Report extensive digital data problems
I suggest having a way to report and or fix extensive differences between digital data and the film images to save confusion for future researches.
An example: Nelson W. WhitneyG9XF-L8Z has two sources that show him as the father of the bride. One is the intent for marriage where digital and film image show the event date in 1904, and the other is Marriages Registered where digital shows 1870 and the film image shows 1904. This is regarding image 532 of Film 007578170. The digital record on Family Search for images through 535 have the same problem. I checked the digital record for a few images prior to 532 and they have a digital date of 1905 where the image is clearly 1904 and then 1903. I checked a few images after 535 and the digital date is 1905 when they are clearly 1904. It appears that many records before and after this have similar problems.
"Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89XF-HS28?cc=2061550 : 13 August 2021), > image 1 of 1; citing Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Boston.
In this case, not only are they marriage dates incorrect, all the calculated birthdates are also incorrect
Answers
-
Please see the Help article "How do I request a correction to the FamilySearch Catalog?"
0 -
Maile, by "digital data", the original poster clearly means indexed records, which have nothing to do with the catalog, really. He's looking for a way to report (and have fixed) a large number of index entries that have the dates wrong.
If the error is at the metadata level -- like when an entire film is assigned to the first location on it, even though later items are from a completely different place -- then I think there may be a team somewhere that can address the problem, and I think it may be easier for them if we users don't try to correct individual entries in such cases, but I may be completely off in dreamland. I'm fairly certain, though, that when it's just a few pages affected (and unfortunately, on a scale of thousands upon thousands of images, even a hundred pages is just "a few"), then we're stuck with the individual index-correction functions, if available.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi My bad.
@Michael Tew In the case of the first two entries in the record (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FHK7-3YD and https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FHK7-Q4H), I see no options to edit the event date. The new editing tool should provide a chance to change those, but we don't know when it will be available for this collection. In the meantime, you can still attach the record to an individual in the Tree and make a note of difference between the image and the index. You can also attach the image itself to a person using the Source Box. The sources in the Source List on the person page can be edited to add the correct event date. If you are interested, I gave instructions on changing the source event date here
1
