Include country/US state from batch title in indexing
The following was posted on Community Help-Indexing:
"South Africa, Johannesburg, Cemetery Records, 1840-2019", database, FamilySearch(https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6XCN-W4TS : 8 March 2022), Johannes G Steyn,
This is an example of 3,133 records (according to each) that have the burial place standardized to California.
Is there a way that FamilySearch can fix these so the are searchable in South Africa rather can California?
Project examples usually don't show including anything not written/typed on a form. However, additional location information might be printed on the form and the country/US state is usually part of the project name. If it was standardized that this could be indexed as well, it would prevent mislocations like this from happening. In this case, just by adding South Africa after any town listed for death or the cemetery (especially if it was Johannesburg as it was in this example), would default to South Africa instead of Johannesburg, Kern, California, United States.
I'm sure this happens in many other individual records, but this was a whole project!
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will be forwarding your suggestion to the appropriate individuals for consideration. This suggestion is open for others to vote on. We appreciate your thoughts and collaboration.
Am glad this has been raised. First, this is a fantastic free resource, there that's the compliment out of the way. The negatives - and they are numerous. The amount of records on South African death notices that have utterly incorrect locations. To name just a couple from today's research: Bedford [Bedfordshire England] when in fact it is Bedford, Eastern Cape [as was at the time of the death ], Somerset [England] instead of Somerset Cape Colony or Province. My personal view is that for South African records ONLY South Africans should be involved. Family Search need to amend 'standardised places' to reflect the reality of SA. The names used during the 17th/18th/19th and 20th centuries bear no relevance to the country in 2022 so please please please use the correct historical provinces.
I am currently working on 3 trees for South Africans and the number of errors is hugely frustrating. Clearly indexed by people who have no concept of South African history! Again, this is a free service and fantastic, but do not see these errors in British records!0