Child baptism and surname
Some records of a child baptism list only the given name(s) and omit the surname. To fill in the child's surname, your instructions say ....do not use the surname of others in the record. Why wouldn't we just assume the child's surname is that of the parents?
Best Answers
-
This is just a case of the rules that have been written for the Project. I believe the record owners have chosen the rules and FamilySearch just implements or passes those along to the indexer. It does make the search a little more difficult - one has to search the Surname(s) of the parents (I guess researchers will have to learn the way the index is created means they should search this way). It leaves the assumption to the researcher.
1 -
I have long argued against this practice. There are two reasons usually provided by experienced indexers. Firstly, that you have to follow project instructions to the letter. Secondly, that this rule can be connected to the fact that the record owner has imposed this condition of indexing.
Taking the second issue first, I have never encountered this issue on any other website I have used except FamilySearch and would be grateful to be advised if any other researcher has. Obviously, websites that include indexing projects must also be subject to terms and conditions laid down by the record owners / custodians, so how does it seem only FamilySearch would be subject to such restrictions?
Searches within FamilySearch have to be made using a variation of inputs in order that certain individuals can be found. As an example, say a parish register has one entry reading, "John Smith, son of William & Mary" and, for the next year, "George, son of William & Mary Smith", the project instructions would (I understand) mean the indexer can index "John" as "John Smith", but should index George Smith as just "George", in accordance with the format of the original entries and project instructions.
Less clear to those who are inexperienced in using FamilySearch's search engine is the fact that to find both children (following the addition of these indexed records to the main website) they could input "John Smith" as the prime person's name, but for George would need to enter just the first name, but only enter the last name for his father - (William) Smith.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe this practice is either very rare (or possibly unique) when it comes to the wider world of genealogy. It remains very confusing to me as to why (if I am correct) only FamilySearch indexing projects lead to such complications, yet from small websites (like FreeREG) to the really large ones (like Find My Past) the issue just does not seem to arise.
I really think it is high time FamilySearch managers took a good look at this issue in order to confirm whether these unhelpful instructions could be changed in order to make life easier for those searching these indexed collections once they appear online. Sadly, there seems no way of passing such comments to anyone who might be able to implement change - as there is just no direct means of communication with FamilySearch Indexing management.
1 -
I agree it is frustrating when searching and indexing if a record is incomplete, but FamilySearch is not responsible for their original content. Sometimes it is the form itself that is to blame for not being clear in asking for the first and last name. Often language barriers and illiteracy played a role in a form being accurately filled out.
Also, the records FamilySearch is asked to index come from many countries and cultures. They do not all follow the same naming system for their children.
For example, I have Polish ancestors, and it is common to find males whose last names end with a "y" or "i," have female relatives whose last names end with an "a." I've seen European records with a women's married name before her maiden name.
I'm currently working on a South African Indian project and there are rarely identifiable surnames in the birth or marriage records.
It can be hard, but do not assume information that is not specifically given.
Remember, we aren't the researchers when we index.
2
