Editing many records because entire batch is wrong locations
I put in a question earlier this afternoon and just found yet ANOTHER instance where the entire set of images (all 249 pages) are only 1 location - Norwich, Norfolk, England - but there are many villages covered in the parish registers in this batch. See here:
At the top of each P. Reg. is the name of the parish - many different ones in this batch, including Shipdham, etc etc. for marriages/baptisms/burials. A careful review must be done and hundreds of changes need to be made to individual records to reflect the correct location of the ceremony unless there is a way to change the parish on a page-by-page basis? Proofreading must have inadvertently been bypassed.
Thank you for your kind attention to this serious indexing problem.
I doubt it was an indexing or proofreading problem. Sometimes these collections get "waypointed" to a certain location - like Norwich, Norfolk, England - via computer programming. This is why they have made the records so that users can edit them as needed.1
Maile L mod
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939F-RXS4-GY?view=explore&groupId=TH-1-14264-53471-90 If you view this image from Search> Images> DGS# there is a feedback button on the side. You can report a problem there.0
@Maile L Can you really report the problem? I have never used this feature because it seems like you can click an emoji and that is all. Does something pop up after you click the emoji if you want to put more detail into the feedback?0
@Melissa S Himes, yes, there's more after the emoji. They really should get rid of that step; it's juvenile at best, and misleading (as you've demonstrated).1
Maile L mod
Thanks, @Julia Szent-Györgyi. Yes @Melissa S Himes, there is more.1
Thanks @Julia Szent-Györgyi and @Maile L
Honestly, they should get rid of those emojis. I never clicked on them because I thought no true feedback could ever be provided. I didn't want to express my pleasure or displeasure without leaving an explanation!0
@Melissa S Himes You might want to express your dislike of those emojis when you enter you feedback. If we don't tell them, they won't know.1
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Unfortunately, I can't get access to the record(s) via your link. However, I reported a similar matter some years ago and believed it had been addressed.
As you probably know, the two main ecclesiastical jurisdictions in Norfolk are the Archdeaconry of Norfolk and the Archdeaconry of Norwich. When it comes to Bishop's / Archdeacon's Transcripts, the constituent parishes are usually found, alphabetically sorted on the microfilm, as per the relevant archdeaconry. I found it fair enough that parishes in the Norwich Archdeaconry were indexed as being for "Norwich", as so many of the tops of the pages had been cut off in filming and in others the parish name was illegible. My gripe was that parishes within the Norfolk Archdeaconry had been indexed under the "Norwich" heading, too.
Please clarify what your specific problem is, as if it applies to parishes within the Norwich A/D I don't see this as a major problem. However, if they are Norfolk AD parishes, this long-standing, reported issue has obviously still not been addressed.0