Is there any change in the "rules" for editing original records?
The general advice has always been to not change details where a record has been indexed / transcribed according to how it was originally recorded - say by a census enumerator. With the introduction of the facility to edit all fields, there have been suggestions that have implied we can now go ahead and change a name to how it should have been recorded, rather than leave it how the enumerator / clerk / vicar recorded it incorrectly.
Please confirm the current instructions when editing records that appear (from the original record) to have been indexed completely correctly - though, say, a relative knows the true facts - e.g., the actual name (or other detail - e.g. correct age / birthplace) .
Personally, I would feel unhappy about trying to amend original document detail, even if I knew it to be wrong.
Best Answers
-
The capability of editing a field because you believe it to have been recorded incorrectly is nothing new. The "old" editing tool requires you to choose from two reasons for the change: "indexed incorrectly" and "wrong in the document".
I have never used the second reason, because I agree that the index should reflect things as they are actually recorded, to the best of our ability to decipher same. "Time machine"-type corrections are not an index's or indexer's job, but of the researcher using the record. In other words, the index has no relationship or relevance to such corrections. If the register page says Anna, but the index has been "corrected" to Julianna, then the index is no longer accurate: it points to a nonexistent record.
One of the unfortunate things about the new editing tool is that it not just doesn't require a reason, it doesn't even provide the option for one: there is no "editor's notes" or "correction comments" field. Add the utter gibberish that is the change-tracking page of the new tool, and it becomes completely impossible to figure out what was changed, by whom, and why.
2 -
Corrections made using the old tool add to the index, that is, a search by either "Lander" or "Lauder" should turn up John's entry. I would assume that the new tool behaves similarly in this respect, but I haven't actually tested it.
0
Answers
-
Thank you for your comments.
My knowledge and experience relating to this area is rather limited. I mostly deal with sources involving English counties and these are inclined to be either image only or indexed records, instead of being linked, editable ones.
In which case, perhaps you could clarify whether, once a record has been edited, the former version remains, in addition to the "corrected" one. To make this perfectly clear, if one changes John LANDER to John LAUDER, is the former identity completely lost, or are there now two, alternative indexed records?
I know this might seem a silly question, but I honestly don't remember ever having occasion to edit a FamilySearch record, and thus see the after effects.
Reverting to the points you made earlier, I am truly shocked to find the nature of the new tool - especially in there being no provision for reason statements, etc.
0 -
I am unsure what @Julia Szent-Györgyi is referring to by a "new editing tool". Perhaps, certain records are using a "new editing tool", while others continue to use the old??
In recent months, and today, when I have edited an error in a record transcription, it continues to provide a choice of the two reasons, as outlined above, and provides a box for explanation.
To answer the outstanding question as to whether editing "removes" the original indexing: it is my past experience that it happens as @Paul W posits; the old index entry is not removed, but rather an additional index entry is added. To be technically correct, there are not two records, but rather, both LANDER and LAUDER (entries in the index) point to the same record.
0 -
@David Peterson wrote: "certain records are using a "new editing tool", while others continue to use the old?" Yep, exactly. The 1950 U.S. Census is one example that uses the new "edit everything" tool.
The 1910 U.S. Census is an example that still uses the old tool.
As you can see, they look totally different, and if you explore them, you'll see that the new tool doesn't work anything at all like the old one, and not just because the "control surfaces" are on the opposite side of the image.
0 -
I just made an index edit that's easy to search for (using the "exact" checkbox), and it appears that the new tool also adds to the index, same as the old tool.
Originally-indexed spelling: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Anna&q.surname=K%C3%B6lksei&q.surname.exact=on
Corrected spelling: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.givenName=Anna&q.surname=K%C3%B6ltsei&q.surname.exact=on (same results as above)
No idea how this all relates to the recurring display issues: will I come back to this tomorrow to find that one of the searches doesn't work any more, or that the index detail page has gone back to showing "Kölksei"?
0