Consistent with Sources
Edith Ashby Reid in household of Wesley Alexander Reid, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Census Records (Worldwide), 1914-1960" has a date of 1922 for birth, which is different from 23 December 1911.
In the source it lists her date of birth as 1912, not 1922 as stated above. Since those are generally estimated dates it is not inconsistent.
This person's sex does not match the information found on Bryant H Ashby, "United States Census, 1920".
Name Edith Ashby Sex Female
It is consistent. Do you need to know these things or should I simply dismiss it?
Comments
-
This is exactly the type of feedback they need to improve this feature. However, the programmers can't fix these types of things unless they can see the problem! You need to post Edith's ID number so they can look at her profile, analyze what the program is doing to produce the results you see, and determine how to improve the results.
2 -
@normabybee1 since you didn't come back to state what profile this was, I went searching for Westley and Edith and found them.
It looks like you did go ahead and dismiss the two problems you pointed out. But looking at Edith's profile, your example does point out a couple of interesting things.
First off, there is one of those church census records that lists her birth year as 1922 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:DP9Q-PL2M) so there really is an inconsistency that the new routine correctly pointed out. in this case, the index most likely has a transcription error. There is no image, so it is even possible the original record is just wrong. That happens. Since the index cannot be corrected, it was appropriate to just dismiss that one.
Secondly, there was the United States 1920 census record. Looking at that one, the attached source is for her husband, not for her (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6P1-812 ). In this case, the routine corrected pointed out a significant error. Instead of dismissing the flag, you should have detached that source from her
In fact, looking at that 1920 census record, it is a big mess because it is attached to nine different people. It needs to be detached from eight of them so that it is only attached to Bryant.
So this second case is a big win for this routine because it correctly pointed out an error that was buried in her list of twenty three sources and has been overlooked ever since May 2014 when it was first made.
4 -
Well done @Gordon Collett for the extra effort to find the profile and check the details.
4
