processes and start over, using a method with a lot more human input to ensure accuracy. I'm not holding out much hope that any such thing will happen.
1 -
Thank you for your in depth explanation Julia.
Whilst I understand the need to move with the times and not get left behind, I am also a great fan of the old adage, "if it's not broke, don't fix it".
Having just returned from a two year break from genealogy, I expected to find changes but was a little bemused and also somewhat dismayed at the extent of the changes that had been made. I have found a number of transcription errors which are identical to those on FMP, so can only assume those are copies. I request change there as I find those, as they have the option on every record. That in itself would be a step forward. After all there is no point in having incorrect information put into tree branches.
I have various genealogical project in progress, which although are seperate projects do interlock at various points. I began those with info from here as the interface was easy to navigate and the results clear in view, but I am beginning to wonder if continuing those with the present interface and search engine here is a viable proposition, especially with time being a big factor. It is taking far longer to find the info I need here than on other sites.
I do hope that concerns are read and acted upon, it will be very sad to think that the feedback received is ignored in the name of progress.
0