Why no data warning flag for christening date after burial date?
There are sometimes warnings for situations that have a perfectly plausible explanation, so why not for an issue like this?
I am following this ID and noticed that another user has been making some odd inputs against Thomas and his family. As illustrated, this has included changing my 1723/24 christening input to one which (odd as it appears) has standardized as "January 1823". So, Thomas is currently shown with a 1823-1782 lifespan, but there seems to be no coding applied by the engineers to flag up a warning that this is an impossible situation.
My comments remain under Christening reason statement, but MaryJane has changed the date:
Answers
-
In a similar situation - I often find that I must give a detailed statement as to why I won't accept a hint that is obviously not for the same person while it is possible to add strange info, as you illustrate, with no explanation at all.
2 -
I just tested this in beta: the data flag appears to not be using the christening field in lieu of a birthdate. If I entered a birth in the wrong century, I immediately got a red flag, but if I entered the same incorrect date as a christening instead, there was no flag.
Further testing: the data flag routine also appears to ignore the burial field. I entered a burial a century before the death, and there was no flag. I entered a birth fifty years after the burial, and still no flag.
3 -
Here is the full list of data error flags: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/what-are-all-the-possible-data-problems-in-family-tree
Burial is not used in any of them. Christening in used but only in comparison to a parent's birth year.
There could probably be a few dozen more that people could request be developed and added, such as flags for possible errors in the data for siblings, such as items about possible twins, but do we want them? Where is the balance between helpful suggestions and being annoying?
Someone in need of a project could carefully go through the current 33 flags and come up with a list of ones that really should be added and post them under Suggest an Idea.
0 -
No, I don't want any more annoying flags than I see already! But how ridiculous it looks (though it took me a little while to find it) to see Thomas Greengrass' lifespan recorded as 1823-1782!
As Julia has discovered (and I had noted previously in other issues), the Christening and Burial inputs are ignored in some cases. In the past, that led to dates being omitted in sections like the (former) "Watching" list. However, christening / burial dates are now used as if they were birth / death events - in "Following" and elsewhere - and have always appeared that way in "Landscape".
A bit of consistency should be applied here - especially over burials / deaths, which (well, except until more recent times, perhaps) have always been very close in date.
1 -
As a variation on problems with ignoring baptisms.
I had a person who had a birth event, with place, but no date. And a baptism event with both date and place. Search/find could not find this person. When I deleted the incomplete birth event, search/find was able to find the person.
1 -
Search only uses christening information in lieu of birth information when the birth information is blank. To get around this, if I have a birth place and a christening date and I know from the record that this christening must have been a few days after the birth (For example, at one point in Norwegian history families were required by law to have all children christened within about a week of being born.), I will put in the child's birth year, birth place, the full christening date and, if known, the christening place. Then searching works just fine.
0
