Home› Welcome to the FamilySearch Community!› FamilySearch Help› Search

How to flag up transcripts believed to be incorrect?

robertjking
robertjking ✭
July 28 edited August 1 in Search

There have recently been added several transcripts apparently for WILTSHIRE, England, which should actually be for events in GLOUCESTERSHIRE: "England, Wiltshire, Church Records, 1518-1990", Database. FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org : 18 July 2022.

They match exactly in names and dates records previously added (and known to be correct) for GLOUCESTERSHIRE: e.g."England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JQ3Q-MHJ : 25 February 2022), Mark Curnock, 1810.

However, they give a spurious location which, for some reason (autofill?) almost always starts with the same initial as the original (correct) location, so Alveston, Gloucestershire, becomes Amesbury, Wiltshire. etc.

Please can these latest transcripts be checked? Thank you.

0

Best Answer

  • Áine Ní Donnghaile
    Áine Ní Donnghaile ✭✭✭✭✭
    July 28 Answer ✓

    @robertjking

    This sounds like another instance of the placename standardization algorithm problem.

    Please see: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/125985/auto-standardization/p1

    and Gordon Collett's comments here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/463442#Comment_463442

    2

Answers

  • robertjking
    robertjking ✭
    July 28 edited July 28

    @Áine Ní Donnghaile

    Thank you! Family Search has been brilliant in helping me to create a family tree. However, one of the down sides of the internet is the speed at which misinformation can be spread. Locations are as vitally inportant as dates in working out who the ancestors were so I hope these issues can be fixed before every other site that feeds off FS records starts spreading incorrect information in a self supporting loop.

    1
  • Áine Ní Donnghaile
    Áine Ní Donnghaile ✭✭✭✭✭
    July 28

    Be sure to report the problems you find in the "Search" category, so that a Mod can escalate the problem for a fix.

    1
  • robertjking
    robertjking ✭
    July 30 edited July 30

    There have recently been added several transcripts apparently for WILTSHIRE, England, which should actually be for events in GLOUCESTERSHIRE: "England, Wiltshire, Church Records, 1518-1990", Database. FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org : 18 July 2022.

    They match exactly, in names and dates, records previously added (and known to be correct) for GLOUCESTERSHIRE: e.g."England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JQ3Q-MHJ : 25 February 2022), Mark Curnock, 1810.

    However, they give a spurious location which, for some reason (autofill?) almost always starts with the same initial as the original (correct) location, so Alveston, Gloucestershire, becomes Amesbury, Wiltshire. etc.

    Please can these latest transcripts be checked? Thank you.

    0
  • Áine Ní Donnghaile
    Áine Ní Donnghaile ✭✭✭✭✭
    July 30

    @N Tychonievich or @Mike357 Please and thanks.

    See: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/128638/how-to-flag-up-transcripts-believed-to-be-incorrect

    0
  • Mike357
    Mike357 mod
    August 1

    @robertjking, thank you for making us aware of this problem. It does appear to be a problem of auto-standardization. However, let me review this a little more. As you've alluded, there do appear to be a couple of collections involved.

    I will get an answer back to you soon. I will also ensure that this gets into the queue for engineers to review and resolve.

    Thank you for your patience.

    1
  • robertjking
    robertjking ✭
    August 2


    https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/463961#Comment_463961

    Thank You.

    I have noticed that the place names affected seem to be at the beginning of the alphabet if that gives any more clues as to how this has occurred?

    0
  • Mike357
    Mike357 mod
    August 3

    @robertjking, having looked at this a little more closely, this looks more like a case of indexing/transcription error for some records in the collection: England, Wiltshire, Church Records, 1518-1990, and not a case of standardization error. Thus, it is not something we cannot send forward to be corrected.

    Had it been an event place standardization error, we would have expected the original location to have different than the final location; however, in this case both the original and final locations were the same: Amesbury, Wiltshire, England. It is my understanding that the standardization process begins with the originally generated location, found in the index after indexing, and then applies its algorithm to come up with the "correct" final location. So, if it starts with bad data, the algorithm has no way of knowing that it is bad.

    It is interesting that the same record was indexed twice. Examining the two record details pages, we find that the same Digital Folder Number (or DGS) is used by both collections. If we search the Catalog for "Film/Fiche/Image Group Number (DGS)" using the DGS: 7566081; we find records from Gloucestershire and from Wiltshire. This suggests that the indexes for England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 and England, Wiltshire, Church Records, 1518-1990 both used (or combed through) the same microfilm. It appears that the the indexing for the collection, England, Wiltshire, Church Records, 1518-1990, strayed into items of the film/DGS that where outside of Wiltshire county and indexed some records in Gloucestershire county. This is likely the cause of the indexing/transcription error that you found in the England, Wiltshire, Church Records, 1518-1990.

    I hope that this help.

    0
Clear
No Groups Found

Categories

  • 24.8K All Categories
  • 592 1950 US Census
  • 47.6K FamilySearch Help
  • 100 Get Involved
  • 2.4K General Questions
  • 366 Family History Centers
  • 365 FamilySearch Account
  • 3.5K Family Tree
  • 2.7K Search
  • 3.8K Indexing
  • 474 Memories
  • 4.9K Temple
  • 270 Other Languages
  • 30 Community News
  • 5.6K Suggest an Idea
  • Groups