PLACE is wrong in index for image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG27-BKZ1
I fixed the place in this record to Chicago, but you can see that it is coming up as Minnesota. I'm hoping someone can fix the batch for
#007856396 Item 2 which is a church in Chicago
I tried support and feedback already.
Answers
-
Repaired URL: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QG27-BKZ1
0 -
The collection information says "Minnesota, Church Records" because the film that the originating image is on contains multiple items, including item 8: Church records, 1878-1916 from the Methodist Episcopal Church in Hutchinson, Minnesota (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/776961).
The assignment of one item's location information to every index entry associated with an entire film is a long-standing error in FS's processes. They're supposedly working on separating items for permissions/viewability purposes; perhaps such location errors will also eventually get fixed as a side effect of such efforts.
In the meantime, never take FS's word on "where", for a multiplicity of reasons. Between the multi-item film errors, the farcical cataloging data in the new image viewer/editor, and the autostandardization bot's depradations (now fully disguised and untraceable), you simply cannot believe what index entries say about locations. Of course, if possible, you should always compare everything that an index says to the actual document, no matter what website you're using, but this is particularly important for placename fields in FS's indexes.
2 -
And, it's not something "someone can fix" if you mean a member of this Community. You could try reporting a catalog error, but the catalog has been locked for more than 2 years. The last post I saw on that subject said it would not be updated for the foreseeable future.
0 -
@Beverly Smallwood Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have escalated the issue. Thank you for your patience while we work towards a resolution.
0 -
@Ashlee C. FYI - it's not an isolated item. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of instances.
0 -
Here's what I found out: FamilySearch Catalog is currently undergoing a significant upgrade. Because of this we aren't escalating these types of issues at this time. While we wait for the improvements, here are some things you can do:
- edit records for your ancestors where that is possible
-if not editable and the record image is available, open the image and use it as the source. Use the image URL to create a source in Family Tree. Adding the image to source box or using an Attach to Tree button in the image viewer results in the index coming in as the source--so use the URL.
--if not editable and no image is available, attach as is and note the error
If you encounter any more errors in the catalog, the best way to report them is by using the feedback button on the relevant page. This ensures your concerns reach the appropriate team for prompt attention. We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work to improve the catalog.
0 -
@Ashlee C., except the catalog is 100% completely correct about these records. There is not a single thing wrong with what it says about them. The error is in the index metadata: said data is taken from one (randomly-chosen) part of the film or image group, and applied to everything associated with the film, totally without any regard whatsoever to what part of the film any particular entry actually came from.
As Áine said, there are a very large number of records affected by this error in the process. I would put the numbers easily in the tens of thousands, but probably more like many hundreds of thousands or even millions of index entries.
There is no Feedback tab on Records - Search results or index detail pages. What is the recommendation for reporting such index metadata errors, given this lack of a mechanism on any of the affected pages?
4 -
I concur with Julia's analysis. I've been working in New Jersey vital records while at my Affiliate Library this week. Every one of those records is shown as being from whatever county is first on the film, and that is rarely the county where the vital event was registered.
And there is no way we, the users, can correct that displayed county.
4
