Could the project instructions be wrong?
I am indexing: US, Missouri, St. Louis—Military Records, 1916–1939[M9N2-6J4] . Are the project instructions wrong? In the sample for a muster roll, fields 16 and 17 are reversed as to what it will let you enter when indexing. Also it says to tab past the blank fields. Won't this create problems when you are trying to submit the batch? Shouldn't it tell you to enter Ctrl B so that it will enter it as a blank field?
Answers
-
Yes, the example is reversed. As for the non-required fields, you can either tab past them or mark them blank. The system will take both.
0 -
Hi Carla. Required fields have an asterisk at the end of the Field Title. They should all have the field help that says to mark them blank using Ctrl +B. The ones without an asterisk can be tabbed through.
0 -
Yes, project instructions can be wrong. I have found several examples lately, but FamilySearch seems to have made it impossible to let them know any more. Emails I have sent have been answered with a request that I not try to contact them directly any more, but suggest going to the "community," from which I get conflicting answers.
Does someone out there know how to communicate with the right people at familysearch/indexing?
0 -
This issue of not being able to ensure timely problem feedback to Project Managers and reciprocally, timely solutions about Project issues has been an annoyance for a long while. @Melissa S Himes has raised it many times, and I concur .
As a possible mitigation step, I have requested/suggested that FS give us generic tags, e.g., @Moderators and @Moderator that would be monitored by the Moderation team, and would trigger a response in the originating thread confirming receipt and that action is underway. Ironically, but not surprising, I don.t know the status of that request.
If the Community is such an important component of the FS support system that everyone is being referred to it, this seems like a reasonable thing to request and provide. It respects FS’s wish that we not tag individual moderators. But, if taken seriously, it provides earnest Community participants with confidence that their time and trouble to alert the FS authorities to problems that are not solvable by the Community are not wasted.
2
