Why would so many entries be indexed without a first name and can this problem be addressed?
The latest release of "New Free Historical Records on FamilySearch" includes additional records relating to an existing / ongoing project - https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/4439317.
I have performed random searches on last names and found an unusually high number of records do not include the first name of the primary person in the record, although most include the first name of the father.
It is difficult to believe this relates to an issue involving illegibility, as there are so many different names / parishes involved. Is there any way this matter can be examined, with the possibility of having these records re-indexed, as it is currently very difficult to attach them to IDs in Family Tree, to which they relate?
Alternatively, does anyone have any suggestions as to how this situation has arisen - discounting (il)legibility.
See https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&offset=20&q.anyDate.from=1600&q.anyDate.to=1700&q.anyPlace=yorkshire&q.anyPlace.exact=on&q.givenName=charles&q.surname=wright&q.surname.exact=on&f.collectionId=4439317 (pages 2-15) for examples involving the WRIGHT surname. (Note my search was for a Charles Wright - not "Exact" for the first name. This produced 21 results for a Charles / Carolus Wright, the remaining 261 results being for a (no first name) Wright.)
Please advise if this post is more appropriate to the "Search" category, rather than "Indexing". Perhaps these records were indexed with a first name, but this has been omitted somewhere further down the line.