How do I edit a record to separate combined people?
I don't know how to edit an error in an indexed source. Please look at source linker here:
I wish to attach the source to each person mentioned in the obituary. Unfortunately names have been combined. For instance, Maurice Henry is actually two people. The same goes for Samuel Leon. How can I fix this in order to attach the obituary to all the family members mentioned?
Answers
-
At the top of the source linker, there is a button that says "View Record". Click it, then click the button of the same name on the sidebar that pops up. At the top of that page, there is an Edit button. This takes you to a page where the index can be fixed.
Because I have a lot of time to spare, I've done the edits myself already, which is probably not the best for teaching purposes, but you can still use this next time things don't match.
0 -
Grr, whatever they fixed with images and comments has been re-broken this afternoon, so I can't attach a screenshot, but that obituary index (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q599-PS3L) doesn't have a "Maurice Henry" or "Samuel Leon" right now. The index currently shows: Charles A Packscher, mother Sarah, father Adolph Packacher, sister Hazel Hart, sister Malvina Packacher, brother Henry, brother Samuel, brother Albert Packacher, sister Mrs. Leon Hart, sibling Leon, sibling Maurice.
But regardless of the specifics, when an index is so messed up that you can't figure out how to detangle it, you can simply skip the index and attach an image or link directly as a source, using your Source Box. The advantage is that this creates a linked set of instances of the same source, so you only need to type it in once — and if you find a typo, you only need to correct it once, on whichever instance you found it on, and it'll be corrected on all of the instances.
Here's the Help Center article on using a historical record as a source: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-to-find-the-add-to-source-box-link.
2 -
BraydonGraves,
I really need to know how you did this as I have other obits with the exact same issue.
I'm comfortable getting to and using the editor. I've been using it since it started in its previous version. I however, spent alot of time trying to do this task and failed at finding where in the editor it is done. What I need are the steps taken in that editor. I will provide another one so you can tell me what steps to take if you would be so kind.
Thanks
0 -
Near the source linker record title you see the name of the person with words "view record".
This record is at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q599-VZLQ. If the word Edit is blue, it can be edited.
The image can be edited at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSHK-QSR4-J?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQ599-VZLQ&action=view
0 -
Malle L,
Thank you for taking the time to show me how to get to the edit feature for that record. Please note that in my post above I stated I'm comfortable getting to the editor. Yes, the record I have provided can indeed be edited. The problem is that I don't know how to edit two names that were combined into one person. I need the steps that BraydonGraves took to accomplish that.
0 -
You would likely add a new person. Sorry for misunderstanding your question.
0 -
Before I go looking for a demonstration candidate, does anyone have recent experience with the index editor on non-GenealogyBank sources? Does editing the structure of the index (such as by adding people) still run the risk of hiding/locking the record instead?
(I'm neither LDS nor an Ancestry/GenealogyBank subscriber, so I cannot see the images for GenealogyBank obituaries, and thus cannot edit them, either.)
(Of course, it's all kind of a moot point right now, because trying to include screenshots results in a pink "permission problem" box instead, i.e., they re-broke the Community interface at some point this afternoon.)
1 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi Sorry, I don't have a recent (April) example. Everything I edited in February/March is still locked.
0 -
The good news is that today I learned that it CAN be done. BraydonGraves proved that. I suspect (and so does Malle L) that the steps involve adding a person, but for the life of me how a person is added eludes me. I easily found where you delete a person, but the inverse seems to be somewhere else, or I'm blind Lol.
Wherever "Add a person" is in the editor, its likely the same location regardless if its a genealogybank obit or not. I honestly feel I could handle the process if I only knew that one thing.
0 -
@Michael J. Allen I have a GenealogyBank subscription and can see the obituary, but I'm not LDS so my access is different. That means I cannot edit the indexed names for a GBank obituary. The Edit button is greyed out. "This record was indexed by a computer. If you find an error, Click Here to Report It" is the only option.
The process for editing and adding on censuses and other records that I can view is a little different, I think. And, the whole process is being very balky tonight. I waited more than 10 minutes (yes, I timed it) trying to give you a step-by-step.
1 -
@Michael J. Allen, in the new index editor/viewer, if the right-hand panel is on a specific index entry, then you can only edit or add to that entry's fields and relationships. To add entries to the index, you have to go back to the list of entries on that right-hand panel, by clicking the back arrow in the pale blue strip at the top. (It's labeled "View NN", where NN is the name on the entry you're viewing/editing.)
Once you get back to the list view in the right-hand panel, there should be two buttons at the bottom: [|)o +] ADD and [|)o x] DELETE. (Turn the things in brackets on their sides to get an idea of the icons I'm trying to replicate.)As of last November, the "add" process wasn't working: I'd go through it, and it'd look like I had succeeded, but when I went back to the image from elsewhere, there was no sign of my addition. I haven't experimented with it lately, because the permissions-eating gremlin got much too hungry: making any such structural changes to an index nearly-inevitably resulted in the index entry (or sometimes an adjacent one!) getting restricted and thus disappearing from view.
1 -
Thank you. Now I know where the add a person button is. Using this information I did seperate the two names, or more accurately, modified Maurice Henry to be just Maurice and added Henry. I was able to drag the name Henry to the correct group too. All that is left is to define this new Henry as a brother. In relationships brother is not an option. I made him a sibling, but that is not the same as far as the tool is concerned. I need to make Henry a brother for the tool to consider him a family member.
I'm tempted to complain about how it shouldn't be this difficult, but I won't because I'm very grateful to be able to edit bad indexing in the first place.
Anyone know how to make him a brother?
0 -
Update. Once I made Henry a male, his sibling status changed to brother. Well sort of. He's still not a part of the family though. I don't have confidence that what I'm doing is the right way to go about it. Still, this is progress, even if if it might be the long way around the barn.
Anyone know how to make Henry part of the family?
0 -
Edit the relationship from Charles' point of view
0 -
The process is highly complicated and full of decision points with zero instructions.
My impression — which may very well be inaccurate or incomplete — is that relationships only show up correctly on index detail pages and Source Linker if they're entered, as Maile said, from the principal person's end. That is, after editing or creating Maurice and Henry, you have to go to Charles's entry and use the edit (pencil) button on his Relationships, add "sibling" twice, and then choose Maurice and Henry in the two resulting drop-downs.
The type of relationship will change from "sibling" into "brother" if the person chosen for it is marked as male, but this doesn't affect the grouping/placement of the people.
I don't know what the process currently does if the relationship has already been added from the wrong end. (It used to offer to delete it — in scary red text — but then fail to actually do so, leaving everything unchanged despite all attempts at correction.)
2 -
Weird, I thought I already separated "Maurice Henry". (Actually, Julia's comment proves it—minutes after I made the change, she said that the two were separate. I've never heard of the editor bug being delayed, but that's the only explanation I can think of.)
Anyway, I'm glad you figured it out!
Henry is already be listed with the rest of the family, so that also seems to be solved.
1 -
@BraydenGraves, it's pretty hard to tell, but the obituary that you fixed (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q599-PS3K) is a different source than the one that Michael worked on (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q599-VZLQ). I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same obituary; I think the newspaper ran it on two consecutive days. I don't know why it's relegating some siblings to "Extended Family" on both (Leon and Maurice on the one, Henry on the other); I cannot edit them to see whether the relationships have been entered the same way or not.
1 -
Sometimes when an obituary is run in multiple editions, the layout is slightly different. That can cause the OCR to interpret some parts in a different way. Or, one edition may be a clearer image from microfilm than the other, and OCR is able to read one better than the other.
In this case, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q599-PS3K is from Thursday, 8 Jan 1914, Page 11, and in the far right column, above the fold. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q599-VZLQ is from Friday, 9 Jan 1914, far right column, above the fold. The version from 9 Jan is longer by several lines. The 8 Jan version does not have the funeral details while the 9 Jan version does.
0 -
To summarize, I wanted to know how to change two combined names into two separate people. BraydonGraves was kind enough to do it for me, although I was after the knowledge, not just correcting that one record. I then offered him another record in the hopes he would come back and this time tell me how he did it. I ended up making an attempt myself, and with everyone's help, managed to sort of do it. In the end, while the names are now separate which was the main goal, the relationships are kinda wonky. At this point my brain hurts so I'll put this thread to bed. Julia couldn't have said it better "The process is highly complicated and full of decision points with zero instructions."
Thanks everyone
1
