Extra information that is lost, is there a way to add it?
Perhaps I am repeating the doubt form another member, or perhaps I should refer to a specific group of the Project I am concerned, if so, please tell me.
I am from Uruguay and recently joined FamilySearch and started to help in two indexing projects from my country. And found that many times happen to be extra information in the register that I cannot index in the form provided. Or at least I did not realize how to do it.
For example, in some Death Certificates you have information about the children the dead person had, of who were her or his grandparents, information that could be useful when you are trying to identify a relative.
Anyway, if there is any tip or there is something I am doing wrong, I would be grateful for your help.
Nope nothing too helpful. That information - in the older indexing app - just gets ignored. The thought is index the primary person(s) and when someone researches them they can add the others mentioned into the Tree. All indexing Projects use the older app.
The new indexing app - lets you 'edit every field' - so you can add others to the record in that interface. This new indexing app is linked to some collections - not all.0
@genthusiast There is a new indexing app? What collection has this?0
The biggest tip is to always remember that the index is only intended to help someone find a record and that it will always be extremely important to check the original record. So just keeping indexing following the project instructions and remind everyone you know that the index is only to lead to the actual record where you will always find something important even if the index were to be a full transcription.2
(sorry I've been away)
I call it a new indexing app - because it allows you to edit the index (every field) ... so yes it is an indexing app.
An example of a collection using the new app: 1950 US Census I believe that project was using this new app - and when you view the index I believe all indexed pages open in that new app. I don't think I have run across a page in 1950 US Census collection opening with the old index viewer/editor - whereas some collections are in a state of flux between the old and new editor (a necessity in my opinion due to transferring the old index).
If you click the arrow next to the record line (name of person):
It takes you back to the index for the entire record page:
OR if you close the Image Index/Group Data right-hand pane - clicking the index icon will re-open the Image Index pane:
The app is complete with the film roll/reference images beneath the current record image.
Differing slightly from Gordon's post above: The new 'edit every field' indexing app/editor/viewer allows the complete record - names, places, dates, relationships - to be edited/indexed. You get to decide how much work you want to put into the index - essentially such that it becomes a transcript of the record (yes you can really input that much detail - hence the 'edit every field' name). I don't know how that will transfer to Search - if it will allow you to search on those indexed relations, for example ... but it is new and probably a ways away from being 'finished'.
Personally I like this new 'edit every field' indexing/viewer app - though it adds considerable complexity with all the available tags (or whatever you want to call them) - which means one needs to be careful in using it. I recommend viewing some already complete indexed record pages to become familiar with some of the features (including highlights - which are a bit finicky).1
@genthusiast Thanks for the clarification; not really a new indexing app, it is an update to the FamilySearch editing process.1
? What else would you call it? The what - ____ editing process ... the index editing process? I know you have been using the web indexing app for a long time and generally are an indexer on many different platforms. Your lack of recognizing this newer app as an indexing app is troubling to me. If the app allows you to edit an index to the point where you can delete/create a new index - and basically generate a transcription - would you not call that an indexing/transcription app? An 'edit every field' indexing app?
From my image above - I have circled (in green) the Add/Delete features - which allow you to create an index.
How is that different than the old indexing app - add/delete entries?
One main difference is that it allows the indexer to highlight/tag the information in the record which is being indexed - this is a major help/improvement when viewing the Image Index (as long as the highlights are placed correctly - from what I have seen there may be a few highlighting issues).
As such - this should help with all posts/requests to get a record re-indexed/corrected. I hope the app is adopted by more collections.0
I think two points of confusion are using the term "indexing" since your average person familiar indexing knows that indexing is going to the Indexing section of FamilySearch, taking a batch, and indexing it and the term "app" which your average person would view as a small, stand a lone program such as the apps on your phone.
I would call this "Historical Record Database Editing" that makes use of a new record editing function in the historical records section of the website since what people can do is take a historical record database, which is the end product of indexing, and edit that database.
Or more simply just say that the ability to edit source records has been expanded for some record collections.
Does look like a great new feature. I wonder if it will be limited to fixing computer indexed data?2
I don't find the semantics confusing. Frankly I don't understand why FamilySearch has to care what its users might call a feature - just name the feature and have the users become acquainted with it ... but I guess I'm not a PR person. And, um 1950 US Census was probably the biggest recent publicized indexing project (last year). Since 'edit every field' was chosen as the pinned Community announcement I have continued using that given moniker - though others have called it other names. What fields are we talking about editing? The index fields? As far as 'app' - that's generally short for webapp/web application - which FamilySearch is (or is a collection of). That it has several different webapps/apps doesn't mean that this newer image viewer/editor [indexing app] cannot also be called an app. If people need to adopt a more flexible vocabulary when reading my posts - so be it - interpret in your 'own language' ... but I really don't get dogpiling to make a point (and it really seems to happen too often here in Community).
The term indexing is already in wide use. Since this app does the same work - why call it something different? Because it has additional features/capability (for example, linking to new Catalog)? Why not just call it what it is - new indexing app - just like every other new feature - this is the new one...? new Search, new Tree, new person pages ... even new Catalog ... yep FamilySearch sure is becoming new...
Indexing as mentioned allows a record to become searchable. If one edits that index so that it is no longer searchable by the old indexed information - what is the new information to be called? The new app calls it Image Index - so if that index is edited - is not that new index created by indexing?
Calling it an editing app/feature hides what it is intended for - to correct/generate a searchable record - indexing.
I wonder if it will be limited to fixing computer indexed data?
No. As I mentioned previously - some collections which are implementing this newer (I'm going to have to start using newer - it's not that new now...) 'edit every field' indexing app were previously indexed in the old indexing apps. For example, from what I have seen - most US Census collections are in process of implementing this newer 'edit every field' indexing app - as seen in many posts/queries here in Community.0
The comments here appear to have gone way off the original question. Ernesto says:
I..... recently joined FamilySearch and started to help in two indexing projects from my country. And found that many times happen to be extra information in the register that I cannot index in the form provided. Or at least I did not realize how to do it.
He is not expressing any concern about the post-indexing period, whereby users may (or may not) be able to edit or add information that was not indexed during the project.
The simple response should have been that, no, he should follow project instructions and only index the stipulated data, which should tie-in with the items listed on the form.
Additionally, it might have been explained that, even if he could add further details, this should not be done as, publication of such might breach a contractual agreement between the record custodian and FamilySearch.
It is not known whether, once published, there would be linked images to the original records. At present, we can only speculate on whether, in future, there will be a provision to edit (let alone add data to) indexed-only material. But that is another issue, in any case, as the query is merely about what to do whilst indexing material under a "live" project.4
I can appreciate your simple answer. The Answer was marked answered by the OP.
If you have complaints about questions further addressed by other Community members - you can flag the posts and request they be moved to a new thread. The additional questions/commentary were after the OP had marked the thread Answered. Your opinion is just additional dogpile (but I'm really getting used to it).
Thanks for a perfect answer.0
I am probably one of the most guilty members of Community when it comes to straying off-topic, but would feel most hurt if someone flagged my comments as not relevant to a discussion.
However, I am always ready to receive constructive criticism. There is nothing personal here - I have "liked" your posts on many occasions. Only, on this occasion, you honestly did over-complicate the issue by not responding the the issue of what one should do with the extra information encountered by an indexer, whilst working on a live project.
Of course, I apologise for any offence caused, but not for making remarks that I felt were factual and within the code of conduct. Please feel free to flag my comments as offensive or as a personal attack, if you wish.1
Thanks for your opinion. I don't find the thread complicated nor irrelevant to the original query. Likewise I have liked your posts many times. Your additional answer about what should have been the answer does make a good point about contractual indexing Project limitations (which is probably what Melissa would have responded as well). My answer - in relation to the question asked - was two-pronged - the way things are and the way things could be - which is also a valid answer - and was selected as Answered by the OP before any additional question was asked.
Indexing Projects could decide whether to include the newer 'edit every field' indexing app as the primary or secondary indexing app. I hope more collections do adopt it - for exactly the reason this original question posed - including a more complete searchable index/transcript.1
Thanks to everybody that took time to answer. Did not want to start a discussion, just to learn how to help. Will continue indexing these projects.1
Sorry that I started a discussion. I got overly excited by the mention of a new indexing app, as opposed to the "older indexing app", especially because people are desperate for new projects. That was my only reason for the inquiry - thinking there was some new FamilySearch program out there for folks to work on!
Happy Indexing, Ernesto!1
Do not worry. I got lost in the discussion. I am quite new in FamilySearch, just wanted to help.1