Italia (Tribunale), Sassari—Stato Civile, 1806–1942 [Parte B] [M3P1-7B3]
How can I do a superscript? I can copy and paste from word, but the superscript is not saved in my indexing work. It is the mother's name in record 127.
Answers
-
The superscript appears to be part of an abbreviated name. There is no formal way to notate that in the project instructions (at least not to my knowledge). The instructions say just to type what you see - but if you 'know' the name being abbreviated and that it is missing more than one character - you could use * to notate more than one character. If one character were missing you could use ? to notate that.
Hope that helps.
0 -
We don't ever use superscript in indexing. Nor would we do not use an * to indicate missing letters in a name we believe is abbreviated. We just type what we see and the researcher will realize that Giuse = Giuseppe, etc.
For your record, the mother's name should be indexed Gioa Maria.
0 -
@Dellory Matthews '*' is used to indicate letters (plural) you cannot decipher. If you cannot decipher the abbreviation I see no problem in using '*'. Why would you believe Giuse is better abbreviation for Giuseppe rather than Gius*e or Gius* - which will be found by Search much easier than Giuse?
compare For example: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Giuse&q.surname=Luigi https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Gius%2Ae&q.surname=Luigi
Still following the rules ... Anyway thanks... I don't see your MOD status anymore...
By the way - yes if there were a formalized rule/notation for superscript - that would be a nice alternative as well... the rules as current do not help the record be found ... unless FamilySearch edits/links abbreviations post-indexing process (yes I have seen how some abbreviations are returned)?
Also, if we are typing what we see - and we see superscript - then yes - you would think there would be a formal rule to handle superscript. The rule for * handles this situation well - so this interpretation is what I prefer because it still follow the rules and allows Search to find the record easier.
0 -
We do not add an * for supposed missing letters. The rule for using an asterisk states that we use it for unreadable letters. Below is official information from the FamilySearch database of Knowledge Articles. You will also find this in the Project Instructions.
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-index-unreadable-information
"Multiple characters. For consecutive unreadable letters or numbers, use an asterisk (*) to replace the unreadable group of letters or numbers. Example: Di*son.
We are making an index to get researchers to these records. They will have full, free online access to our index and the images as well. The researchers are the ones who get to draw conclusions - which includes expanding abbreviations.
0 -
We are making an index to get researchers to these records. They will have full, free online access to our index and the images as well. The researchers are the ones who get to draw conclusions - which includes expanding abbreviations.
@Dellory Matthews I try to produce the best index I can - that accurately digitizes the record so as to make the record findable by a researcher. That is the overarching rule of crowd-sourced indexing - above all others - "do my best" - so it bothers me when I am told 'your best is not wanted - just follow the rules.'
Again, as this thread started - superscript is visible in some records - superscript can indicate an abbreviation ... Yes abbreviated letters are certainly unreadable. If an abbreviation can be determined by an indexer - I see no difference in using * for whether they were visible but unreadable. If the indexer turns out to incorrectly place the abbreviation then how would that be any different from the numerous indexed errors?
...letter or spirit of the rule? I guess the indexer gets to decide? Then a reviewer can change it to their interpretation - but if using * helps the index and the researcher - I'd call that a win-win. If a reviewer wants to lessen the index so that it makes the record less findable (see example above) - then sure - follow the rules for rules sake - and make the record less findable. Seems kind of counter the purpose of an index - but if that is what is wanted ...
I just try to 'do my best'...
0 -
I work on various crowd-sourcing sites, and, as a reviewer, often have to delete information that well-intentioned transcribers add. We are to do our best, but, we are also instructed not to add anything to the transcription that is not written on the document. There are rules on every site which might not be to our liking, but, they should be followed.
It is rare that crowd-sourcing sites use a formatting code to indicate a superscript, or identify that a letter is superscripted. Most have gotten away from jumbling up transcriptions with codes like [superscript] [/superscript]; [start page] [end page]; [underline] [/underline], etc. Just as with FamilySearch, we type what we see and don't type what we don't see. You would not add an asterisk just to indicate missing letters in abbreviations. Thus, Wm is not indexed as W*m since that is not the way it was written. The project instructions are clear: Type the given names as they were written. Do not correct misspellings or expand abbreviations.
I don't think an indexed wildcard is going to be of great help to the researcher in the case of abbreviations. Of course, wildcards can be helpful in searches, but, sometimes are also detrimental and lead to fewer results. Researchers quickly learn that finding names like Charles or Chas, Thomas or Thos, John or Jno, etc., or individuals who only used their initials (like my dear grandfather, W R), requires searching all options to find pertinent records. (Like the example, try using Gui*e and you'll find another 80 records or so where the name was spelled Guiseppe).
2 -
The project instructions are clear: Type the given names as they were written. Do not correct misspellings or expand abbreviations.
Great to see you are still here. Not great - we've gone round this issue before.
No the instructions for superscript abbreviations are not clear. You have your interpretation - I have mine. As you indicate they clearly state: "Do not correct misspellings or expand abbreviations." * is clearly not an expansion on an abbreviation - it is an indication of one though. An expansion would be to insert actual letters that do not exist. An abbreviation is a shortening of letters that do exist (especially in the mind of the scribe) but which were chosen to not be written/visible. * ONLY replaces these invisible letters - they exist but I don't know them nor can I read them - * suits that case perfectly. Therefore * does not expand an abbreviation nor is it a misspelling/correction.
We are to do our best, but, we are also instructed not to add anything to the transcription that is not written on the document. There are rules on every site which might not be to our liking, but, they should be followed.
No I did not forget the other part: "Type the given names as they were written." I did - with an indication of superscript/abbreviation (which is not an expansion - it neither adds nor subtracts from the transcript but indicates the superscript/abbreviation - which is a closer rendering of the record anyway).
I don't think an indexed wildcard is going to be of great help to the researcher in the case of abbreviations. ... sometimes are also detrimental and lead to fewer results.
I disagree - using the above mentioned logic - * expands nothing. Interesting your example - based upon the above example - added results - and did not detrimentally lead to fewer. One would think s==s, I guess not... i guess that's for the engineers to resolve...
Therefore I will continue indexing a superscript abbreviation with * - in accordance with the current rules.
0 -
@genthusiast, the problem with your logic is that we do not know if there are missing letters. Therefore, we type what we see because we cannot make the assumption that there are missing letters. With the logic you are using, that using wildcards does not expand abbreviations, would we index Mgt as M*g?t or Jno as J*n*o? or W R Smith as W* R* Smith? That is simply incorrect for work in indexing and transcribing.
When you use the * or ? in a search, it does lead to fewer results. Try it with Wm Smith and then W*m Smith (7,197,696 results vs 2,526,602 results, respectively). Even worse, try a search with W?m Smith. This is why I suggest that using wildcards in a search can be both useful and detrimental and people need to be aware that using a variety of terms is often the best option! You will find very records in FamilySearch where someone has indexed W*m (if any), because it simply isn't standard practice.
People need to follow the field helps, project instructions and the basic indexing guidelines. Wildcards are for unreadable characters, not for missing characters, and names are always typed as they are written.
0 -
Attempt to ridicule if you must ... I just agree to disagree with you yet again - you are incorrect. Incorrect ... Not standard ... It's my best and that's what I'll keep doing.
Perhaps, If you cannot identify where an abbreviation exists then perhaps you are right - and should not use a wildcard. The other issues you mention are for the engineers to straighten out (Wm as you know has been post-index processed by the engineers so is a particularly bad example, incorrectly sorting wildcards, etc.)
Abbreviated characters are unreadable - they aren't visible - so IF determinable (see above) in a superscript abbreviation - they can be indicated without detriment - by *.
Thankfully FamilySearch allows me to do my best and is a safe place for me to do so.
0 -
For those who don't "know" me, I am very experienced in Italian indexing and have taught it to individuals and groups, in webinars and also in person at local Family History Centers.
I didn't expect lot of discussion to ensue when I answered a very good question using a Knowledge Article with a clear example of using * to represent unreadable letters.
Perhaps this will help clarify things:
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-index-given-names
"Type names as they appear on the document. Do not correct misspellings or expand abbreviations unless the project instructions direct otherwise."
It is for the researcher, not the indexer, to draw conclusions from what is on the original document. We are asked to type what we see.
3 -
Nor did i. And I am - and am not - as mentioned above.
No. A repetition does not clarify. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
"For your record, the mother's name should be indexed Gioa Maria."
Italians apparently used superscript abbreviations as well. Perhaps with your expertise you can demonstrate how:
Gio*a Maria
would harm the index of this thread's referenced record?
0 -
So apparently, the brief answer to my simple question is "At this time, it is not possible to do a superscript."
Is that correct?
3 -
Since we cannot type a superscript, we type a normal letter instead. For your record, the mother's name should be indexed Gioa Maria.
1
