US—City Directories, 1902–1935 [Part I] [MQGJ-R5J].
Should this be indexed as a city directory? Are the dollar amounts something for tax records? In previous directory projects, there was a question asked regarding the dollar amounts and the answer was that amount is showing bank account balances and should be indexed. Wanting to check on that for this one.
Image Name009173907_01406
Batch IDMQGJ-R5J
Thank you.
Best Answer
-
This should be indexed.
0
Answers
-
Also in the same project, it says not to index business information. However, some of the businesses have people names for the various positions associated with the business. I have been indexing the people names but not the business name. My rational is that this project is indexing just names of people but not addresses so I figured all names are good info. Have I done wrong? If I have done wrong, perhaps the instructions need a little more clarity as to what is "Business information" and to exclude people names associated with a business entry as well as the business name.
I haven't had any of my contributions reviewed yet so I am asking this way to get a quicker answer so I can fix my approach if I am wrong.
billbuyers
0 -
You do not index people within a business listing. They will have their own separate entry elsewhere in the directory.
0 -
Bill, You won't know when your batches are reviewed or what the results of the review are. When you submit your indexed batch it goes into a "pool". A reviewer asks for a batch to review and it is a random batch from the indexed batches.
1 -
When we still used desktop indexing, indexers got feedback from reviewers. Things like "height is indexed a 6 2." or "Spouse's last name is indexed," but desktop indexing has been gone since 2017? 2018?
1 -
Ah, I was wondering what happened to getting a review report. I see the "Reviewed" line under my total indexed on My Batches page. But it is just 0. It just shows how long it's been since I did any indexing (Ha Ha). I'm retired now and finished my service missions so I am taking up indexing again.
Sorry for missing up the business indexing. I did about 4 batches/700 records that probably included about a couple dozed names in the incorrect way. I will say that if the business person name showed up later in the batch, I did not index it twice. In fact I looked for the name else ware in the batch before indexing it as part of a business entry. Thankfully we have reviewers to find and fix the mistakes of guys like me.
As I said in my original post, there may be an opportunity here to clarify this in the project instructions for the other literal readers like me.
Thank you Dave Morris6 and erutherford for the instruction.
Bill
0 -
Bill, the "Review" under your indexing totals is how many records you've reviewed, if you're a reviewer.
1 -
what does the asterick mean?
1 -
Here is another question I have when reviewing a batch. There are two entries on the directory that are both given name Jno (no middle initial) at different addresses. But only one has been indexed. There is another case where there are two with the same given name but each has a middle initial to differentiate them and both are indexed.
This also happened on the last batch I indexed. There were five "John" (no middle initial) entries. I indexed all of them.
Should both be indexed when there aren't any middle initials but different addresses
Bill
0 -
If you have multiple people under the same exact name; I.E. 5 John Doe's, only the first John Doe will be indexed. You will then skip to the next unique entry, I.E. John A. Doe. The same rule applies to John A. Doe. Addresses are not considered when indexing.
0 -
These aren't John Doe's. They are associated with other surnames. Reynolds in the case of the two "Jno" Reynolds. The "John's" I mentioned had a surname that started with "S".
If they aren't JOhn Doe's does each one get indexed?
0 -
Also two Chas Reynolds with different professions and addresses in the same batch I've been talking about but only one indexed.
0 -
It's the same rule if the name is Reynolds, Rutherford, Cook, Smith, etc.
If there are multiples of the exact name; Jno Reynolds, only the first Jno Reynolds is indexed, then you will skip to the next unique name; Jno A. Reynolds, Jno B. Reynolds, etc. The researcher will be able to see their Jno Reynolds, even if it's not the first one listed, when s/he views the document.1 -
Got it. Thanks again. Bill
0 -
If the researcher see's the document and attaches the document to a Jno Reynolds and there are multiples. Wouldn't it tell you to detach the record from the other Jno Reynolds so that you can attach it to your Jno Reynolds?
1 -
I've had several that were the same as far as the Fields go but one field the project doesn't have and that is race. On these Directories they have some that are ( c ) and some that are not. According to the index guidelines the "C" is for Colored. So, I have some names identical but one has the "C" and the other does not.
0 -
Regardless of the other information in the directory, whether that's the race or the address or something else, if the two indexing entries would end up identical, the instructions are to only enter it once.
I have also wondered how this instruction will interact with FamilySearch's index-primary data structure: what will happen when someone wants to attach the directory to a different John Reynolds?
1 -
Sadly, the reaction to similar comments made here in the past has been that indexers need not worry about such matters - they should just follow the PIs and let someone else worry about any post-indexing issues.
However, you have raised a very valid issue about the problems that would arise here in attaching the future single record / source, which can then only be attached to one of the (say) Jno Reynolds individuals that have a separate ID in Family Tree.
Admittedly, (I believe) it is possible to attach to multiple IDs via the Source Box feature, as well as it being possible of attaching the image (URL) rather than the record (URL) in such a case. But this case really does illustrate one of my constant gripes about the lack of coordination between different sections / teams within FamilySearch. The managers of the "Indexing" team really must work closely with the team to whom they pass their completed projects, in order that it is of the best possible standard once the records reach the Historical Records database.
I get it that a record custodian is entitled to lay down the conditions for which items are indexed from their set of records. In which case, this could cause problems if they were saying only the name of the individual could be indexed (i.e., nothing to distinguish one "Jno Reynolds" from another - whether occupation, race, etc.), but if there is any option available to FamilySearch to be able to differentiate between individuals, I believe it should be taken. This would allow, at a later stage, for Family Tree users to straightforwardly add the indexed sources to each of the IDs to which they are meant to be attached.
Unfortunately, the project leaders / management of the Indexing section of FamilySearch appear to have chosen not to engage with Community members (by their lack of participation in this forum), leaving the "addressing" of issues like this to experienced indexers - who, of course, have no control over the processes, or knowledge of any contractual obligations attached to specific projects.
From the point of view of the Family Tree users who are going to have to make best use of this indexed material, the current situation does produce a feeling of exasperation - especially in knowing that (at least in the case of some projects) a little more flexibility with the PIs would add considerable quality to the finished product.
0 -
From an indexing point of view, it makes perfect sense not to repeat identical entries, and not to go into details of address and race and whatnot. Indexing has to balance speed versus utility: the more fields you add to the index, the longer it takes to complete, so only those fields should be included that will make it significantly easier to find people. (Also, more fields means larger database, and larger database means slower searches.)
In terms of data validation, it's not the index's fault that FS's structure falsely prioritizes the finding aid. If the system makes it difficult to attach a directory to a different John Reynolds, then perhaps it's the system that needs to change. I vaguely hope that the indexing instruction not to repeat identical names indicates an intention to revise the prioritization of indexes in FS's structures — although I realize that this is highly unlikely. Occam's Razor says that it's just FS's disparate parts being largely unaware of each other, as usual.
0
