FamilySearch should give priority to adding NEW material to its Indexed Records Collections
Okay, I haven't analysed the reason yet, but I am being presented here with ten hints for the same event. When I have examined similar examples in the past, this appears to have been the result of indexing the exact same records multiple times - either due to there having been multiple filming of the same register, or just multiple indexing projects involving the same material.
I'm sure there must be a huge amount of fresh material that FamilySearch has permission to add to its website, so please develop a better method of record keeping to ensure prioritisation of completely new material over duplication of existing records.
I accept the argument that some projects might lead to indexing of additional facts from the record, but my experience is that I am having to add multiple sources containing identical details.
Apart from cluttering up my Sources sections, in some cases a waste of indexers time in dealing with multiple projects involving the same material / end product.
Comments
-
@Paul W Have you been working on that area of your tree recently? That is, adding records to or editing the Young family in Somerset? I know on Ancestry that working on my Molloys from Westmeath, for example, will generate new hints for that part of my tree. It doesn't necessarily mean that newly-indexed or added records are available, only that a branch of the tree has been "massaged" - creating new hints from records that were already on the site.
0 -
Not specifically. I had separated several individuals named James Young, who had been merged regardless of their identity / residence and I picked up on this example as I had kept the separated IDs on my Following list.
As I admitted (above) I did not analyse the hints to ensure they did actually relate to the same records being indexed more than once, but know this happened from looking at other examples connected to the North-east region of England.
Unfortunately, FamilySearch is rather careless in categorising its indexing projects, so wouldn't have picked- up on already indexed registers of Durham parishes, as they have been recently re-indexed under the heading of "Northumberland Non-conformist". It was not even noticed that these records had been indexed under the wrong county and wrong religious denomination, though when I reported this I was told there was no intention of re-categorising such material under an accurate heading.
My basic point is that FamilySearch should take more care in logging the contents of its collections (precisely and correctly), so that potential repeat indexing can be avoided and priority given to genuinely new material.
Thanks for your general advice, regardless.
1 -
No worries, Paul. I got your drift, but I thought I would add what I know happens in Ancestry, as part of their overall design. I don't know if FamilySearch uses the same concept.
0
