Over 1000 divorce dates incorrectly indexed as marriage dates - how can this be fixed?
This image group for contains photographs from two volumes of Lucas County, Ohio marriages. The end of each book has a section to record divorces. Those divorces have been incorrectly indexed as marriage dates, affecting approximately 1500 divorce records.
Lucas. Marriage Records Jan 26, 1979–Jun 23, 1979
image 4: start of volume 262
images 37 - 238: marriage records
images 238 - 318: supplemental records about previous marriages, i.e divorces (80 images)
image 320: Start of volume 263
images 350 - 551: marriages records
images 551 - 622: supplemental records about previous marriages, i.e divorces (71 images)
151 images containing divorce records * 10 records per image = 1510 records incorrectly indexed.
Other image groups in this series exhibit this same issue. Here's another example.
Lucas. Marriage Records Apr 20, 1977–Aug 12, 1977
What is the best way to fix this, and prevent it from happening in the future? There appear to be other image groups in this series (Lucas County Marriages) yet to be indexed, and we don't want to repeat the same mistake.
☀️ cheers ⭐️
Answers
-
I left feedback on the Image Group page.
Here's what I wrote:
Thank you for providing these images and indexes to the public, they have been so helpful to me in my research. I am bringing to your attention some widespread problems with this index that I hope you can address.
Over 1000 divorce dates are incorrectly indexed as marriage dates.
This image group contains photographs from two volumes of Lucas County, Ohio marriages. The end of each book has a section to record divorces. Those divorces have been incorrectly indexed as marriage dates, affecting approximately 1500 records.
Lucas. Marriage Records Jan 26, 1979–Jun 23, 1979
image 4: start of volume 262
images 37 - 238: marriage records
images 238 - 318: supplemental records about previous marriages, i.e divorces (80 images)
image 320: Start of volume 263
images 350 - 551: marriages records
images 551 - 622: supplemental records about previous marriages, i.e divorces (71 images)
151 images containing divorce records * 10 records per image = 1510 records incorrectly indexed.
Another issue is that the ex-spouse's name has not been indexed. The image shows a record like the following:
Supplemental Marriage License Application for [new-husband] and Jane Doe, previously married to [ex-husband], divorced Mar 14, 73
Is indexed as:
[new-husband] and Jane Doe married Mar 14, 1973
That's the wrong spouse and the wrong marriage date.
Other image groups in this series exhibit these same issues. Here's another image group.
Lucas. Marriage Records Apr 20, 1977–Aug 12, 1977
What is the best way to fix this, and prevent it from happening in the future? There appear to be other image groups in this series (Lucas County Marriages) yet to be indexed, and I would not like to see the same mistake repeated.
One last thing. It would be so nice if the index included the children's names. When the divorced couple had children, their names are written in the image, but those names have not been captured in the index.
1 -
A couple of points -
Per the collection page, the index was provided by the record holder. https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1614804
This collection is not a collection of divorce records. The divorce information is part of the Supplemental Marriage License Application. The divorce information is part of the evidence allowing the couple to marry, by showing that the divorce from a previous spouse occurred.
2
