Marriage role reversal through incorrect indexing
There seems to have been a large batch of records recently uploaded to the FS database for us to use which have a high level of errors. One particularly annoying example is the mis attribution of marriage roles ie they have been (are?) being reversed. Such errors can sometimes be difficult to resolve when attaching to the individuals e.g.
Name: Dorytie Squire
Sex: Male
Spouse's Name: Peter Harwoode
Spouse's Sex: Female
Marriage Date: 23 Dec 1586
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66GR-L6J4 : 11 August 2022
or
Name: Margaret Squire
Sex: Male
Spouse's Name: Raiphe Cherry
Spouse's Sex: Female
Marriage Date: 19 Jun 1616
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66GF-L5Y3 : 11 August 2022
There are a lot of these items, not all in the 11 August 2022 batch, and not just in Yorkshire transcriptions. I maybe wrong, but either an indexer does not understand the task (which I find hard to believe, it is not that difficult), the form is incorrectly set up (possible) or it is deliberate. Whichever cause, the review function seems to have failed to pick this up. Given that I have encountered a lot, and I mean a lot as I am trying to do my family for my extended cousins etc, it seems to me something odd. Sinilarly nomre locations seem to be mis categorised, particularly Yorkshire names being categorised as being in places like Barbados etc.
Any thoughts?
S
Best Answer
-
The Yorkshire-in-Barbados problem is part of the whole autostandardization mess that FamilySearch refuses to acknowledge the vast scope of.
The sudden appearance in the database of error-ridden indexes this summer is not confined to England. In the Hungarian genealogy community, the general consensus is that these must have been done primarily or even solely by computer, not people. In any case, there was never any sign of the relevant registers anywhere in FS's indexing section.
2