Two Separate Obituaries Indexed as One
When an obituary is computer indexed and it contains identified errors, once those errors are reported, does anyone know if the corrections are made to the source?
I found an obituary that combines two men's obits with similar names to read as one large obituary. I would just attach the people in the one great article to the appropriate PIDS, but cannot attach the same record to two PIDs. It has created a messy entanglement of families and names that is not historically accurate. I've untangled some of what I am able but more remains to be done. I really can't effectively do much to correct the entanglement until the obituary is corrected to be two separate record sources.
Here is the link to the obituary: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVYV-ZX2R and a report has been made.
Comments
-
once a newspaper is printed - that IS the source (doesnt mean its not without error)
but unless the error is caught in a few days - NO - the source would not be changed.
the source is whatever the original document was. (whether it was correct or not)
any source can have an error (Census records, Bible records, newspaper articles, diaries, letters more)
but I guess it depends what you really meant by "source"
virtually any original document can have errors - simply attach a copy of it to FS Memories - and add clarifying notes on the item to point out any errors, flaws, or issues in the original. No one is going to go back and reprint the newspaper . . . reprint the obituary . . . retake the census etc. . . .
but if the original newspaper was correct - but simply the person transcribing or indexing it messed up - than thats another story - though it still may not be fixable in FS if it was indexed by FS,
0 -
You can actually attach the Frankenstein's monster to both men, but you have to use your Source Box -- this is one thing that Source Linker will not do. (And you'll make Source Linker perpetually unhappy about this record, but there's nothing you can do about that.)
First, choose one of the men and use Source Linker to attach the obituary to his profile the normal way. Then, go to his Sources tab, click the title of the newly-attached source, and choose View. On the resulting page, click "Copy To Source Box". Next, go to the Sources tab of the other man, click Add Source, and choose Attach From Source Box. Find the copied source (it should be right at the top) and click the Attach button next to it. Add an explanation and click Attach.
If you look at the two-men-in-a-blender record now, it'll show two profiles under "Attached in Family Tree to".
As I mentioned, if you use "Review Attachments" or one of those paperclipped-page icons to see what Source Linker makes of it all, you'll see black hazard triangles all over the place, but you can just ignore them.
4 -
Thank you, Julia! I may have to do that, but I was hoping that reporting the error using the system in place would enable FS to go in and make the necessary changes to the computer indexing. I loved indexing obituaries because they never ran out of projects, it was an easy beginner project, and I knew the rules for that particular project. It's like salt in the wound when the computer royally messes them up, like this one.
My real question is "What happens when errors in computer indexed obituaries are reported?" and does FS support make the effort to correct the mistakes? Or am I just jumping through the hoop to bang my head on the wall? I am hoping someone from FS can answer this question.
0 -
Dennis, the computer indexing combined the two obituaries as one.
0 -
thanks for letting me know.
so not the true original source (newspaper) - but the poor indexers. . .
1 -
Computer indexed it. I loved indexing obituaries so it's salt in the wound when the computer royally messes them up. But I'm hoping that someone from FS can explain what happens when errors are reported through the system in place for computer indexed records. Do they go in and make corrections or am I simply jumping through the hoop to bang my head? This error has created some issues in the tree with the combined people involved.
0 -
The computer-indexed obituaries and the accompanying error reporting have been around for a few years now. Someone with a better memory for what errors he/she has reported could go through and see if any of them have been changed. I tried, but I don't have many of them attached, due to lack of close relatives in the U.S. and lack of a subscription allowing me to see the originals.
(I never bothered with corrections to the Famous Relative's myriad obituaries, and while his stepson's obituary is from GenealogyBank, I'm not sure it was computer-indexed. It doesn't offer the "error?" thingy, at any rate.)
1 -
I have sent many error corrections but never went back to see what happened with them. They were not as bad as this one that has created a messy merge of PIDs and their details and relationships. This is the first time I've had an error like this that indexed two obituaries as one.
1 -
My father's 2006 obituary is a right-awful mess. I submitted corrections several years ago, but it's still a mess. My father is shown with multiple wives, none of them my mother. His mother and my sister-in-law are shown as additional wives.
1 -
So it appears that the answer to Christina's underlying question of "will this get fixed?" is "no, not anytime soon". I'm not sure what the purpose of the error-reporting mechanism is, in fact, beyond giving people a temporary outlet for their frustration and/or a (false) sense of agency.
So, for the mangled obituaries, we're left with Source Box-based attachments, either bypassing the index entirely (citing the newspaper directly), or using the index but with copious notes added. I suppose the latter would be the more entertaining option. :-)
2 -
I guess that answers my question about corrections, but doesn't make me happy. Thanks for the reply and information. I guess I'll be writing lots of notes on these two PIDs once their information is untangled.
0 -
I do a lot of decendancy trees, so I see these conflated obituaries a lot.
If the button appears on the record that lets you report it has a problem, you can use it. There is a chance the obituary page will be indexed again, fresh, but that won't fix the existing record; it will just make more records that partly duplicate the conflated record.
What I do is attach the people who definitely belong, then from their profiles dismiss the message about unfinished attachments.
0 -
I planned to attach the record to the names included, but unfortunately the two men whose obituaries were combined are only indexed as one entity and listed only once.
0 -
@Christina Sachs Wagner, there are ways around a faulty index, including one that's as bad as this one; do you need instructions on how to attach the source to both men?
I explained one way somewhere upthread -- copy the citation from one man's sources tab into your source box, then attach the copy to the other man -- but there's another way (still using your source box): go to the (mangled) record, click the Save button in the black strip, and choose Save to Source Box. If you do that first, you can then just use your source box to attach the source to both men, thereby bypassing fighting with Source Linker about it.
2 -
@Christina Sachs Wagner The obituary you referenced came from GenealogyBank, so FamilySearch has no role to play in making needed corrections. You indicated that you used the link on the page to report the errors. You could also contact GenealogyBank directly to ask how they handle the reports of errors. There is a Contact Us link at the bottom of the home page:
1
