Not a fan of this Data Quality Score
I'm entering data from images of an unindexed German churchbook from the late 1800s for a small village north of Stettin (Szczecin), Poland. There was no civil registry at this point, so this one churchbook, which I scanned at a Polish State Archive, is probably the only record of this person's birth. "Sex" is not indexed because it was not indicated in churchbooks in this area at this time; it was determined from the person's given names. I've tagged the name, birth and christening dates. Other than this source, what would a second "expected tagged source" be? If I happen to find a death record, I will enter that information and also tag it, but that will likely be from the same source (this one churchbook), so the "Data Quality Score" will not be improved. All things considered, giving this information an overall score of "Medium Quality" does not seem right, as there does not appear to be anything more that can be done to improve this score without some kind of additional, miraculous intervention. Therefore, I do not find this Data Quality Score to be very helpful or motivating to make further improvements.
P.S. Using a number, such as "3" or "5", might be less judgmental-sounding than using an adjective such as "Medium" to rate the quality. Also, you might consider the time, place and description(s) of the records before making your quality judgments.
P.P.S. The Person on which your rating first came up was #G1XM-ZTX.
Comments
-
I concur that this "score" nonsense is …annoying at best.
Is there some way to turn it off?
Please??
1 -
I too concur. I'd rather not have it on my screen. Please allow it to be optional.
2 -
I fully agree with the above comments. This "data quality score" function has nothing to do with the relevance of the sourcing, or its accuracy. Please stop putting in useless things and focus on what is actually relevant to the task at hand, which is to facilitate data entry.
2 -
Just wondering, if this first attempt to get people to leave good data alone is not what people were hoping to see, what would be better? Is there anything that people would accept which slows down their own data entry for the sake of preventing inappropriate editing by others? In other words, what level of irritation is acceptable if it keeps other peoples fingers off of what you have entered?
1 -
I concur. I'd rather not have it on my screen. Please allow it to be optional. I use the suggestions for related sources and possible duplicates in Research Helps all the time , so I don't want to hide the whole Research Helps, just this Data Quality section.
2 -
@Gordon Collett, as currently presented, I don't think this "score" thing is likely to get anyone to leave anything alone. Quite the opposite, in fact, unless every single item in the list is already at zero.
Oh. Yikes. You're talking about the extra impedance on actually DOING anything on a profile.
That's … Ugh. I don't have any sufficiently-polite words to post here.
PLEASE REVERSE THIS INSANITY.
1 -
It would be nice if there was a function to flag certain photographs that are posted within the "data conflict" realm that prompts users to use caution when redistributing or using this photo for genealogical work. I am seeing a lot of photos being placed on entries pre-1900 that are clearly not that individual, have no provenance or are just questionable, and people don't see that there are challenges to that photograph's accuracy.
1 -
I think its a step backwards; encouraging people to add any sources regardless of accuracy, to fill all bars & 'win', like a computer game - 'Can you get the profile to HIGH quality?! - keep clicking!'
- But it won't 'work' for profiles of those who died young as there are naturally fewer sources.
I find it unnecessarily distracting, esp the colours; I don't find the function useful but it makes itself hard to ignore - I realise a lot've effort must go into coding these things, but could there be a way to make it optional /hide the new dialogue, please?!3 -
I hope that you are in charge of this group, didn't get paid for this. Seriously take it down! Those of us that are Faithful and Diligent in doing this work are doing the very best that we can. I hope that you are using your time more wisely in helping to extract or working on other things as well. God Bless Us All In All That We Are Doing!
I also find it unnecessary and annoying!
1 -
An assessment of the quality of a record's data is a great idea. The people criticizing this change are more experienced and are less likely to introduce data quality issues. This feature will hopefully guide those who are less experienced and prevent many of the common data problems we see. Change is good :)
1 -
That's right! I have been doing genealogy research for over 35 years. And some of the changes have been totally great. This is not one of them. My work is all voluntarily. As is most of ours. I work on research between 20-40 hours a week or more. I feel like my Loving Heavenly Father is my judge. And those that are less experience and will be criticized will be discouraged and not use it. I am many a times come upon a total mess. And I never critic them. We are all doing the best we can. Helping one another. You guys have made so many changes the last couple of years, that I have sometimes had it said that they are just tired of the changes and aren't going to keep up with it. Best Wishes!
1 -
I have a couple of suggestions for your trying to train those that get on family search.
When they first get on have them get some training…either through the libraries, missionaries, pamphlets, etc. There are so many many changes like even how we see the records has been amazingly awesome. Someone might not know such as a very simple thing such as if you put infant girl in the first given name that the temple work won't got through. Or how about the maiden name for the women. I still see a lot of that being using and the maiden name wouldn't come up if it is wrong. And how about find-a-grave, if you put the wrong date and place it won't come up.
Also on your back end of you guys picking up your data, how about when you see someone's work consistently not going through have someone contact them and help them. (missionaries)
Just a few thoughts I have been thinking about, since this came on!
PS I love that when you first add a link such as 1910 census and you open that date on the person's data you can actually see all of that information. A miracle more me. I was either printing it out or writing it out. I'll take all of those miracles you can give us. SO THANK YOU! GOD BLESS US ALL IN THIS VERYIMPORTANT WORK.
0 -
Update: the wording has been changed to:
The name has fewer than 2 tagged sources.
I hope this helps.
0
