Questioning Value of Source Consistency
It seems Source Consistency can be and perhaps is more of a measure of how many records have been indexed than a measure of research on individuals. Probably most of the research I do is in areas where no indexing has been completed. I attach links to original records and transcribe info from original record, but the system apparently isn't sophisticated enough to recognize the value of such links as indexed. Plus indexed records are often incomplete, leaving much info from the indexed record unavailable to the casual researcher. I do understand that familysearch wants records to be attached when available, but if you're going to score it, the system should only count it if it can find familysearch-indexed records that are available and left unattached.
Comments
-
Good feedback. I've noticed that some of the most serious researchers are researching in areas where FamilySearch doesn't have indexed records.
As we work on solutions for image only / non-indexed records it would be helpful if you and others could provide example person ids that have been well researched and that have no available indexed records.
0 -
Regarding indexed record consistency, I've run into a couple of instances where the index record has not properly coincided with the correct document image; being off by one or two pages. This necessitates a bit more hunting for the correct image, but also a two stage process where the source linker is used to match the index information to the correct profiles, but then the image must be saved separately to the Source Box and linked to the profiles again. I'm not sure how these off-sets occurred, but I assume the indexing for that whole series of images may also be similarly off.
0
