Can I correct indexing?
I've noticed an error in an image that was indexed.
How can I correct it? (I have started with some indexing myself)
It relates to the following image:
The baptism place is indicated as: Caernarfonshire, Wales, United Kingdom
The correct place is: Carnarvon, Northern Cape, South Africa
Best Answer
-
Looking at the index record Baptism place (Original) it indeed shows Carnarvon. The automated standardization to: Caernarfonshire, Wales, United Kingdom does need correction. @N Tychonievich
In the meantime those wanting to attach the record in Family Tree can bypass the index by using the Source Box button. The correct location can be entered in this source.
1
Answers
-
Thanks for the response.
Is this forum the correct place to indicate potential errors?
Is there a way that someone like myself could make fixes?
0 -
No, the correct place is the Search category: https://community.familysearch.org/en/categories/search
But a Moderator can move your issue to the correct category.
Please continue to suggest corrections to indexes.
There is a new 'edit every field' indexing app that is being implemented on collections. If/when it reaches collections that you see need correction - you will be able to edit those records immediately - without submitting corrections here in Community. It is a powerful editing app and will take a bit of getting used to - but even small edits such as place corrections add up. Many hands make light work.
1 -
@JacquesBlaauw1 I cannot open the link you provided. For some reasons, when you put a link on a new line, Community messes up the URL. Can you try again? I need to see the error before I can report it for a fix. Just don't put it on a new line and I think it will work. Or give me the name of the record collection and enough information about the person whose record you were looking at that I can find it. Thanks.
0 -
If you replace %3A with : I think that will work
2 -
I see that -- when reading the Manifest for the 'Cimbria' (arr NY Apr 23, 1881) -- you have somehow duplicated the entire Manifest, but assigned it to the "City Of Brussels' Manifest (same date).
You might want to correct this.
Allen
0 -
@JacquesBlaauw1 Thank you for your report. I have sent it on to the appropriate group. Unfortunately, they have a long list that they are working on, so we can't predict how long it might before a correction is in place.
1 -
I would be grateful if you would confirm that FamilySearch is indeed now taking action over such reports.
My previous efforts have not met with any positive response, so it would be interesting to know that FamilySearch now has a dedicated team that is (albeit slowly) trying to address such matters.
There are currently a huge amount of records that are included in collections where they do not belong: previously I have been told that, once indexed, there is no further action that can be taken to move a record into a more appropriately titled collection.
I am sure you are responding in good faith over this matter, but I would not wish for users' hopes (including mine!) to be built up over a possible resolution of such issues if, in most cases, reassigning records under a correct heading will not be possible.
As an example, there are thousands of Durham Church of England baptism records that are currently "hidden" in collections for Northumberland (including a non-conformist collection). I believe there have also been reports of burial records being indexed / added to the database as baptisms, etc. Are you sure FamilySearch has revised its position and is now willing to act on such matters?
0 -
Actually, I have just noticed your response was to @JacquesGuerard. Did you mean this to be for @JacquesBlaauw1, I wonder? If so, you will notice he made his post here almost a year ago. If not, perhaps your response has been accidentally placed against the wrong topic, and you were referring to a report relating to the auto-standardization issue.
0 -
@Paul W Yes, records are getting corrected. It is a slow and seemingly random process, but I do see corrections being made. That is all I know. I have no inside information as to priorities or why some things are taking longer than others to be corrected.
1 -
Thank you for your prompt response. This is obviously news to me - and probably other users - as reports made well over a year ago have not been addressed and a response I received around two years back indicated nothing could be done once a record had been placed in the collection to which it had been deemed to belong.
I will try reporting again, but if there is such a backlog (as with the incorrect auto-standardized records issue) it will probably take a long, long time before knowing whether the necessary action has been taken. Also, these records have been so poorly indexed there is probably no other way of them being identified, except by reporting each I encounter (thousands in total) on an individual basis!
Unfortunately, project instructions probably still say to index all records within the batch, even if it is clear that some belong to totally different collections!
0 -
@Paul W Depending on the error, some will be fixed and others won't. Typically, if the error is obviously one made by the volunteer indexer, I can't send it in for correction. But that would be limited in scope--indexing batches do not contain hundreds or thousands of records each.
When the issue is widespread and looks to be computer-generated, we can send it to a specialty team for correction.
0
