Incorrect location indexed in ancestor's marriage
Hi there! The location of one of my ancestor's marriage events was indexed incorrectly. The Live Chat Help agent told me that Historical Records needs to fix it, but that they take so long to pick up that I should raise the issue with the missionaries here who can help. I would be so grateful if someone would correct this before some well-intentioned person detaches the source!
The location indexed is
Griselles, Côte-d'Or, Bourgogne, France
The correct location is
Griselles, Ferrières, Loiret, France (modern location: Griselles, Loiret, Centre-Val de Loire, France.)
The marriage is between Adrien Girault GDTH-7MN and Honorine Lebrigre GDT4-13V.
Their marriage banns: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:4PT5-8MPZ (see frame 19 of 127, last entry on right page).
Beginning at the second line, the entry reads, "...Décembre, nous, Rustique Pasquet, Maire, de la commune de Griselles, canton de Ferrières département de Loiret..."
Translated, this is: "...December, I, Rustique Pasquet, Mayor of the town of Griselles, canton of Ferrières, départment of Loiret..."
He's named on the seventh line of the entry and she's named on the top line of the next page as Augustine Honorine Lebigre.
Their marriage: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-V3D9-RJ4Y?i=21 (frame 22 of 131)
The second line reads, "pardevant nous, Rustique Pasquet, Maire de la commune de Griselles canton de Ferrières, département du Loirêt..."
That translates to, "...before me, Rustique Pasquet, Mayor of the town of Griselles, canton of Ferrières, département du Loiret..."
Adrien is named on line 4 and Augustine Honorine Lebigre is named on line 9.
Disclaimer: Community member (not official FamilySearch missionary/representative)
Editing Record Index (Edit not available): The place in the record index to which you refer is not currently editable. There are a couple workarounds - but here in Community you will receive the answer that the index did its job - you were able to locate the record. Correction of record indexes is unfortunately not simple due to their 'contractual nature' - though I understand FamilySearch is working toward a solution to make such corrections easier.
Possible Workarounds: Save the record to your Source Box (found under your FamilySearch account icon - upper right corner after login at familysearch.org), create your own index/transcription of the record and then attach it to the persons to which it refers. Another workaround would be to use a browser extension (if applicable to your browser) - called RecordSeek.com. This extension again allows you to create your own notes/transcription and attach the source record to the persons included.
A secondary issue which might be applicable (sorry I did not check). If Griselles, Ferrières, Loiret, France is not in the FamilySearch places authority (for standardizing the placename) you can correct/add this at:2
Thank you for your response, genthusiast. You're right: the indexed record DID pop up for me, but an index's job is more than just bring a person forth. The data also needs to be accurate. People get hit with mountains of record hints and these record hints can start a process where new individuals are created. Sometimes people don't read things carefully. I found an ancestor where this clearly happened. He was linked to his mother and to an identical individual as wife, when he had only ever been married to another woman and died before her.
Keeping marriages straight and accurate and linking children to the right unions is really important. Accuracy in Familysearch really does matter.0
Yes, the data needs to be accurate, but despite the index-centric structure found on FamilySearch (and most other genealogy sites), the index is not the data. It is merely a finding aid for the data. As an analogy, the index is the card catalog in the library. It is not the books themselves.
The reason online genealogy is so index-centric is that indexes are machine-parseable, while images of records are not. Therefore, I doubt the setup will change any time soon.
All that said, what you're looking at in the Griselles examples are not indexing errors, but auto-standardization errors, and I believe they are an enormous problem that FamilySearch needs to address a lot more aggressively than it has been. We've been compiling examples of the problem in this thread: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/112227/place-name-corrector0
I fully realize that indexed information is not the data itself, but when people are hit with mountains of record hint nags on their FamilySearch index page (I got 31 for just a single individual), they're more likely NOT to have the time to go in and read the original documents. They may decide to trust the indexer and assume the person is linked to the wrong family. They may act on that understandably wrong assumption and take action that just adds to the general confusion that has become FamilySearch.
I'm sure the errors are not auto-standardization errors because Familysearch lists two standardized places called Griselles:
Griselles, Loiret, Centre-Val de Loire, France
Griselles, Côte d'Or, Bourgogne, France.
I think the indexer, for some reason, didn't scroll down far enough to see the second Griselles, and since this is not a technical error, it wasn't caught.
I'm convinced it's not an auto-standardization error because it doesn't occur for all the people in my tree living in Griselles, Loiret.
There have been other errors, too, that are not auto-generated. For example, an ancestor named Camille was identified as female when his birth register entry clearly says he was male. I was able to fix the gender issue myself.
I realize that indexers are swamped with the firehose of digitized data that's spewing out of Granite Mountain. I'm very grateful for their work. I'm part of the indexing army, too. But aren't we supposed to be operating in a "house of order?" This certainly doesn't feel like one.0