Home› Welcome to the FamilySearch Community!› Suggest an Idea

A method to change (or report) an error in the transcribed record search event data

kob3203
kob3203 ✭
March 31 edited March 31 in Suggest an Idea

I'm not sure how often this sort of thing happens, but here's an example:

Record citation: "Michigan, Eastern and Western Districts, Naturalization Records, 1837-1993", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Z4VG-RR2M : 2 December 2021), Patrick Corbett, 1931.

An entry that reads "Ballykearney, Mitchelstown,Ireland" on the original document,

1) As per the original document.JPG

and the same on the transcribed data from that document,

2) Transcribed data when viewing record.JPG

appears incorrectly in the record search results (found using the following search details - it's about the 20th result)

3) Seaarch terms.JPG

as "Mitchelstown, County Meath, Ireland"

4) Transcribed event data from record search results.JPG

when it's actually Mitchelstown, County Cork.

There are a couple of Mitchelstown's in different counties and I think the transcriber simply clicked the wrong one from a drop-down list.

There's no way that I can see for me to correct this, or even to report that it needs correcting. This needs to be added.

Tagged:
  • Correct errors
  • correcting errors
  • Errors in documents
  • transcription error;
  • Correcting indexing errors
1
1
Up Down
1 votes

Active · Last Updated March 31

Comments

  • kob3203
    kob3203 ✭
    March 31 edited March 31

    And there's another example for the same chap. 1901 census, born in "Co Cork"

    1) Born Co Cork.JPG

    not "Colombia" !

    2) NOT Colombia !.JPG

    This would also appear to be a case of the transcriber typing "Co" and accidentally clicking the wrong one from a drop-down list of suggestions.

    Once again, no way I can see to correct or report this.

    0
  • Áine Ní Donnghaile
    Áine Ní Donnghaile ✭✭✭✭✭
    March 31 edited March 31

    When the word Original appears, it is usually an indicator of the automated placename standardization doing damage. It's not fault of the original indexer but of a post-processing algorithm poorly programmed. The worst issues seem to derive from an original index that is incomplete - just a town, with no county or country, for example. The algorithm grabs the first placename that sort of matches.

    If you search in the community, you'll find many similar threads on "placename standardization."

    @N Tychonievich please and thanks - another one for your growing file of placename standardization problems.

    1
  • Julia Szent-Györgyi
    Julia Szent-Györgyi ✭✭✭✭✭
    March 31 edited March 31

    The "transcriber" (more correctly: indexer) had absolutely nothing to do with those errors. That's the autostandardization bot, hard at work.

    FamilySearch continues to believe that these errors can reasonably be fixed piecemeal, based on individual user reports here in the Community. If you see two place fields in an index entry, believe the one that's labeled "(Original)". That's what the indexer actually typed. The other one was picked by the computer, without reference to the collection or any other available metadata. The results list for a search of indexed records unfortunately only shows the computer's choice, so nothing on that screen can be taken at face value.

    4
  • N Tychonievich
    N Tychonievich mod
    April 1

    @kob3203 Thank you for reporting the errors. I have reported them to the team that is working on corrections.. Unfortunately, we can't predict how long it will take for things to get corrected. The inaccuracy in the search results for the Michigan naturalization, fortunately, does not shows when you look at the record details, so won't be carried over if you attach the source to an ancestor in Family Tree. The error on the Ireland 1901 census is on the record details page. So, when you use that one as a source, you will want to note the error, to prevent confusion when others look at the tree profile and sources.

    0
  • kob3203
    kob3203 ✭
    April 2 edited April 2

    Thanks for the replies. So it seems that this sort of thing happens more frequently than one would hope - placename standardization.

    Good to know that something's being done about it, and that reported errors should be corrected at some time.

    By the way that second example, the 1901 Irish census record showing 'Colombia' in the search result, has exactly the same 'Event Place' and ' Event Place (Original)' appearing in the indexed results as for the other five household members.

    IMG_20230402_174156.JPG

    But in the search results they all show up as born in Colombia.

    And many, but not all, others residing in Mitchelstown, County Cork in that census also show in the search results as being born in Colombia (I just picked a random year of birth and searched for anybody born in that year residing in Mitchelstown, County Cork in the 1901 census.

    IMG_20230402_180512.JPG


    0
  • Julia Szent-Györgyi
    Julia Szent-Györgyi ✭✭✭✭✭
    April 2

    The on-the-fly autostandardizer that the search results list uses is taking the index's Birthplace field of "Co Cork" and turning it into Columbia. The index detail page, on the other hand, only shows the bot's actions on the main Event Place field, so there's no sign of Columbia there.

    This situation demonstrates that FamilySearch doesn't believe us when we try to tell them that the bot needs to be chucked, its actions reverted, and the whole process completely redesigned, with robust data validation steps. The current process apparently doesn't have any data validation whatsoever, leading to the current state of affairs, in which we cannot trust anything that the indexed records database says about "where". It's basically only ever correct by complete accident.

    2
  • kob3203
    kob3203 ✭
    April 3 edited April 3

    After a bit more checking it appears, as Julia says, that it's ONLY people whose birthplace has been (manually?) transcribed/indexed as 'Co Cork' (but NOT 'County Cork' or 'Cork') who appear in search results as born in Colombia.

    But it's NOT EVERY person - e.g. Julia here seems to be unaffected.

    IMG_20230403_075802.JPG


    0
  • kob3203
    kob3203 ✭
    April 3 edited April 3

    If you search all Ireland records for people born in Colombia there are 534,112 results.

    IMG_20230403_103427.JPG

    There's no way that fixing those one by one will work.


    And just from a cursory look at a few results it appears that the word 'Co' anywhere in the birthplace causes it.

    IMG_20230403_104711.JPG


    0
  • kob3203
    kob3203 ✭
    April 3 edited April 3

    And don't forget 'Caramana, Kings, Ireland'

    IMG_20230403_105300.JPG
    IMG_20230403_105229.JPG


    0
Clear
No Groups Found

Categories

  • 24.6K All Categories
  • 25.7K FamilySearch Help
  • 130 Get Involved
  • 2.8K General Questions
  • 457 FamilySearch Center
  • 482 FamilySearch Account
  • 4.8K Family Tree
  • 3.7K Search
  • 4.9K Indexing
  • 683 Memories
  • 338 Other Languages
  • 34 Community News
  • 6.9K Suggest an Idea
  • Groups