Approx 150 copies of same record

bekasu

I was working my Dehnel line and found this unattached record:

Mary Agnes Dehnel

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65JR-HCX6

"Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1981", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65JR-HCX6 : Sat Apr 13 02:47:32 UTC 2024), Entry for Maria Agnes Dehnel and Ignatz Dehnel.

Appears to have about 150 exact, duplicate records which are not attached to the family tree. I started to create Mary's family and make the attachment; but stopped when I realized there appears to be a problem. The shear number of identical entries seems like a duplication error.

How do I get someone to determine if these are all valid?

Julia Szent-Györgyi

Rescued link: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65JR-HCX6

There is definitely something very wrong. The index detail page of course tries to go to the new viewer (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9S1-8CYZ?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3A65JR-HCX6&action=view), but after about ten minutes of waiting for it to load the side panel, I gave up and switched to the old viewer (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9S1-8CYZ?i=160). Using that, I looked at several images, and the Image Index tab had the first person on the page repeated for every entry. I didn't count every time, but on the ones where I did, there were exactly one dozen identical entries per image.

For example, the image that I got to from Mary Agnes had the following index entries associated with it:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:657W-TBDS
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65JR-HC65
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65VP-GSRN
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65V1-LQY6
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65K3-K34V
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65KW-BY34
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65KZ-83NF
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65KX-KK61
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65KV-FWLY
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65KG-XN6J
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65KR-NBBM
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65K1-HHSC

They're all for Wenzel Johann Popeler, not Mary Agnes Dehnel, despite being the same image as the one that her index page goes to (Film # 005649414 image 161 of 332).

There was (or is?) an error reported for some U.S. Censuses, where index correction resulted in entire households turning into the same person. (Naturally, I can't get the Community's Search-farce to cough up any relevant threads.) Perhaps this is somehow related?

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@Julia Szent-Györgyi That error was the 1900 census. I was able to force search to share because I knew I had participated in several relevant threads. Here's one

https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/417177#Comment_417177

If you want more, search on "1900 census" and filter on my username.

bekasu

I am in awe of your detailed analysis!

I am a novice when it comes to searching via the citation/record source, so this opened my eyes to another avenue which could be causing the false references.

Very interested to see how this turns out.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

Here's the Records search that shows the 148 exact matches to "Maria Agnes Dehnel" on film 5649414: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.filmNumber=5649414&q.givenName=Maria%20Agnes&q.givenName.exact=on&q.surname=Dehnel&q.surname.exact=on

There are also exactly 148 exact matches to "Wenzel Johann Popeler". Each match is identical: same birthdate, same birthplace, same parents — although, interestingly, the latter more-or-less alternate in the search results list as to which one is listed first or second. I didn't check all 148, but the ones I did all had identical "Document Information" sections, too (Digital Folder Number 005649414, Image Number 161).

The reason the new viewer takes a full fifteen minutes to load the side panel — and gives an error message at the end — is that it's loading ALL of those entries: ten baptisms times 148 entries each = 1480 entries on image 161. No, I didn't do a full count, but I did verify that yes, there are ten different names of principals, and I did count that there are 148 entries for Vinzenzia Boleslawsky on the side panel. Yes, there are also exactly 148 exact matches for her on this film in Search - Records.

The new viewer is very bad at browsing under the best of circumstances; for this film, it's completely unusable: the reaction to each mouse click or scroll is delayed by several seconds, and the side panel takes ten to fifteen minutes to load for every single image.

Thanks to Áine's link, I was able to refresh my memory of the U.S. Census gremlin, and I'm not sure it's related to this problem: the census one is definitely connected to index correction attempts, and the number of affected entries varies by household. The mathematical precision of this problem implies some sort of background process run amok, not anything prompted by human activities.

Jan Travers

Hello bekasu

There is obviously an error with the indexing entry for Maria Agnes Dehnel and Ignatz Dehnel in the Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1981at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65JR-HCX6 as you have found there are many duplicated copies.

FamilySearch appreciates Feedback to improve their site and the best way to bring this matter to the attention of the engineers is via the feedback facility. If you open the image you will find a sideways Feedback button on the left side of the screen. On a few screens, Feedback appears at the lower edge.

• Click Feedback
• Click an emoji that best fits the situation.
• Enter your comment.
• (Optional) Add your email address.
• Click Submit.

This information can be found in an article at https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-give-feedback-to-familysearch

I hope this information helps to get this matter corrected.

MandyShaw1

Yes this specific bit of corruption badly needs urgent fixing, but what we really need is a clear statement a) of when a permanent fix will be in place to prevent index edits (manual or automated) from corrupting indexes (if it isn't in place already), b) how long fixes to reported corruptions can be expected to take, and c) when all existing unreported corruptions resulting from these major bugs are expected to have been identified and fixed. @Ashlee C.

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@Jan Travers A couple of points, if I may -

1. Because of problems with the Community platform, pasted URLs are often corrupted, even for experienced users. Your URL should be https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:65JR-HCX6 (removing the 3 sets of %3A and replacing them with : (colons)).
2. A similar problem exists on the FamilySearch main site: the Feedback button is often missing. AdBlock, uBlock, and MalwareBytes Browser Guard are among 3 add-ons known to keep the Feedback button from appearing or from functioning properly. There are surely others.

Because of this issue, many novice users have no idea there should be a Feedback button. Until those issues are addressed and corrected, many will never know Feedback can be given.

Edit to add: And the engineers will be oblivious to serious issues, thinking that no feedback received equals no problems found by users.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

The Feedback tab is sometimes missing from the new viewer, even if you've never used an ad blocker in your entire life. It's unpredictable, but I think it has to do with browsers running out of patience. 1480 entries taxes them rather severely.

I'm in the process of using the Feedback tab on image 161, but I got as far as pasting in the link to this thread before Firefox stopped responding on that tab and came up with the "this website is slowing down your browser" message. Now I'm fighting with the smarter-than-thou browser and may need to give up and start over.

Áine Ní Donnghaile

Yes, I encountered that this week. I have all extensions turned off for FamilySearch on both FF and Chrome, and still a new viewer window had no Feedback tab.

Ashlee C.

@bekasu Thank you for reporting this. I have escalated this issue. Thank you for your patience while we work towards a resolution.

bekasu

Thank you Ashlee …

Have a blessed day.

Ashlee C.

@bekasu This issue should be resolved now. It would be helpful it you would look at the record again and let me know if you still have issues. Thanks!