For FS engineers: Source faux attachment

dontiknowyou

I catch this bug fairly often. In the index record page attachments are displayed that as far as I can determine do not exist. Here is a fresh example.

I find no other evidence that this woman's record is attached to this unrelated man. This type of error should be of great concern to FamilySearch engineers. Community staffers please escalate this report to the engineers. Thank you.

MinnWisRoots

@dontiknowyou

NOTE: There are two attached 1930 Census Records. The one you show above in Illinois (town should be "Clinton" by the way). The other is from Kentucky which is her parents' residence.

Try Detaching the link to the Illinois record that lists her as the Granddaughter of Laura B Kobel (even though she is), and that might make Jennings Bryan Curtis disappear.

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@dontiknowyou

I have seen this anomaly a few times, too. This morning, while trying to replicate @Paul W's results in another thread, I saw it again, and took the time to document.

Paul had found the 1891 census he sought, and attached it to Mary Berkeley Wrightson GFSB-V9H. When I viewed the record, I saw this:

And when I clicked through the ? person shown for the 1881 census attachment, MB61-CDK, I was delivered to the profile for an entirely different person, Hans Konrad Scheuss, KHJQ-9C6.

This is, indeed, strange behavior and should be very worrying to the Engineers/Developers and to us, the users.

I'm not sure which is worse - the weird link or the difficulty in searching Yorkshire censuses!

Melissa S Himes

This thread probably should be moved to the Search, Family Tree, or Suggest An Idea Community Pages. It is interesting, but, not an indexing question or problem.

dontiknowyou

@MinnWisRoots thank you for your suggestions. However, I saw and reported the bug instance before attaching the record to the grandmother. The bug instance was present both before and after working with the record. Also, Clintonia is Clintonia Township not Clinton.

@Áine Ní Donnghaile exactly!

@Melissa S Himes a mod moved this discussion out of the Family Tree category. I'm not sure where it should go.

Regardless of where this bug report is put here on Community, I think we can agree it still needs to be escalated to engineers.

dontiknowyou

Here is another sample of this bug

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MD26-CSG

Julia Szent-Györgyi

This is one of those incredibly-difficult-to-track-down intermittent bugs: everything looked correct when I followed your link just now.

dontiknowyou

@Julia Szent-Györgyi wrote:

everything looked correct when I followed your link just now.

It looks correct to me too, now. Perhaps the engineers got to it in the 4.5 hours between my report and Julia's followup.

Also, I see this discussion got moved again. It is now in the Search category.

dontiknowyou

Another instance of this bug: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:7C1S-5RMM

At this time, despite what is displayed here, M5VP-V1H Nis Jorgensen has no attached historical records.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

This time, I'm seeing the same error.

Unfortunately, there are no timestamps on older messages, and I don't remember how long after your post I got to it last time. This time, it's 11:45 versus 1:30 (ish).

dontiknowyou

Now, about 3.5 hours after my screenshot of the Rebecca Holt error, I no longer see the error. No more Nis Jorgensen.

dontiknowyou

Here is another instance. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6FZP-KKY9

dontiknowyou

50 minutes later, without my doing anything, the spurious John Watson link is gone.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

Whereas for me, five minutes after that, it's still there.

dontiknowyou

Whereas for me, five minutes after that, it's still there.

Bizarro!

These are so perplexing. The first handful I saw drove me nuts, before I realized they were glitches.

Mike357

@dontiknowyou, I have replicated the issue that you describe and see the Similar Record that is supposedly attached to Jennings Bryan Curtis. I do find an Edna Louise Funk in the Kentucky, County Marriages, 1797-1954 collection; however, Jennings Bryan Curtis is not found in that collection. I've looked at the record for Jennings Bryan Curtis (MPBH-BG7), but do not see Edna Funk anywhere; including in the Changes.

Please try searching for Edna L Curtis once again, and open the record details page and verify that you can find a Similar Record for Jennings Bryan Curtis. Having found it, please delete it. Then reopen a record details page for Edna L Funk, and then see if you still see the Similar Record for Jennings Bryan Curtis.

I have tried this and find that, upon reopening the record details page for Edna Funk, I no longer see the Similar Record for Jennings Bryan Curtis. I did this in two browsers and get the same result. Very Strange.

So, I'm hoping that you can confirm what I'm finding. Thanks.

dontiknowyou

The Edna Funk 1930 census index record is https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XSTB-GF1 and at this time I do not see the spurious link to Jennings Bryan Curtis.

I tried loading the record in two different web clients.

dontiknowyou

Another instance. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KWF5-QLH

Julia Szent-Györgyi

An hour later, and that one's gone. Or not showing up for me, to be more precise.

So far, I'm not seeing a pattern.

dontiknowyou

I don't see it now either but it did persist for at least 15 minutes.