Why can't instructions be made clearer to CommunityCensus Project participants?
In the examples I have encountered relating to the 1911 census I have found - apart from the duplication problem - all married women seem to have been added in their married names.
Surely this issue can be escalated to a senior FamilySearch employee, so that action can be taken to ensure these projects have firm project instructions and stricter checking and supervising arrangements?
I have now merged her with GVC1-33F. In fairness, I only created this profile today, so duplication is not the problem in this example. However, it took me just five minutes to find details of her marriage to Robert, and hence to discover Margaret Ann's maiden name.
Oh, and also to find Robert Wrightson had been wrongly indexed as Robert Wrighton - although that error is a Find My Past issue!
Answers
-
Many families have been added to FamilySearch from the 1911 census via the Community Census Project. As they have been added from the census, the married female surname is still showing.
Volunteers from the UK ROC (Remote Operation Centre) for FamilySearch are systematically working their way through the families and, where possible, adding maiden names, marriage dates and places, fuller names instead of initials and sources. These are checked by an experienced FamilySearch Volunteer.
Often, whilst adding the above information, a duplicate will emerge on FamilySearch which is then merged to avoid multiple entries in the system.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), sometimes you may get to the family before we do and we are grateful that, in effect, you will do the research on the family for us. If you would like to get involved in this wonderful project, please contact me at [email protected]
Chris Wright
UK ROC Leader
1 -
Thank you for your response, Chris. My criticism of the work being carried out by the Community Census Project remains unchanged, however.
Two of the main guidelines to Family Tree participants are:
(1) To avoid creating duplicates
(2) Not to add a woman in her married name.
I wonder why those running this (and similar) projects are not seeing that volunteers abide by these guidelines, a failure which (as you explain) is necessitating another group of volunteers ( from the UK ROC) to have to go back to these records to do further work - in amending surnames to maiden names, add additional data and eliminate duplicates.
I would refer you to the discussion on the US1910Project at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/88094/us1910project/p1, where many users have expressed their exasperation at a similar project. The huge amounts of duplicates created by that project has caused lots of work for everyday Family Tree users. It is apparent here that project volunteers have not been carrying out additional work, but leaving it to those who would much rather be spending their time on genuinely productive work relating to their family branches.
Perhaps (as others have failed to do, in spite of many requests) you could advise us of the actual benefits being created by these volunteer census projects. All many of us are experiencing is the negative aspect - of spending hours of our valuable time in amending the data and merging duplicates.
Meanwhile, sorry, but no I won't be getting involved in volunteer census projects that many in this Community feel should be completely halted until: Family Tree guidelines are abided by, appropriate project instructions are issued to volunteers, and much improved supervision is implemented.
1 -
Thanks for your feedback Paul. I am aware of the 1910 US issues but I believe that the UK version has sufficient fail safes as the algorithm that put the families onto FS from the census do not have duplicates initially (I'm sure a few slip through). In theory, only the UK ROC knows about them unless researchers happen upon them.
We are working through the families as fast as we can which involves fleshing out the entries including the very important finding of the maiden name. Every family is reviewed and all definite duplicates that subsequently emerge are merged.
We have written very specific instructions and guidelines to our volunteers and would hope and expect them to be followed.
I hope that gives you some reassurance.
0 -
Reference the reply above which states:
“I am aware of the 1910 US issues but I believe that the UK version has
sufficient fail safes as the algorithm that put the families onto FS from the
census do not have duplicates initially (I'm sure a few slip through).”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m sure my experience with this project is duplicated with many other FS users,
concluding that the UK 1911 census project is in dire need of fail safes!
Several very complicated family situations have been exacerbated and confused by this
project.
I messaged one volunteer worker before realising a particular convoluted mess had
been part of this project. Here is the reply I received.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I worked on this family as part of a FamilySearch project which connects families which
have been entered into FamilySearch as part of the UK/Wales 1911 census. We do
our best to make sure things are correct as far as the direct family we are
working on is concerned but are asked not to go beyond
the original family we are working on.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The result of this is in my case was women listed with their married names [sometimes
when they were just living with a man], children from three marriages listed as
one family, and worst of all, temple work ‘ready’ for all of them – including
marriage and child sealings.
I see that after censuses are inputted, checks are made but in one reply it states
“Unfortunately (or fortunately), sometimes you may get to the family before we do and we are grateful that, in effect, you will do the research on the family for us.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see why two sets of researchers are needed – one to input and another to check, but the gap between the two is creating massive and immediate problems plus a great amount of work.
Above all is the worry about the integrity of temple work – and that it’s possible temple ordinances might be completed incorrectly and needlessly.
1