Who will correct the incorrect indexing of the location.
"England, Middlesex Parish Registers, 1539-1988", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:681L-PQHT : 12 November 2021), James John Cato, 1823.
Northumberland, England is definitely not in Middlesex England.
This database appears to have been made available quite recently. There are a lot of transcription errors, not only the one cited above
Answers
-
Similar problem with the records that I, in the role of reviewer (batches not yet online for users) am reviewing coming through from the UK, England, Lancashire—Nonconformist Church Records, 1647–1996 [Part B][MSLB-MS9]. Where an actual record omits any indication of location in the written details, transcribers are using the details in the batch label to declare a baptism/burial as in Lancashire. But non-conformist preachers often travelled with their books to baptisms elsewhere. Some of these events were actually in Wales or Yorkshire, not Lancaster/Lancashire. Clearer guidance required for transcribers.
0 -
@Diana Coates, thank you for bringing this problem to our attention. It is an example of a problem that we have seen in other collections in which the auto-standardization of a place name produces a location that is not correct.
This type of problem is usually seen when we find both an Event Place (Original), and an Event Place.
I will put your report in the queue for review and resolution by our engineers. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you when the problem will be resolved.
If you attach this record to an ancestor in your family tree, please be sure to note the incorrect location and provide correct information for others that may see this source. You can do this, after attaching the record, by editing the Source and using the "Reason to Change Source" or "Describe the Record (Notes)" sections.
We apologize for the problem that you have found and look forward, with you, to their correction.
0 -
The problem with this example is that the parish is shown as being "Christ Church, Middlesex" in the pages before the register entries begin (and as just "Christ Church" thereafter), but these are not standardised placenames - nor should they be! Image 2 (of 681) of the film shows the parish correctly as "Christ Church, Spitalfields, Stepney, Middlesex", for which FamilySearch has a number of alternative, standardized placenames - albeit omitting "Stepney". (Incidentally, there is also a "Christ Church, St Marylebone" - also in the county of Middlesex.)
Someone just did not take the time to record where this "Christ Church" is actually situated. As you can see, the "Baptism Place (Original)" in the record has no suffix, so when a computer program has attempted to standardize the name "correctly" it has chosen the North Shields, Northumberland parish as the actual "Baptism Place".
There have been many reports on similar lines (i.e. when the computer "gets it wrong") but it can't be blamed here, because the name applied (in the process between indexing and the record being put online) contains insufficient detail.
(Mike has already explained how this matter is likely to be dealt with - i.e., added to an already long list, for hopeful correction, asap.)
0
