Error Report - Auto Standardization - Incorrect Original Place Further corrupted
Example: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:68QS-K5DK
I told myself that I wasn't going to report more for a while but I finished up the family of the father of the family I am currently working on and moved on to the mother's family who were in a different parish.
Here the Source Description states this record is for Skåre parish, Torvastad, Rogaland, Norway. This was entered as Baptism Place (Original) Torvastad, Haugesund, Rogaland, Norway which does not make sense because Torvastad and Haugesund are neighboring Clerical districts and there is nothing for Haugesund in this parish register. Then the auto-standardization routine worsened matters by shortening this to just Haugesund.
I have been using these records for so long that I can cope with this just fine by knowing the place names as shown in the source linker are probably wrong and always checking the Source Description. It's just discouraging that this massive database Norway Church Records which has such great potential is so crippled. I am really amazed, however, at how well the Hint engine copes with these flaws and still brings up highly accurate hints. Unfortunately, I am seeing that most people just add the wrong place name as it is presented in the hint and am just crossing my fingers that these same people don't start "correcting" accurate place names to match the index instead of the actual record.
So I am not going to add more errors at this point unless they are truly different from all the other examples and just leave an impossible to fulfill request for the team working on these errors:
Please go through the entire Norway Church Books, 1815-1930, database one Source Call Number at a time, check the original place name against the Source Description and correct the original place name as needed to be what the Source Description actually says, then make sure the auto-standardized version really is the same place then apply the correction to all the records with that call number.
Best Answer
-
@Gordon Collett, thanks for reporting this. The problem has been passed on to the engineers for further review. Of course, as you know, we don't know how soon the engineers will be able to get to the this as they are working off the queue as they are able.
0
