Reviewers messing up correct batches. Eastern New York.
Today I've had 3 Batches returned for reviewing that were redone improperly. They were duplicate images and redone. I know they are returns because I saw the original Duplicate image number still there from the original Indexing. Whoever redid them just BLANKED the second Image. The First Image was re-done incorrectly.
Answers
-
The problem, to me at least, is that reviewing is available after 1,000 indexed batches. A lot of indexers do not know what they are doing after 1,000 batches, so why is reviewing allowed after such a small amount? There really needs to be something that must be accomplished before being able to index and review.
3 -
While reviewing the New York project, I've come across two big things: not checking for name variations and putting unnecessary information on the OOA. Say Joe Smith is on the Oath. The indexers feel the need to add things that are on the PET to the OOA. No, no and no. The Oath is indexed with the name and date only. If the indexers only took the time to read the PI, the examples and the entire document.
I've also come across batches where what was indexed does not match what is on the document. So Joe Smith is the applicant. The PET is as follows:
Record number: 1212
Given Name: Joe
SN: Smith
DOB: 21 Mar 1900
Birthplace: Leeds, England
Spouses Given Name: Bertha
Spouses Birthplace: Leeds, England
Spouses Birth Year: 1899
Record Date: 21 Dec 1939
I get batches where Joe Smith's PET is indexed as follows:
Record number: 1303
Given Name: Mike
SN: Zubica
DOB: 10 July 1877
Birthplace: Cairo, Egypt
Spouses Given Name: Helene
Spouses Birthplace: Chicago, Illinois
Spouses Birth Year: 1881
Record Date: 1 Sept 1942
I look at the reference images and sometimes Mike's information is on one of those images, sometimes it's not. The indexers has to be purposefully messing it up. This is more on the Kansas/Nebraska Naturalizations. I haven't had many of these, but it is so frustrating to see.0 -
And, part of the problem is that pi examples don't always match the printed forms. Another problem, as I see it is the instruction concerning surnames — even the words "formerly known as" don't always mean the formerly known by name is actually a maiden name as the PET example suggests. All surname variations should be listed as Smith Or Jones, not as Smith Jones.
0 -
All these problems are one reason its taking so long to finish these projects and I hate to think what final version is being sent out online and back to the actual custodians who approved the contract with FS
0 -
The projects like Nee York and Illinois take a long time because they encompass so many records and not a huge amount of people know about FS, let alone Indexing. I like it because I'm disabled (and don't have use of my right arm) and am home all day. It keeps me out of trouble ;)
With the surnames, why have a rule where the males have Or between their names, like Smith Or Jones, but the females are Smith Jones? Why can't the females be Smith Or Jones? The researcher who views the document will be able to see the maiden name.0 -
I have been doing that more often BECAUSE I have only seen 1 or 2 Nee's. Thanks for the advice. But to be on the safe side, why not try to contact someone to confirm to go or not to go OUTSIDE of the General Indexing Guidelines? I don't know who or how to do that. I just Review and Index only.
1
