Person erroneously tagged with "married before 12"
I'm looking at LT85-SVC, Ruth Cole. She has a birth date of 17 February 1914 and a marriage date of 24 December 1932, which is more than 18 years, but Research Help still has the "Married before 12" warning. Is there something I'm overlooking?
EDIT: It seems the flag has been removed. All is well!
Best Answers
-
Her marriage date looked okay but wasn't. When I edited the date to make it standard the warning went away.
I have seen this before, many times. For this reason I do not trust the "standardized" shadow dates and places, where the text is different than what is displayed.
1 -
Looking at Ruth's Change Log, which is always the best place to start, you can see the series of events.
Her marriage date was first added to her record Sept. 24, 2019 by one user as 24 Dec 1922. This would have set the error flag because in 1922 she was only eight years old (this may have been before these error tags were implemented.)
This past January, another user corrected, based on a source, her marriage date to 24 Dec 1932. Since the error flag did not clear, most likely when the new date was entered the user just typed in the date and clicked save without choosing the date from the drop down menu. Doing this updates the displayed date, but it does not update the existing standard. The error flag is based on the standard so if that is what happed, the error flag would not have cleared.
The quickest way to correct this is to open the data entry box for the marriage event, click at the end of the date, press the downward arrow or press the space bar to open the dropdown menu then click in the menu to choose the correct date. This will update the standard.
0
Answers
-
Scott
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Just for future reference; so that, you may be able, to work through, things yourself ...
It sounds like, that 'Date' of "Marriage", although "Recorded" correctly, may have been incorrectly "Standardised" ...
Which, caused the "Data Problem", of "Married before 12 Years Old" ...
Regarding, "Standardising", the likes of, 'Dates'; and, 'Places' ...
Especially, when those, 'Dates'; and, 'Places', are incorrectly "Standardised" ...
Here are some "Knowledge Articles", in 'FamilySearch':
How do I enter dates and places into Family Tree?
How do I fix data problems in Family Tree?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-fix-data-problems-in-family-tree
What are all the possible data problems in Family Tree?
I hope, that these may help/assist, somewhat.
Brett
0 -
It sounds like, that 'Date' of "Marriage", although "Recorded" correctly, may have been incorrectly "Standardised" ..
No. That was not the problem.
I will try again to explain this so it is understood:
The date was correctly standardized, and furthermore the date in the text entry field looked exactly the same as the standard. But it was not the same. The date was not recorded correctly.
I have seen this problem many times before, and I recommend escalating this case to the engineers.
0 -
I am intrigued as to what this looked like before you changed it!
In my example, there is at least the suggestion of a non-standardised input, although that is just as likely to be caused by the "system" (e.g. carried across from a source like looked fine at the source-linking stage) as a user input (e.g. hits "Save" without clicking on a "Date of Marriage" option, from the drop down, beforehand). This situation is equally applicable to dates as to places, of course.
In the example illustrated, you know something like either of those two possibilities is true, so I wonder (if you can remember!) what the appearance was, before you made it right, in the example being referred to here.
The screenshot below shows a perfectly correct looking "Place of Marriage" input (couldn't find a "Date" example, I'm afraid), which the system is not accepting for some reason (possibilities discussed above):
0 -
The date looked fine. I could see nothing wrong with it. But I have seen so many other cases where the date looked fine but a flag indicated a problem I could not see. These used to drive me nuts until by trial and error I learned to just do over any dates where the problem might be lurking.
The problem data may still be recorded in the database, if the engineers would look.
0 -
All
FYI
Please be, aware; and, advised, that ...
It is "Very" EASY, to "Record" (ie. enter/input) a particular 'Date'; but, "Standardize", that 'Date' that is "Recorded"; as, ANOTHER 'Date' altogether.
In the case, of this particular post ...
As, I am "Related" ...
I had originally (previously) had taken, a quick 'look', through the "ChangeLog(s)", for Ruth COLE ( LT85-SVC )
ie. BOTH, Individual/Person; and, Couple ...
Individual/Person: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/LT85-SVC
Couple: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/changelog/LT85-SVC/couple/MGXW-Z6L
As such ...
I would humbly suggest, that on the "5 January 2022"; when, the User/Patron, 'CarolBlazzard', CHANGED the 'Date' of the "Marriage', from the Year of 1922, to the Year of 1932, that they simply. DID NOT, then, correctly, "Re-Standardise', the 'Date' to the Year of 1932, they did so a little too quickly, leaving the "Standardise'; as, the 'Date' for the Year of 1922.
Hence: the Data Problem", of "Married before 12 Years Old," REMAINED ...
It happens; and, is very easy to do; and, I have 'seen' such often; plus, I have done so, myself ...
[ But, luckily, I usually, pick up, that oversight, in the process; BEFORE, initiating the 'Change' - but sometimes not ... ]
In most cases, it is just the User/Patron either, being a little too quick; or, just not taking enough care ...
Just my thoughts.
Take it; or, Leave it ...
Brett
ps:
In cases; as, in this particular post ...
I usually, advise the ORIGINAL Participant, of the possible cause of the problem/issue; a possible "Fix", that they could try; and, any supporting "Knowledge Articles", to enable the Participant, to TRY, to address/fix, the problem/issue themselves, in the first instance, rather than, just going ahead; and, making ANY "Changes" myself (and, even, if I am "Related").
The reason for such is twofold:
(1) Give the Participant, the opportunity to address/fix, the matter; but, more importantly, to "Learn" ...
AND ...
(2) So that, OTHER Participants, can 'see' the matter, just in case, I was wrong; or, that I missed something ...
I usually, NEVER make ANY "Changes"; UNLESS, specifically asked to do so, by the ORIGINAL Participant either,
(1) In the 'Post' itself; or,
(2) Though a ("Private") 'Message', to me, from the by the ORIGINAL Participant.
Hey; but, that is just me ...
.
1 -
When I edited the date I looked carefully at what was there. The existing standard appeared to have the year 1932. That's why everyone was confused and frustrated.
Next time I will take screen shots at every step.
Here is a new discussion about what may be the same issue: Death Year Doesn't Match
0 -
Yes, please take screen shots!
0 -
All
FYI
I could ALMOST guarantee ...
[ In BOTH cases ... ]
That the the problem/issue, is what I previously described; and, what 'Gordon' also mentioned.
The thing is, that once, a change/correction has made, the EXACT problem/issue, CANNOT be 'seen'.
[ ie. in either, "Person/Details" page/screen; and/or, any "ChangeLog(s)" ... ]
And, 'Yes', the BEFORE "Screenshots", are a must; and, the ONLY evidence ...
Brett
0 -
Very well, thanks everyone for your help.
0 -
😀
0
