How do I get Family Search to correct errors in Relationships on my grandparents?
I know the info is mixed up, likely a transciption error. But when I try to click on Edit
I get a message that "Edit is unavailable. Sorry, you need special authorization to edit this record."
NYC records are generally "image unavailable", and if there's no image, then index correction isn't available, either. That's probably why the Edit button is grayed out.
FamilySearch doesn't generally go back and change already-published indexes. (Widespread errors are sometimes eventually addressed, but it can take years, and by "widespread", I mean on the scale of "collection-wide".)
The thing to keep in mind is that the index is not the data. Even if the data turns out to be behind a paywall or other obstacle, the index of it is just a finding aid. It's like the card in the library's card catalog, not the actual book. It's unfortunate when it's incorrect, but such is life. :-/0
It's been at least 5 years since I reported this information is INCORRECT. If the index is just a "finding aid" and not real factual information, it makes my wonder why anyone would start/keep a tree on Family Search, and why I wouldn't doubt nearly everything I see there. I know for a fact that this data is wrong - but how can I possibly tell if the data FS reports from over a century ago is correct??
Makes me want to walk away from the whole thing!0
That's why it's always important to view the RECORD and not rely on the INDEX. I'm at my FSC this afternoon just for that purpose - to view New York City records.
BTW - most NYC marriage records can now be viewed on the NYC Records site, for free. NYCRecords0
I'm looking at the marriage record, right now, Certificate 31378, in b&w, on the FS site. You can see it in color, here: https://a860-historicalvitalrecords.nyc.gov/view/8339767
What do you think is incorrect on FamilySearch, please @Jeanne Baumann? The indexed names I see match the Certificate.
For what it is worth, grooms are notorious for being nervous and giving the wrong maiden name of their mothers.1
Aine, I appreciate the link. I may be able to find even more of my relatives now in NYC records. And I see that the person who filled out the form mixed the mothers' names so the certificatre AND the "index" are incorrect. My point is - can - and if so, how; and if not, why not - a notation be affixed to the Family Search results that states the record data is incorrect? Once all the currently living people who knew this particular couple are dead, the record will be wrong in perpetuity for anyone searching. And - if they believe what they see - without an editor's note that there's a mistake - researching people will record incorrect information on their own family trees.0
You can add a notation on the profiles of the relevant people on the FSFT. Even at my FSC, I can't edit or attach a note to that record.0
I've never see any place to "can add a notation on the profiles of the relevant people on the FSFT." I'll have to look at this in depth. Thanks for the pointer to the NY records.1
On EVERY profile, you have the option to add a Discussion or a Note. With the latest improvements, you can even add an "Alert Note" with specifics.
You can see an Alert Note I added a few days ago on this profile: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/9W6C-DLD0
@Jeanne Baumann, I sympathize, but I think in your frustration, you're conflating or confusing three different things: indexes, historical records, and family trees.
On FS, and in genealogy in general, we use indexes and other tools to find historical records, and then we use those records to add conclusions to the family tree. Ideally, we indicate our reasoning for each conclusion, by attaching our sources: those indexes and/or the images of the historical records that they point to. When (not if) there are mistakes in either the indexes or the records, we make note of it on the family tree. In addition to the collaboration notes mentioned by Áine, FamilySearch's Family Tree allows us to add a "Note/Description" to every attached source, and each attachment also has a reason box where complications caused by nervous grooms can be described.
Now we get into the influence of tools on procedure: because indexes are machine-parseable, while images are not (yet), FS and the other genealogy websites all treat the index as primary, and the image as secondary. This is exactly backwards from genealogical (and academic research) best practices, but it's unlikely to change any time soon, even with the recent advances in computer-aided indexing. The most unfortunate result of this flip-flop, in my opinion, is reactions like yours: FS got it wrong! What do you mean, they won't fix it?!
You ask whether there's any means of annotating the erroneous record on FS, so that other researchers can be alerted. The answer is, there sort of is, indirectly: when you attach an index entry to a Tree profile, that connection is shown in the search results. Therefore, if you document the error in the collaborative Family Tree, then other researchers who find the record can follow the link and see your notes. (In my opinion, even people who are working on some other genealogy platform, and are only looking for sources on FS, should always investigate a source's attachments on FS's Family Tree. Many hands make light work.)2
When I searched for the marriage record last night, I saw that it was already attached to James Patrick Veale. This morning, after reading Julia's excellent suggestions above, I revisited the profiles. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LD5M-DHR
I notice that the marriage record source has been detached from "Mary Redington" with a reason statement explaining that she was not the mother of James Patrick. I would suggest that a further good step would be to merge the profile of Mary Redington into the profile of Margaret Butler, James' mother. I'd probably add a more detailed explanation regarding the apparent error in the original records.
In that way, you will have accomplished your goal "How do I get Family Search to correct errors in Relationships on my grandparents?" since we are all FamilySearch together. It's a collaboration that we can all work to improve. To borrow Julia's line "Many hands make light work."
You can also attach the external source by linking the image of the marriage on the NYCRecords website, as well as the images of the vital records from the IrishGenealogy.ie website.
James seems to have 4 brothers named Thomas, so there's a little clean-up needed there. Apparently the first Thomas died young and another son was named Thomas, but there are two profiles for each Thomas.
If you need help making those additions/corrections, we can guide you.1