ERROR REPORT - Robo-index collection -
New Jersey, Essex County, Superintendent of Soldiers' Burials
As you can see from the title of this record set, it ONLY pertains to burials in Essex County, New Jersey. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/3235409
A sample record, for my great uncle Frank -
Images from this record set are restricted to view at FHCs or Affiliate Libraries. I spent the afternoon at my local Affiliate.
After I retrieved the image for Uncle Frank's burial, I took a look for any other relatives who might be listed. I didn't find any relatives yet, because I fell off my chair in amazement at all the burials that are listed for places other than New Jersey. It seems the robot forgot that this record set pertains ONLY to Essex County, New Jersey. A sample of what I saw when I checked for any of my Barrett cousins:
Sadly, it's not just the on-the-fly results we've seen in other record sets. Glendale Cemetery, in Bloomfield, Essex, New Jersey, has been robo-indexed as an Oklahoma location.
@N Tychonievich or @Mike357 - could someone PLEASE escalate this issue to the engineers?
Yep. That collection has about 10,000 records (nearly 1/3 of the entire collection) incorrectly indexed not in New Jersey, including:
- 2840 in Oklahoma
- 1448 in Washington DC
- 1093 in California
- 258 in England
- 180 in Canada
How I got these numbers: From the collection page in the catalog, I did a random search, then I removed all the search terms and searched again on nothing. This gave the total number of records in the collection. Then I applied the Death filter:
I notice the totals are not entirely consistent: 35,009 and 35,062. I have no explanation for that.2
@Áine Ní Donnghaile , thanks for highlighting this place standardization problem. I will move this into the queue for the engineers to resolve. I am sorry that, as it appears, so many of our collections are affected by inaccurate auto-standardization of place names.0
Áine Ní Donnghaile ✭✭✭✭✭
Thanks, @Mike357. That bot needs to go away.
@dontiknowyou I'm seeing very different totals. The record set is 2 films/DGS.
If I narrow my search to 8621759, the search indicates there are 4,445 records. For 8261760, there are 4,167.
If I access from the catalog, 8621760 reports 1,490 images while 861759 reports 1,541 images.0