Dutch South Africa, if the Afrikaans city name (Mosselbaai) was indexed as Mossel Bay,
as a reviewer, do I leave it changed to Mossel Bay or change it to read as it was written? Also, the indexer expanded Mossel Bay to include province and/or state and country information that was not on the record, do I leave it expanded or should the indexing be corrected to only show what was written on the record?
Check the field help by clicking on the purple question mark. Usually for location we see the field help telling us to correct misspellings and expand abbreviations. So, you would correct the location to Mosselbaai. The indexer should not add information that is not on the image. Although this is a problem with South Africa records since some indexers/reviewers seem to be advising folks to add the locality information you mentioned. Obviously, FamilySearch didn't add any locations that aren't on the example images, so, indexers and reviewers should not be doing that either. We should all follow the project instructions, field helps, and examples.0
I agree with you Melissa, just be aware that Mosselbaai is on the record, but not the country South Africa, yet you must use the two words as place names. because the batch states South Africa.
I always have to type in South Africa after the name of the town, otherwise it would come back for reviewing again.0
You should NOT type in South Africa if it is not on the image window. We don't index anything that is not on the image. Just as the examples show, South Africa is NOT indexed unless it is on the actual document. Most reviewers are going to delete information not shown on the image. However, if adding or deleting South Africa is the only change a reviewer makes to a batch, it won't be a high enough percentage of errors to constitute another review. We must follow Indexing Guidelines and not add any information that is not on the document UNLESS the projects instructions, field helps, or examples say something different. These do not.0
When I joined a group called South Africa Indexing, I was allocated to a lady who had teach me the ins and outs of how to do indexing. She had taught me to type in the country of the town mentioned.
The reason was that there were many towns with the same name all over the world and on one would like to see their family was born/baptized or a church member in another country whereas they were from South Africa.
The Batch name, as you know, has the name South Africa in, but the indexer see only the name of the town on the record. Some inscriptions do have the town and country in though, so the indexer will index it accordingly and that batch will not get send around to other reviewers all the time.
Hope you understand0
Sorry for a few mistakes, but I am sure you will understand what I meant.0
I do understand, @Hester Korff Wolmarans, but what they are doing goes against the general indexing guidelines as well as the instructions for this project. They should not be teaching people to index information that is not on the documents.
South Africa is no different in any other country in the world. Most countries have towns with the same names. For instance, in the United States we have 91 towns and cities named Washington in various states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, we have the whole state of Washington. There are also 12 different countries that have places called Washington. But, if the record doesn't have anything but Washington on it, we don't index any other information. We don't add the county or state. We don't add United States to every record even if the batch name has United States in the title.
Every batch gets reviewed at least once. If the batch has more than 20% of disagreement on the first review, then it goes on to a second review. If that reviewer makes 20% or more changes, it goes to a third reviewer. If they make 20% or more changes, it goes to FamilySearch for a final review. So batches are not getting sent around to other reviewers all the time based on the country being entered or deleted.0
Melissa S Himes, I understand what you mean and I must say I don't think there is a Washington anywhere else other than in USA (I may be wrong). There are a lot of names of towns with the same name around the world though.
I have a family member that "lived in Europe". He was born and bred in Howick, South Africa and had never been to another country, and it is just because the indexer did not put South Africa next to the name of the town. That can be disappointing for some people who wants to do a family tree and want to make copies and printouts of photos or pages of the places where their family lived.
As to the handling of batches, if some get send through to four different validators in the end, it tells me that each and every point was not done correctly and had been overseen every time. Hasn't it been happening in this problem that we have? Maybe or maybe not.
It is doubtful that with 11-20 fields on these South Africa entry forms, that batches are getting reviewed more than once. Nevertheless, this is why it is so important that indexers and reviewers follow the project instructions, examples, and field helps for each project:
Let's say there are only 5 fields to index, thus, 1 change equals a 20% disagreement. The instructions do not say to index the country. The indexer, following the instructions, does not index South Africa. The 1st reviewer, who has simply been told by a trusted friend to do so, adds South Africa. That sends this batch on for a second review. If that 2nd reviewer correctly deletes South Africa, the batch goes to a 3rd review. If the 3rd reviewer agrees that it is correct not to index South Africa, there is 100% agreement and the batch is sent on to the next phase. But, if that third reviewer again incorrectly enters South Africa - then it goes on to a FamilySearch team for a 4th and final review.
When everyone follows the instructions, things run a lot smoother.
I didn't make up the information about 12 different countries having places called Washington. I did a search first. Argentina (1), Aruba (1), Bolivia (1), Columbia (1), Cuba (1), Dominican Republic (1), Ireland (1), Nicaragua (1), Philippines (4), South Africa (1), United Kingdom (3), United States (31).2