the new Quality Score feedback and questions
I really like the new Quality Score. Especially that it allows me to click on the score and see what can be done to make the score go up or become stronger if already high.
I have sometimes been frustrated when details are changed on an ancester who is already well documented. Can this Quality score help in some way lock down an account (not sure if that is the right word). By locked down i'm refering to the way many famous peoples account or profile is locked down to prevent changes, since they are so well documented and nothing of their core details are in contention. It would be nice if once the quality score becomes high that then some means could be employed to prevent changes that would reduce changes to the ancestors high quality data… a flag message if a change that would reduce the quality is detected… or some other means. not only for the quality of a persons data, but the quality of the persons connection to another person (to parents, children, spouse).
Also, could there be a way to search for the low and middle quality folks, so that i could turn my attention where it is needed easier? perhaps on the pedigree charts view, embolden the boarder around their name or on the pedigree view add an option to (birth place, sources, stories, photos, research helps etc.) to highlight the low and medium quality folks. But a search would be better, Family Search needs a way for us to search the tree closes to us… some examples…. with an option to tell the search to look 10 ancestors deep in the tree, and add children to a chosen amount of generations… then to search for quality scores of our choosing, who has hints, possible duplicates, other data problems etc.
These are just thoughts that seem useful to me. Thanks for listening
Comments
-
@O'Dwyer, Paul Kent thank you for your feedback. Regarding (Can this Quality score help in some way lock down an account). While this is not possible at present. You can initiate an alert for the profile you are concerned about. Here is an article with some ideas:
Your second request (Could there be a way to search for the low and middle quality folks). We have a ticket issued for this particular request. I will add this discussion to that group :)
0 -
thanks for your answer and submitting a ticket.
0 -
How can Quality score be have the warning message: "Please review the tagged sources before editing this information." when the date of birth has not been standardized? Example: Alma V. StognerFemale11 October 1903 – 22 May 1955•LV6J-66T (11 Oct 1903)? Other instances, I've seen where neither the date of birth or the birthplace were standardized.
0 -
Second example: Birth Vital Info beign rated "High"
Luella M HolmanFemale21 February 1915 – 20 May 2005•LT7X-9G1. Birth Quality Score is rated "High" when neither the date or place of birth have been standardized. Date of Birth: "21 Feb 1915" and birthplace: ", , Washington"
0 -
@kellyrsullivan1, all of the dates and places on both of those profiles are standardized. What causes you to believe otherwise?
0 -
It's been a while since we've had this conversation. Kelly's post probably should have started a new discussion since it is a new topic not having much to do with the original post. and might get long so I wouldn't be surprised if a moderator splits it off.
@kellyrsullivan1 , all dates and place names in FamilyTree have two components, the displayed date or place and the standardized version date and place which are linked to the displayed versions. As long as the two are properly linked, the date and place are standardized. The displayed values can be more complete, identical to, or less complete than the linked standards.
The difference between the displayed value and the standardized value is important to understand because some users get confused about this and think that only entering the standardized value is acceptable practice in Family Tree. They then go around removing perfectly good and important data from dates and places such as changing "Apartment 101, 45 North 53rd Street, New York City, New York, United States" to the inferior "New York City, New York, United States" or "Tuesday, 23 March 1925" to "23 March 1925" in the name of "standardization" when they are actually degrading the information entered by other researchers. This should not be done.
It is easy to tell if dates and places are standardized or not.
Recreating one of your examples in beta, this is how the birth information would look if not standardized (it is really hard to get a non-standardize date these days):
when standardized it looks like this:
If you click on the data, you can open the Data View pop up and see the difference between the two:
Not standardized:
Standardized:
In this last image you can clearly see the standardized values that are linked to the displayed values.
The Data Quality Score routine only looks at the standardized values. It does not look at the displayed values at all.
I'll continue with your question in a second post so this one does not get too many images.
0 -
Kelly, you ask why the birth information for Luella has a high rating. I have to say that I don't know exactly what determines the low, medium, and high labels but let's make a guess. Opening the Data View popup for her birth shows:
Opening the side panel view of the quality checker shows a fair number of potential flaws in the source indexes or on the profile:
(I wish the resizing of images here in posts worked, but it does not.)
How twelve problem flags add up to High Quality is a mystery. Opening the various categories shows:
There is only one flag that has anything to do with her birth information so that is probably why that earned a High for its quality label. Most of the flags have to do with items in the other information section. Maybe having low quality scores in the Other Information section does not count against the total score as much as when they are in the Vitals section. Maybe they don't count at all at this point.
So if we ignore all the flags in Other Information, then we are left with Birth - High because only missing a city, Christening being properly ignored in the scoring because billions of people have never been christened, Death - High even though it has two source consistency flags which doesn't make since because it seems that those two flags should reduce it at least to a Medium, Burial - no label because it is missing completely which triggers only one flag which may not have much more influence on the overall score than christening since burial information is often viewed as just a stand in for missing death information and not all that important in and of itself.
I summary, I am also a bit surprised that Luelle's profile has an overall score of high and would be very interested in knowing more about how the score is calculated. I am also surprised that having only a state for the birth place would give a high quality score that triggers the editing warning when you would think we should be encourage to add a city and county to improve her birth place rather than be warned that we should think twice about doing so.
Looking at the nine indexed sources tagged to her birth, I see that only five of them include birth place information. Of these, four state just Washington. But the fifth gives Reardon, Washington. I would think that this should trigger a Source Consistency flag for the birth place, lower the score to Medium, and encourage the addition of Reardon to her birthplace.
I think this quality scoring has great potential, but Luella's profile shows that it still needs a lot of refining which is the entire reason they have this feedback group.
0 -
I think, certainly during this initial bedding-in stage, FS should publish the algorithm used to calculate the DQS. That would make it far easier for the community to check, discuss, and where necessary challenge.
0
