A Census 1931 record seems incorrect?
I have two issues with one record for my family.
First, is there anyway to change the name that is referenced on the 1931 Canadian census. Here is the record.
Kitty Eloyie Jones, "Canada Census, 1931" • FamilySearch
Kitty's Middle name above is Eloyie but it was not. I knew this to be true and it is based on an ancestor name. Her Middle name is Glozier. It seems sometimes you can edit these things but not this one. That I can see anyway?
Second Sylvia Frederica (GCDT-PP8) is not listed however IS ON line 21. She is the Daughter of Kitty and sister of Pauline. (K468-GJ1) Is it because she was baby ?? She is clearly in the Census but I have looked and looked to try to connect that record to Sylvia, but I cannot find that she is listed in the 1931 Census. Am I wrong? Maybe she is there but I cant find her?
I would like to add her to the sources etc. for GCDT-PP8. Sure I could just save the document and save as source, but I like to make the DB do the connections as I think it makes things work better, for finding other records. (Maybe Im wrong??)
With Respect
Answers
-
Inability to edit reported as a possible bug
0 -
Thanks Ms R.B.
1 -
That's weird: the new editor comes up, but all of the pencil icons are disabled. Perhaps the engineers are listening and have disabled the editor until they track down and squash the entry-deleting gremlin?
Sylvia's entry is there, and the link to the index detail page works fine: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6RSB-54PM. I haven't a clue why she's marked as a principal.
When the index and/or the search algorithm is faulty, but you've found the image anyway, you can simply skip the index and attach the image directly as a source. The new viewer-editor makes the "Attach To Tree" button available regardless of indexed status, which is a handy way to attach your own transcription to an entire household.
0 -
I am not sure if editing is turned off for this collection or if this is a bug. I will see what I can find out and I will get back with you when I get an answer. In the meantime, I attached Sylvia's record to her sources.
1 -
The Canada 1931 Census.
Your first question is concerned about the correction of the Middle name for Kitty Jones, you may soon have the edit feature available.
Please see the article for further clarification: Publication of 1931 Census of Canada • FamilySearch Support Operations
There is a Feedback feature on the side of the record view. We welcome constructive and positive feedback. However, please have patience as the “Edit” feature is developed and implemented.
For more information about the Feedback feature see the article linked below:
How do I give feedback to FamilySearch? • FamilySearch
In summary, the edit function is being added to the Census so that you will be able to correct Kitty’s middle name sometime soon.
As for your second question about Sylvia Frederica, you may add the source as you outlined. We see that the source has been added to Sylvia and that the relationships in the source linker are not correct and may need some explanation. It is important to add clear notes so that the addition of the source will be understood. When there are mistakes or variants in a source, Collaboration is essential to clarify and record research findings.
You can add a source to your source box and add it to the desired record from the source box. The link below has step-by-step instructions and there are related articles on the page.
Copy a source to my source box • FamilySearch
FamilySearch Support offers several other options to obtain answers to FamilySearch questions and problems. These options include the Help Center:
0 -
As usual your all very responsive to issues. Appreciate that.
I will take a look at it again.
Regards.
0 -
@ColinM0288 - based just on this one image, can I suggest that Kitty's middle name is probably "Glazier" rather than "Glozier"? It's really not clear from the writing but if you look at "Margaret" in the previous household, the "a" looks similar to an "o".
If it's driven from an ancestor's name, then "Glazier" would fit as a possibility - whereas I've never heard of the name "Glozier". (You'll probably now come up with a list of printed sources for "Glozier"! 😏 )
0 -
A.B. Thanks for contributing.
Actually Glozier which I will admit is a fairly little heard of name, it really is Glozier. I think in my life I met one other unrelated Glozier. I remember my mother saying maybe they are related. Probably because it was such an unheard of name. Seldom as the name Glozer was used in the family, they never said it like Glazier always Glozier strange as it is.
I thought i would look up the dervitive of the name, if you can trust it.
Glozier Name Meaning
From gloser glosour ‘glossator; flatterer sycophant’ an agent derivative of Middle English glosen Old French gloser ‘to make glosses upon expound interpret’.
Maybe they spoke in tongues, glos·so·la·li·a. :)
Here are my supporting documents.
Thanks .. always looking for help.
Regards.
for example here is Kittys birth.
Marriage banns yes the typing is mine but the Glozier is clearly an O
Census of 1901, I didn't write it transcribers did.
And just for fun, Kittys mother, its actually her maiden name E.E.Glozier
Her mother
Thus ....
2 -
@ColinM0288 - well! One for the books and no mistake!
Those other sources are definitely an "o" - but that 1931 census! If I came across that under all normal circumstances, I'd have said "Glazier" without thinking about it, simply because the "o" and "a" are so similar on that page...
0 -
I can only speak for my self but I think what makes a good researcher & electronic engineer is to be a little OCD. I cannot say if I am a good researcher, but I am a little OCD. The problem with that is that we like every box to be exactly perfect, in engineering that's important, but what is a positive is also a negative. A definition of someone who is OCD is I like to shovel the snow as soon as it finishes snowing. I like a clean driveway. Why do i say all these things. It bothers me when things are not just right. I lie awake.
Update to you, I had a chance to look more carefully at the link you provided above, Thank you.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6RSB-54PM for Sylvia and her sister and mother & father.
Here is the strange thing. The age is wrong it says she is estimated to be 12, this seems to be based on the incorrect birth date, which in the hand written record is correct. Although come to think of it the age is given as 11/12 maybe it has been interpreted as 12. So to repeat its right in the record but wrong in the transcription. Also immediately below is another record, Madalee B. If you click the link and see the record, the house number is transcribed incorrectly based on the physical record. I think it is 39 but listed as 41. mm .
@Julia Szent-Györgyi I just share this as an oddity. I recognise that its not your job (to fix things, as helpfull as you are) Just sharing a little of my frustration.... I feel better now. I know that at time one must let things go. Even in engineering there are tolerances.
Also while I find the feedback as mentioned by @Marie4familysearch helpfull, unfortunately i don't see a feedback button on any of these pages. HOWEVER, my wife will tell you i have trouble finding socks in the sock drawer, so there you go.
There is one question you might answer, I don't really understand the concept of the Principal, in the Census documents. You said above: Quote....
Sylvia's entry is there, and the link to the index detail page works fine: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6RSB-54PM. I haven't a clue why she's marked as a principal. <----
I have read the definition of principal, but I find it confusing. For example it says in a baptism "it would be the person who is baptised", sure the main character, I assume that on a census it is the person who that LINE is referring to. So if it's Sylvia selected for example it would be all the data that relates to her on that line. Residence, age, birth place etc. Thus a Census would have many MANY principals . Could you tell me if Im wrong here. And what you mean by the fact that its odd that she is the principal. UNLESS the principal is the Head of the family ?? and no one else of that family.
Thank you again all
Regards
0 -
Yes, in censuses, normally only the head of household is a principal in the index, and everyone else in the household is a family member (as defined by the relevant entry on the census, in this case in column 11). That's how the whole family is supposed to all show up on each other's index detail pages. The reason Sylvia isn't listed with her father is that she's marked as a principal, not as a member of his household.
The new index editor-and-viewer theoretically allows us to fix most of these things. (I don't think we can get the fields with a parenthetical "Estimated" to update.) However, there are serious bugs, and attempting to make changes right now runs a high risk of effectively deleting the entry -- or the entire family, or even the whole page -- instead. Hence my suggestion of attaching the census image to the whole family, instead of struggling with the faulty index.
@ColinM0288, perhaps it will help your perfectionist tendencies (with which I fully sympathize) to keep in mind that the index is not the data. It is not, and was never intended as, a full transcription of every detail that can serve as a replacement for the document. It is only and merely a finding aid. Despite its flaws, the index has served this purpose admirably.
0 -
Thank you for your clarifying answer, it help. I think it would be good if the "hot tip" that is given when you hover your mouse over the principal (I think its there) is not an a example of a baptism, but more what the record actually is eg a Census. It would be more clear to say something like what you have said, eg Principal is the head of house hold or in something that actually relates better to the record, rather than an example of a baptism. I mean the difference between a baptism principal and census principal is not exactly the same from my stand point, as indicted by my confusing in previous email, but I'm no expert. I pass this on to @Marie4familysearch if that the right person. Having written some software myself, the helps in any software are always the last things done and a tedious task. Sometimes they use the same tip in several places.
Perfectionist tendencies, ha ha ha, yes. Thank you for the Sanity Check.
Regards.
0 -
@ColinM0288 Have you tried editing Kitty's middle name recently? It looks like it's possible. I am able to edit it on a public account so you should be able to as well. Let us know if it still doesn't work for you.
Sam 😊
0 -
Sam Sulser
Thank you for following up on this. It was such a long time ago ( Well for me) I need to re read my thoughts at the time to remember what I said. I will do that
Regards
0 -
Thank you Yes I can edit the name and have changed my grandmothers name To Glozier. I can now sleep at night. Ha ha.
Thank you very much.
0 -
PS I don't suppose you know how to fix the second issue. If I understand my self in the past.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHJ-PQ53-7F4?view=index&action=view
I tried to put a screen shot picture here as I have done many times, see above, but it says there is a permission problem. not letting me put a picture here to make my question more understandable. Anyway I will have to describe the problem, On the right hand side of the above link . The families are all mixed up.
It says the the primary for my family is Jane Kerr. This is wrong. (who she is I don't know)
The head should be Ernest Wm Jones.Secondly my Aunt Sylvia seems to be the head of another family with Madalee Bradley under her. Being 11 or 12 I dont think she is the head of anything.
Properly I think, Jane Kerr should be by herself.
And Slylvia Frederica Jones should be moved up into the Jones family.
And finally Madalee Bradley should be moved down to her relative Elsie Jean Bradley. Also her address is wrong.I admit there is probably nothing to be done. And frankly anybody looking at the info will see it clearly. All of these issues seem un-editable. What ever DB system automated this did not do a very good job. But I still put it forward.
Regards
0 -
@ColinM0288, our ability to include images in our posts broke back in April, and still hasn't been fixed.
The Canada 1931 census index is editable, so the misgroupings could theoretically be corrected — but the process is complicated and buggy, and if you attempt to make changes that affect the structure of the index (such as by re-arranging households), you run the risk of making the index entries disappear from view instead of getting fixed.
(I had entirely stopped making index corrections for a while, because of the gremlins in the system; I've recently made some name corrections, and they seem to be fine, but I haven't played with groupings or relationships.)
I think I see the reason for the wrong groupings: the household numbering got off by one on that page, which was corrected by writing the correct number above the crossed-out old one — making the number look like it went with the name on the line above.
0 -
Well unless an expert makes the changes, I will leave it alone for the moment until the interface is a little more easier to understand and reliable. Hopefully I will remember to revisit this when it is easier. I think you or someone else said its not an exact science particularly for us ADHD's.
Thanks for the no posting of images broken comment. Glad I'm not nuts. Odd that it has not been fixed. Seems helpful and important to me. A picture is worth .. etc.
Regards
0 -
The fact that mods can post images but hoi polloi can't makes the long wait for a fix even more mysterious.
0 -
Well that is odd.
However then the error message is exactly right. It is a permission issue. I can tell you from experience that these can be the most difficult to resolve. Active directories is frightenting at times and Microsoft changes these thing all the time. You have to be so carfull so that suddenly the whole world has access. I dont know what system they are using for their web portal Linux, MS, Unix, Cobal Haha, but I hated permissions.
Just my thoughts
Regards.
0 -
Although my (shaky?) understanding was that the software for the Community is an off-the-shelf package - indeed, I have a vague idea it doesn't even run on FS servers but on the supplier's servers. So I'm genuinely not sure where Permissions with a capital P come in that sort of set-up…
1
