Indexing a city directory
Best Answer
-
@Hiram Bertoch, where do you see instructions "to not index those who are listed as dead"?
Here are the relevant points from the project instructions:
- A spouse's name, if listed, may have been recorded in parentheses after the name of the principal individual. The surname should be indexed for both individuals.
- If a spouse is listed as deceased by the words "wid" or "widow of," do not index the spouse.
So, let's give some examples. (These are from the images used for the instructions, just elsewhere on the pages.)
Burton
" Harriet N widow Walter E
" Joseph died Nov 14 1918Lucas
" Angelo (Evangeline)
" Anna (wid Geo)From these, I believe the following should be indexed:
Harriet N Burton (no spouse, since Walter E is deceased)
Joseph Burton (no spouse, but indexed since he's the principal)
Angelo Lucas with spouse Evangeline Lucas
Anna Lucas (no spouse, since Geo is deceased).3
Answers
-
Yes, we index a person who's noted as being dead since he's the person listed in the directory.
2 -
ok , so we list that person who is deceased but not the deceased spouse by the widow. Right?
0 -
Yes.
1 -
This is incorrect advice. We do not index a widow per the indexing instructions. If you open the instructions for this project, it specifically states TO index spouses in parenthesis, but to NOT index those who are listed as dead.
2 -
It is absolutely correct. If a person is listed as a widow, we still index them, but not the deceased spouse, just like we index a deceased person that is listed to have died on whatever date. The OP already knew not to index the deceased spouse; they were asking about indexing a deceased person that is listed in the directory. Entry 10 has Charles Gano Baylor listed as deceased on 6/7/1907. He will still be indexed, even though he is deceased.
1 -
You are correct in how they should be indexed. Part A of this project (not the old Directory project…that was a nightmare 😂), had, for a while, us indexing the deceased spouse in addition to the principal, so Walter E. Burton would've been indexed along with Harriet. The project gods got rid of that while still in Part A and jettisoned the Directory Place and Year in Part B.
0 -
I'm a little confused about the multiple name comment. I was indexing the name of Corriveau and at the end of that group of people it stated see also Carriveau. Am I to go back and add Carriveau to each of those names?
0 -
@Sandy Caudill, no, that's not at all what that entry says. It says that if you didn't find your person listed under Corriveau, then you should try looking under Carriveau. The people listed under Corriveau specifically weren't named Carriveau, and should not be indexed with that name.
2 -
Do not index a deceased spouse; ( City directories ) Yes,, I know instructions read this way…. What I cannot understand is WHY?? 99% of the names we submit are deceased,,, so why not those listed in a city directory??? The deceased spouse name would sure help identifying,,, expecially in very common names.
Yes, I am sure an investigator could find this info with enough searching,,,, but it is right in front of us.. Sure wish I understand… This bugs me to not use all info available and keep it simple. Donald Robinson95
0 -
Because that's what the PI says.
1 -
Directories are only one means of finding a name or researching for genealogy or history.
0 -
I worked for the Family History Library for 25 years and participated on committees that developed template fields for indexing (formerly called extraction) various records. No way would we have left off spouse names, whether dead or alive in directories. It doesn't make sense to me either as indicated by some above. When we had quality feedback from patrons (indexers or researchers) we honestly discussed this further…and often changed the project instructions.
It would be nice for someone to explain why spouses indicated as (wid) shouldn't be indexed. It bothers me in my heart, the spirit and mind to leave them off.
The project instructions should be changed. We would have done that in this case. It doesn't require a new template.
I'm not feeling good about simple explanations just saying "follow the PI." We would like some legitimate answers. We're all in this work together and feel we should be permitted to offer recommendations.
2 -
It's not indexed because that is what the PI calls for. When the researcher finds the person they are looking for, they will be able to see the deceased spouse.
1 -
My suggestions for why deceased spouses should be left out of directory indexing;
- They are (almost certainly) not going to be lost. Unlike extracts of parish registers where that baptism was probably the only record of the linkage between a child and its parent(s), there's almost certainly another edition of that directory from a year or so earlier where the spouse will appear. There are also censuses, etc.
- When the researcher looks at the image, then they will see the info about the deceased spouse. So the deceased has not been lost. (And before anyone suggests otherwise, they should look at the image. Not to do so is not paying proper tribute to our relatives).
- If you do know someone's death date, then a general search that produces directory indexes for that person years after their death is going to be puzzling if you don't look at the original. What would the average researcher do? Ignore the entries? Assume their death date was wrong?
- What's a Directory for in genealogical terms? For recording residences - dead people don't have residences so aren't needed in a Directory index.
- What will Source Linker do with an index for a deceased person in a particular city? Almost certainly it will give them a Residence event in that city - after their death.
- Indexing deceased people will play havoc with anyone who wants to use Directory indexes for population analysis or tracking families. (E.g. my tracking of Pickstocks in the USA will be made more difficult if I have to continually remove deceased people from the lists)
For me, the important part is that the Directory entries are not (usually) the only record of someone's existence. If they were, it would be different. As it is, if the Directory does happen to be the only clue about someone's existence (e.g. in the 1880 to 1900 census gap), then they will be visible on the image.
1 -
To me this still doesn't make sense in not index deceased spouses in the directories. It's always better to have two ancestor contact points than one in research. What if the full major name in the index is not known to the researcher…but the deceased spouses name (first & last) is? By looking at the source and finding the last name one could scan through the surnames and find the deceased individuals name in ( ) and make a connection. That's how genealogical research is done all the time. The more names indexed for a record the greater the possibility for hits, links and connections. Isn't the major reason for indexing records is to find ancestor names and insure they have temple ordinances. Using records for other purposes is important but secondary.
But I can tell, this is a losing battle to explain because the typical answer is always …."because the PI says so." If my employees working at information desks always gave this narrow advice, we would not have established the quality instructions that we did. Also, instructions should not be confusing or overly complicated. Our motto was to always simplify to the best that we can.
Another issue. General instructions are, "index the information as it is listed." But each indexer has their opinion of what the record keeper's writing alphabet looks like. So, as a result, many indexes are loaded with "gobbly-goop" of unusual names and places that aren't useable. With the instruction, "index the information as it is listed", we also added the advice that it "has to make sense." Make out letters in names and places by viewing the writing in the entire record and get a feeling for the record keepers alphabet style. I currently review records where there is much unusable (as is) indexed information. Perhaps there can be added instructions indicating the data has to make sense. Just suggesting. But that's why we have the review process,, right? We try and make it usable. Not every participant is a professional handwriting expert (I'm not either) but we do appreciate the efforts of all indexers, nonetheless.
I'm not trying to be contrary in all this, but my employee and former (accredited researcher) backgrounds are rearing their (maybe ugly to some) heads. Perhaps I should be silent and just review, review, review.
Take care all.
0
