Systematic mismatched records in 442 pages in Gyöngyös Marriages book (1895-1901) - Hungary
Hi,
While attaching a record to a family I realized that 442 records have mismatched pages in Gyöngyös (Hungary) Marriages (Házasultak) 1895-1901 (from page 1 through page 442).
The problem is that the page on the left belongs to the previous page record but it is transcribed and attached by mistake to the page on the right which is a different record.
Hence the mother of the bride is always mistakenly attached to the wrong record and hence appears with the wrong name.
This is the record on the second scanned page for instance: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6J38-QWMB
and the image: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9PCM-LGJ?i=1&wc=929P-GP8%3A40681401%2C47764001%2C40933401&cc=1452460
As I said this goes on all the way to the scanned page 442. Starting with page 443 the format changes and the error disappears as the mother of the bride appears on the same page as the father and rest of the marriage participants in the scan (except for the witnesses which show up on the next page and they are not indexed anyway).
This should be fixed at the system level by shifting the transcribed bride's mother information to the preceding record page, rather than correct each of those manually.
I didn't check yet whether other marriage records with the same format have the same systematic error but it is worth checking...
Best,
Theo
Answers
-
No, luckily it doesn't seem to be a universal error: I checked some of the early marriages in Eger, and they all correctly had the bride's mother from the following page.
The citation date for both the Gyöngyös and Eger pre-1898 marriage indexes is 3 Nov 2022, so they were presumably indexed by the same entity or process (which was not FS's own indexing section, as there has been no sign of Heves county there at any point).
I also just checked Pásztó's 1895-1901 marriages. That index is also dated 3 Nov 2022, and also appears to be correct for the bride's mother (but not for the bride, of course, due to the false consanguinity error that seems to be universal in the recently-published indexes). So the error in Gyöngyös is not due to the film or image group covering multiple formats of register-page.
Unfortunately, I highly doubt that FS will allocate any of its limited resources to fixing these 400-odd entries in its ginormous database. Hopefully, everyone using the index will check the actual image and notice that the signatures on the left do not match the names on the right. (Also, the right-hand page has "1. mint vőlegény:" and "2. mint menyasszony:", while the left-hand page has "3. mint egyik tanu:" and "4. mint másik tanu:", and even if you don't know the words, you can tell that 3,4|1,2 is not how any sane entity arranges a record.)
2 -
I know you don't love the new editing feature Julia, but it has been applied to this collection if you want to try messing with editing relationships.
0 -
@Maile L, given the recurring bug wherein editing an index entry renders it restricted -- i.e., effectively deleting it instead of correcting it -- I'm reluctant to touch records that haven't already been found and attached. (And I'm too lazy to bother with fixing records that have been found and attached.)
1
