Regarding who is mentioned in connection with a record source
There are several instances where I run into Record Sources that are misleading in terms of who is mentioned in the Record tag. ie. see 9JD2-97F John Jobe. On several of his marriage records, instead of the tag reading the groom and bride's names, it reads the groom and another person, sometimes the father of the groom. This makes it particularly difficult to identify and match records to the appropriate PID. But this is just one profile example, it actually occurs rather frequently. Is the way the record is tagged (showing the groom and grooms father instead of the bride) the proper way for these and other records to be shown? And if not, is there any way to edit the record tag to identify the correct primary individuals? At present, that field disallows for edits.
Thank you in advance
Joachim Hawn
Answers
-
As suspected, I see the confusion has arisen following an unfortunate piece of programming by the FamilySearch engineers. Whereas these records would have previously appeared headed in the format "John Jobe in entry for Andrew Jobe", the fact that John is not the primary person in the record is now only found once the record is opened.
I have raised this issue (several months ago) and it has hopefully been escalated for attention of the appropriate FamilySearch team (by one of the Community moderators). It is certainly making my searches in the Sources sections - of those I am researching - very difficult, so I am hoping for a reversal of this change in order to overcome the problem this exercise has created.
Just to add that, somewhat surprisingly, there have been very few complaints from Community participants about this matter - I'm mystified as to why they appear to be handing this issue so easily, whereas for me it is proving quite a nightmare!
4 -
Paul, I think the reason there's no Community outcry is that we're too tired of it all, due to the source-titling system's schizophrenic episode. In fact, I'm so much done with it all that I haven't even checked lately whether that problem has been fixed yet.
1 -
Thank you both for commenting on this. I know I have grown entirely weary trying to perform searches and identifying the correct sources. I can't imagine why only few have complained about this. It quite literally undermines the premise of accurate identification of source records. So, this is a matter only FamilySearch can correct, am I interpreting that right?
1 -
@Joachim Hawn, I'm not certain I'm correctly interpreting your original post or your comment. I think, based on context, that when you write "tag" in your post, you mean the source title that appears on a profile's Sources tab, and what you're trying to point out is that the newer-style titles that Source Linker generates are less useful than the older style used to be.
For example, on John Jobe's profile, there are two 1873 sources titled John Job, "Ontario Marriages, 1869-1927" which are both his own second marriage, and then there is an 1893 source with a similar title of John Jobe, "Canada, Ontario Marriages, 1869-1927" — but which is actually the indexed marriage of his son George. I'm interpreting what you've written to mean that you, like most of us, would prefer the style of one of the 1896 source titles: John Jobe in entry for Charles Jones and Ellen Jobe, "Ontario Marriages, 1869-1927". (I still haven't figured out whose marriage the other 1896 source is actually for; its title on John's Sources list is identical to the 1893 one.)
The good news is, you can edit source titles to be whatever you need and want them to be. You could change the 1893 source's title to John Jobe, father of groom, "Canada, Ontario Marriages", for example. Or you could test whether the system is still schizophrenic and change the title to what it would be in the old style: John Jobe in entry for George Jobe and Helen Eva Hair, "Canada, Ontario Marriages, 1869-1927" — and see if it "sticks". (The basic symptom of the schizophrenia was that we were unable to save a change from the auto-generated title to the old template's title, because the system believed that the latter was what was already there.)
3 -
Julia, you are interpreting me correctly. My apology if I was not clear. The next time I encounter a source with similar title problems. Thank you.
0 -
As far as Julia's suggestion of editing is concerned, whilst this is a valid suggestion, I am now encountering hundreds of these on the profiles I have worked on, and it has been a case of "Can I afford to spent the time involved in reformatting all those headings - especially when there is still a hope that FamilySearch engineers will reverse the programming that has caused this awful change, and that valuable time will then proved to have been wasted?"
On the editing issue, I have changed quite a few of these headings (to make it clear who the source primarily concerns) and I have found that editing it to include the phrase "…in entry for…" has not made the edit stick. Whereas, using the phrase "…mentioned in the record for…" does make the edit permanent (i.e., not revert to something like "John Jobe, Ontario Marriages 1869-1927", when the source refers to the marriage of his son). (Julia explains, above, the reasoning behind the need to carefully phrase the edited title.)
My main problem lies in my preference to sort an individual's Sources section in a set order: (1) Vitals (e.g. birth, marriage, death) (2) Census (3) Other records relating directly to that person (electoral roll, military service, etc.) and (4) Sources relating to members of his family (their vitals, etc.) As you have also found, currently it is very difficult to identify where I should put them in my Sources list: e.g., "Is that 1884 event for William's own second marriage, or does it relate to a baptism / marriage of one of his children?"
I just don't think the engineers can be aware of the seriousness of the problem their change has made, or surely this would be treated as an urgent priority among the several items that currently need fixing?
1 -
What is the best way to contact FamilySearch? I think people who encounter this drop them a message about the problem.
0 -
Reporting here should be the best way to get our concerns passed to the FamilySearch team(s) concerned. However, we still have to rely on a Community moderator feeling the issue is of enough importance to escalate. Unfortunately, beyond a mod acknowledging that the issue has been passed to an "appropriate team", it might take many months before we discover any outcome - either by a moderator reporting back to us, or - as is sometimes the case - our suddenly finding the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. The final possible scenario, of course, is that we are never updated and the problem just remains, indefinitely.
BTW - In the past it was possible to send an email to Support and be provided with a case number. Sadly, this still did not always produce a favourable outcome: many of the responses were of the "copy / paste" variety and effectively advised our idea would not be considered for implementation.
0 -
@Joachim Hawn The most effective way to report errors of this nature is through the feedback tab, which directs your concerns straight to our engineering team. Please rest assured that your feedback is being heard and addressed as they are able, and remember that many of these issues are challenging and complex to resolve.
If you wish to discuss this topic further with others, the Community is the ideal platform for such discussions.0 -
@Ashlee C. I was told months and months ago that FS was looking at implementing an issue tracker to keep us posted with progress on these fixes.
The various beta Community Groups post RootsTech did a great job on keeping members updated with progress, just via a specific pinned thread on the relevant group, updated as needed. Maybe we could simply have something similar for more general issues?
None of this feels like rocket science.
Surely a two-way conversation would potentially avoid misunderstandings, allow recruitment of beta testers, avoid people asking the same question over and over again, and generally make the end result better.
1 -
@MandyShaw1 We’re actively developing the tracker you mentioned. While some of the issues may appear straightforward, they can be quite complex. Our engineers are simultaneously tackling multiple challenges. We understand waiting can be frustrating, but rest assured that progress is being made. Thank you for your patience.
0 -
@Ashlee C. wrote: "The most effective way to report errors of this nature is through the feedback tab."
Um, what feedback tab? There are none to be had on any profile detail pages, including the source list where the problem is.
0 -
@Paul W, thank you for the reminder/instigation to investigate the schizophrenia problem: it has caused me to re-encounter one of my favorite indexer misreadings, where the father's (and therefore child's) surname in a 1786 baptism was originally indexed as "Misnajaksdf". (Third entry on page, Nov. 16th, third column, beginning of second line: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-YSYD-XJM.) [*]
But back on topic: as far as I can tell, title editing is no longer behaving schizophrenically. I was able to save half a dozen edits changing the new-style _X, "Collection"_ to the old-style _X in entry for Y, "Collection"_. Yes, this sort of editing is time-consuming and tedious, but I doubt it will ever turn out to be wasted effort: in my experience, source titles are static once created. Correcting the index after it's attached certainly doesn't affect the title, anyway. I believe that any fix of the title-generator will only affect future source attachments — and even if that turns out to be wrong, I don't think the style I've adopted in my (sporadic) title-editing sprees will be wasted: I've been adding the type of event, too (such as _X in baptism of Y, "Collection"_).
[*] The correct reading is Nisnyánszkÿ.
(::grumble:: The over-helpful text entry stuff here is aggravating beyond belief. To get the underlines to stay without italicizing half the paragraph, I had to write it in a text editor, paste it in, then re-add the underlines, but strictly going backwards, because forward made them disappear again. And it's basically impossible to start a paragraph with an asterisk without it "helpfully" turning it into a bullet point.)
1
