Incorrectly indexed settlement name - Complete Register
'Hercegkút's' (Zemplén, or Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) various records were recorded in the system as 'Haraklány'. When I reviewed one of my ancestors's recently added record, I found that the settlement name was incorrectly indexed in the whole record, so this can cause many inconveniences if one would trying to find their ancestors from that region. My great grandparents were from Petrahó, Zemplén, Hungary, which is currently called Bodroghalász, and it is a part of the city Sárospatak. At that time, when they married all the records were administrated and stored in the neighbour settlement that called Hercegkút today as well. The name Hercegkút (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county, Hungary), was recorded and indexed wrong as Haraklány (Szilágy county, Hungary, now it is in Romania).
Please kindly ask you to correct it. Thanks in advance!
Best Answer
-
Thanks, Julia.
@Stephanie V. and/or @N Tychonievich is this something you can escalate or alert the proper person/department?
2
Answers
-
@DanielCsokoly In general, FamilySearch does not change an index once the records have been added to the website.
Can you kindly provide the URL to one of the records so that it can be checked to see if this may be yet another instance of the automated placename algorithm? If that is the case, then it is possible that MAY be eventually corrected.
0 -
I'm not finding any of Hercegkút's records labeled as Haraklány. All of the indexed baptisms that I looked at had "Tráuczonfalva", which is correct except for the diacritic. (The place was renamed as Hercegkút at some point between the publication of the 1902 and 1907 gazetteers.) Filtering the search by birthplace gives Zemplén as the only option, so I don't think there has been any error, neither in the indexing, nor in the pre- or post-processing.
I'm not finding anything else indexed from this place, so I'm at a loss on where you saw Haraklány. I tried searching on several of the film numbers for the civil registrations, padded with asterisks on both ends, and got nothing, and searching the church register gives only the "birth" filter bubble, meaning there are no marriages or burials indexed from it.
1 -
I looked, too, Julia, without finding anything, but I know my knowledge of the Hungarian places and records doesn't come close to yours.
0 -
Dear @Áine Ní Donnghaile and @Julia Szent-Györgyi, Thank you for your quick answer and will to help. My apologies that I did not attached any evidence earlier. Let me show you what I mean. Also, let me explain a bit more detailed.:
On this marriage record, you can find my great-grandparents marriage registration (Dezső Szécsi and Erzsébet Jaskó, married at Hercegkút, 1932). They'd lived at that time in Bodroghalász (it called before as 'Petrahó'), which is now a part of the city called Sárospatak (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county, Hungary). At that time, all the civil records data were recorded and administrated in the nearest village which called Hercegkút (earlier it was called as 'Trauczonfalva', which is the hungarian transcribed version of the german name 'Trautsondorf'. From the beginning the name of the village was originally dual named (bilingual), because of the local Swabian people who just moved there from German territory Baden-Württemberg by the invitation of Prince Trautson in the XVIII. century, and because of the locally used hungarian language). But this is not the point. The point is that people's civil records were registered here from all the nearby localities for a short period of time. But as you can see, this civil record was displayed in the system as it belongs to 'Haraklány', Szilágy county, Romania, which seems to me as just a misreading. But this could lead to a blindspot for those who searching within this region of Zemplén county. That is why I reported it and asked the correction. @Áine Ní Donnghaile Based on your first comment, I think this is most probably caused by the automated placename algorythm.
Thanks in advance for you answer,
Kind regards, Daniel
0 -
Ah! That last marriage register was not one of the ones I checked for indexing. Instead of rescuing Daniel's link, here's a random other one: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6V1T-MH33. It's one of the brand-new indexes -- the ones where we're all fairly certain that there was AI involved, although we've had no official confirmation of that. The effect of the autostandardization mess on these new indexes is that the "event place" field is useless in the other direction: it stops at the country on every single entry indexed from this film (https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?q.filmNumber=005845542).
So where's that "Haraklány" coming from in the index editor (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9QF-SCM?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3A6V1R-1DH9&action=view)? I think it's either the new editor coming up with yet another way to mess up, or the "Images" section's atrociously-awful cataloging data, or some combination of the two (since, unfortunately, the former uses the latter). If you go back to the catalog's image viewer (by removing the question mark and everything after it in the URL: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9QF-SCM), there's no sign of the wrong place. The index entries all uselessly just say "Magyarország", and the catalog ("Information") tab correctly says Trauconfalva, Zemplén.
Other than using the Feedback tab on the index editor (which I have done), I don't know how to alert anyone to this error.
2 -
Thanks Julia. I have been told the Feedback tab is the best way to report errors like this.
0
