Allow individuals to report a particular database with significant errors

LMillerd

I have seen multiple databases with a significant amount of errors. I am not exactly sure how one would do this, and perhaps this is the best forum for that?

Most notably: The high number of errors in Connecticut Births & Christenings: (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1674736).

Many individuals are a) only listed by their first name, with no surname in the record, b) if there IS a surname, their actual surname is inaccurately listed as their mother's maiden name, c) the place / locations are extremely inaccurate (example: New Hartford, CT is frequently entered as New Hartford, Oneida, NY, or Brooklyn, Connecticut, entered as Brooklyn, New York). Given that this index does not allow for any corrections and is not connected to the individual records (even though the image records are on family search), this means that many researchers in CT need to pay to access the Barbour index (which is often a tertiary source, as the history of the compilation is often from an index of an index, and the names are often listed under one variant rather than all the variants on FamilySearch)

So, there are records theoretically there, but the database (I assume taken from Ancestry indexing perhaps?) is largely not helpful / useful as it wont show matches of first name.

Examples:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLM4-C9GQ (first name only, missing last name of Hovey)

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLMW-XP9V (first name only, missing last name of Loomis, location should be Windsor, Hartford County, Connecticut)

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:4VPG-BWW2 (error in place of birth)

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLMW-X8W9 (first name only, lists location as Hartford, CT instead of Windsor, Hartford County, CT)

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLMW-7N2S (first name only, missing last name of Miller, lists location as Hartford instead of Farmington, Hartford County, Connecticut)

SConee

This database is totally incorrect - it's for Canada, New Brunswick; however, indexed

as New South Wales, Australia.

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:8BKN-9WMM

William Thomas Henderson

Canada, New Brunswick County Register of Births, 1801-1920

Name:William Thomas Henderson

Event Type:Birth

Event Date:17 Feb 1851

Event Place:Long Reach, New South Wales, Australia

Event Place (Original):Long Reach

Sex:Male

Father's Name:George Henderson

Mother's Name:Margaret Kimbell

SConee

and here's another one for Canada, New Brunswick - it seems that the birthplace of Long Reach

instead of indexing it to Kings County, New Brunswick, Canada, it is all over the map - the last one

was Long Reach, new South Wales, Australia -

this database https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:81YH-PZN2 is now showing California - for

the same place, same person. And it looks like many other problems with the Canada, New Brunswick

births databases.

This is one person where the multiple incorrect databases are found in William Thomas

Henderson's birth sources. ID #KFH6-MT2

I found one correctly indexed because it has the original record.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

Both of @SConee's records are classic-by-now auto-standardization errors: the original index had just the bare placename (Long Reach, Long Beach), and the bot totally and completely ignored the collection title or other blatant clues to the actual locations, going with the first item on the list instead, never mind if it's the wrong side of the globe.

When will the Powers That Be at FamilySearch finally realize the enormous scope of this problem? It cannot be fixed piecemeal. There are quite literally millions of these errors in the database. Please, FS, just revert all of the autostandardizations and start over, making sure that the new process uses the known information about each record's origins to prevent the ridiculous choices that the failed process made.

(Given that R versus B can be very similar, it seems likely that both records actually have the same place, but without access to the actual images, I don't know if it's Reach or Beach that's correct.)

Evergreen

Here's another one: Marriage records clearly from Gundy County, Missouri are mis-cited as being from Gundy County, Iowa:

Cite This Record

"Missouri, County Marriage, Naturalization, and Court Records, 1800-1991," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6ZMQ-DCM8 : 25 February 2022), M G Kennedy, 1882; citing Marriage, Grundy, Iowa, United States, Missouri State Archives, Jefferson City; FHL microfilm 007425061.

Nancy Joe

These marriage records are incorrectly listed as Washington, D. C. marriages when in fact they are in Washington State https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPM6-ZFCT

PattiG36021

The database "New York, New York City Marriage Records, 1829-1940" has some problems with the ages of the brides.

For example:

Citation: "New York, New York City Marriage Records, 1829-1940," database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2CX-3K4Q : 22 July 2021), Laurance Conway and Minnie Conway, 24 Dec 1903; citing Marriage, Queens, New York, United States, New York City Municipal Archives, New York; FHL microfilm 1,901,642.

In this example the bride's age is listed as "4". No way to view original record or edit.