Who can make corrections to Image titles?
This record image is erroneously labeled as Jones, Iowa, but should be Jones County NC. Who can correct it?
Best Answer
-
Repaired URL https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSCX-GL7Z?view=explore&action=view&groupId=TH-909-62542-16870-4
The location was correct until the placename standardization algorithm changed it.
Event Place
Pollocksville, Jones, North Carolina, United Stateswas changed to Jones, Meade, South Dakota, United States
There was a process in place to report such problems for eventual correction. Unfortunately, that option is no longer available.
3
Answers
-
Thanks for your feedback. I have escalated this issue. Also, I moved the discussion into the Search category.
0 -
@Ashlee C. You might want to check with @N Tychonievich who informed us that this issue should not be reported because the team responsible had enough information. See this thread.
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile Thank you for the heads up. I'll look into it.
1 -
I think I was able to get this corrected. All the ones I checked show in Jones county, North Carolina. If you find something different, please let me know! Sam 😀
0 -
Thanks you.
Is there a reason why these may have been fixed, but the ones reported over two years still have the incorrect places?
1 -
Thank you for your efforts to fix the errors in Jones County. It appears this is not an isolated case as I have found thousands of place name errors in this collection. Mecklenburg County, NC is indexed as Mecklenburg, Germany, North Hampton County, NC is indexed as North Hampton, England, and Camden County, NC is as Camden, New South Wales, Australia—to name just a few. As many in the community have suggested, this seems to be a system wide problem that really needs to come to the forefront.
2 -
It would be good if FS could tell us how they are approaching this overall issue, so we know what to expect. Perhaps they're correcting one collection at a time (they'll clearly need to be super careful with the algorithm, given the spectacular failure of version one).
4 -
As other Community members are querying, as you appear to have known who to approach to get this one example fixed, can you please provide some feedback from them / that team as to the nature of any ongoing exercise that is attempting to fix the overall problem?
@N Tychonievich has advised no more examples need to be reported, as the team concerned have had enough reports already: but does that mean the reports that have reached them so far are as many as they can cope with, or that the reports have provided a basis for a "solution" to the wider problem?
Sadly, examples still appear to be arising: the latest one I have come across relating to the England & Wales Probate collection, where U.S. placenames are suddenly appearing: in spite of there not being even a similar name in the original indexes - for either the place of death or probate registry office.
4 -
Hey everyone! In this case, I was able to fix it myself as it didn't require digging into the database, so I just did it. Most issues are more complex or take more time.
Unfortunately N Tychonievich was given incorrect information. (Working to get this miscommunication corrected.) We want to know about records issues you find and we continue to report them and they continue to fix them. This includes standardization issues, incorrect titles, or other things.
I can tell you there is a long backlog of issues. They have to keep up with all the new data coming in, while trying to fix issues in an extremely large database. I am working with that team to try to see what we can do better and faster. They do suggest that if what you see seems to be a few records that you correct them if you are able but be sure to report issues that involve large datasets, like a whole film. If in doubt, just report it.
It was asked what approach they are using to fixing them. The answer is, it depends. Some issues are only found when you report them. These are ones we are most concerned about and why we need you to keep reporting them. Some they know about or are able to identify through database queries. Some require code to fix large batches. Some issues are tied to contracts or partner sites. It's a little bit of a lot of things. There is a bucket of tickets specific to these types of issues and they try to handle them in order.
I feel your pain, I really do. I'm a researcher just like you guys (when I'm not at work 🙂). It's a passion for me, so when you report something not working, I take it kind of personal and want to get it fixed for you. So that's what I try to do. We're tracking the issues you report in the community like never before and report back to you when we have answers or resolution. We're in the background talking to folks about getting your issues resolved and we are trying to ensure that you hear from us at FamilySearch. I'm really glad you're here, hanging on with us 🙃.
2 -
Sorry for my slow response. The collection is actually titled "England and Wales, National Index of Wills and Administrations, 1858-1957" and the page referenced below partly highlights the issue I reported above:
Having examined the official (Gov.UK) Find A Will website (at https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/ ) I have to concede that some records do refer to individuals who were resident in the US, but had probate granted in the United Kingdom. However, there are errors attached even to these, and I will highlight some examples below:
Eliza Wilson 1885
Original shows of Southport, Lancaster, probate granted at Liverpool, executor of York.
FS search result shows probate at "Manchester, York, Pennsylvania, United States", although the FS record records an "Event Place" of "York, Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom".
William Frederick Wilson 1909
Original shows he was resident in Dublin
FS research result shows probate at "Dublin, London Township, Sumner, Kansas, United States"
Agnes Plumpton Wilson 1904
Original and FS search results do match, but FS record shows placename as "Providence, Somerset, United Kingdom" instead of "Providence, Rhode Island"
Mary Selby Wilson 1909
Original does show a United States residence: of "Chicago, Illinois", but
FS search result shows of "America, McCurtain, Oklahoma, United States"
Jane Wilson 1908
Original shows she was resident at Dublin (as with William Frederick Wilson example, above)
FS search result again shows probate at "Dublin, London Township, Sumner, Kansas, United States"
As with other indexed records, some of these examples appear to have been subject to the auto-standardization process assigning the wrong version of the place in question, but the differences between the data included in the FamilySearch search result and the FS record for the same item, and the variance again with the record found on the Find A Will website, shows the problem runs somewhat deeper.
As a further example, a general problem that has applied to the whole of this FamilySearch collection - right from when it first went online some years ago - is the refusal of FamilySearch (in spite of several user reports) to change the word "Beneficiary" that appears on records throughout. The individuals named were either Administrators or Executors of the administrations / wills in question - possibly "Beneficiaries" of the will, but this would not be known without reading the original documents.
Basically, this collection is really not fit for purpose in its present state - primarily, as the data does not match that recorded in the official records.
Any help you can provide in escalating the issue and getting an appropriate team to make a review of all the issues attached to this collection would be most appreciated.
3 -
@Sam Sulser Can you please tell us HOW we should now report the errors the place name algorithm has created? I had stopped flagging N Tychonievich since we were told the team had enough information. How do we file a report now, please?
Thanks.
4 -
Keep reporting them here in Community. We make sure they get into the right hands and then track them so we know if something has progressed or not.
0
