Error Report on Großgartach, Württemberg digitization-index sync
Image group number 101829450 image 70 of 1020, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSQ5-L8CR, clearly shows the year range 1592–93 in the top right corner. The entries on the two displayed pages range from 29 August 1592 to 2 March 1593. However, the first indexed entry below the image is for "Wilhelm" born 4 May 1592, who does not even match the May 1592 entries on the previous page. The year 1592 was indexed through several subsequent years. The index seems to sync correctly again at image 77 of 1020, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSQ5-L8ZT
And then there's image 56 of 1020, where the indexers turned the year 1587 into 1857. Granted, this microfilm was indexed at Ancestry. Quality control on both providers needs improvement. (I still love you!)
Answers
-
Thank you for reporting these problems. Indexing is a flawed process since it really depends on who is doing the indexing and the difficulty of the writing to be deciphered. Errors such as the image not being aligned with the index are not fixed. The options when you come across these is to attach to the Tree with a note of the correct image number or bypass the index and create your own source with the correct information.
Record details page does not link to the original image
Can I use an unindexed image as a source in Family Tree?
How do I create a new source in my source box?
I can see the indexing error of marking all the baptism dates as 1857 instead of 1587. The upside of this error is that those records are easily found in Search>Records using the wrong years and can be edited within the indexed record itself.
0 -
Sure, I can spend the rest of my life correcting the errors that that other site pays to create, and that FamilySearch imports. 1600s German handwriting is a challenge for experienced researchers. However, the year numbers are clearly and boldly written. They should not have been missed or mistyped. AI would have gotten those right. I detest spending my time compensating for other's errors.
0 -
mod note - comments edited due to violations of the Code of Conduct.
0
