Source indexed incorrectly
The link below is to a page of a book containing Revolutionary War rosters for 3 towns in New Hampshire: Deerfield, Nottingham and Northwood. Except for the one edit I made on the index for James Norris, all others listed from Northwood have been indexed with the location Northwood, Worth, Iowa, United states. This, of course, is very wrong .... Can it be fixed?
Best Answer
-
I don't think so, Gail. I tagged the Mod who has been taking the lead on passing these problems to the developers.
0
Answers
-
Hola gail swihart watson estamos muy contentos de que usted este participando en la indexación y no se preocupe claro que tiene solución
¿Cuál es la función del revisor en la indexación?
La revisión es el proceso en que una persona revisa un lote que fue indexado por otra persona. Se requiere que se revise cada lote antes de publicar la colección en FamilySearch.
Después que un indexador completa y envía un lote, otro indexador con derechos de revisión abre el lote y asegura que la indexación se haya realizado de la manera más correcta posible. El revisor se asegura de que:
- Se hayan indexado todas las imágenes.
- Se hayan indexado todas las entradas de cada imagen.
- Se cumplieron todas las instrucciones del proyecto, las ayudas para el campo y las pautas básicas de indexación.
Si el revisor cambia cierto número de las entradas del lote, el lote se envía para volverse a revisar para ayudar a asegurar que permanezca alta la calidad de la información indexada.
Nota: Después de indexar 1000 registros, se le concederán los derechos de revisar lotes. El proceso de permiso puede tardar uno o dos días.
Espero que su inquietud que resuelta y animo usted tambien puede revisor, gracias por todo lo que hace.
0 -
cesarfuentesnadal1 Hola! No soy indexador ni revisor. Estoy realizando una investigación. Simplemente quería llamar la atención de alguien sobre este error de indexación, ya que se ha indexado incorrectamente más de un registro.
English: I am not an indexer or a reviewer. I am conducting research. I merely wanted to bring this indexing error to the attention of someone as more than one record has been incorrectly indexed.
1 -
Hi Gail,
I took a look at that resource. Unfortunately, it seems that the "Northwood" records are not the only ones with issues. And it's not just other states showing up - but countries that have no connection to America's Revolutionary War and many that didn't even exist at the time. I saw some with "Myanmar" as the location!
There is a known problem with the place name standardization program, but I don't know if this database is suffering from that issue. Normally, when that program is the cause, we see "original" on one of the locations in the index, and I don't see "original" on any of these.
Record set https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/2546162
@N Tychonievich not sure if this is one that need place review. Thanks.
0 -
So does this affect people searching for records by name? I often wonder. I was able to find my ancestors in Knox County Indiana in 1810 even though the standardized place name was Knox, Marshall Islands.
0 -
The place standardization program certainly could affect a search when isolating the search to a specific location. And, if you found your family in Indiana some time ago, that might have been before the place standardization program created new places in error.
Here's a post with some of the background on the place standardization issue: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/116253/existing-historical-records-issues#latest
2 -
Yes, these are place standardization errors. See for example: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG2M-3MVW
Original: Deerfield
Standardized: Deerfield, Fergus, Montana, United States
...for a page of New Hampshire records.
1 -
Ugh, not good! Do I need to do anything else?
1 -
Thank you!!!
1
