Concerning Search engine in Family Search.

When I go into the Search to see if Family Search can find any more sources for a person it does not carry over the sex of the individual. It also does not have the ability to add the race into the search criteria. Which has cause a lot of people to merge white and black families together.
Can these two issue be added to the Search engine in Family Search when trying to find more sources for individuals.
Answers
-
The reason race is missing from the main search interface is that the vast majority of indexes have no such field, usually because the records themselves don't have it. If you use the collection-specific search page for a collection that does have that field, you can turn it on and search by it. For example, you can turn on a "Race" field for the 1930 U.S. Census.
In my experience, it is just as well that the auto-fill doesn't bother with the person's sex: about half of the indexes I work with have everyone marked as male, and about half of the remainder have everyone's sex as unknown. Given the General Indexing Guidelines and the project-specific instructions on every indexing project I've worked on, I suspect that most indexes on FS have a large proportion of entries with the sex marked as unknown, since many historical records don't record gender, but indexers aren't supposed to determine it based on people's names.
(My theory on the "everyone's male" collections is that they ran an automatic translation algorithm once too often: first it correctly turned férfi/fiú ["man/boy"] into "M" and nő/leány ["woman/girl"] into "F", but then they ran it again, which left the Ms alone but turned all the Fs into "male".)
3 -
In all the census from 1850, maybe earlier, I find they have identified M or F for male and female and they usually identify race (W,B or Mal). I am having to undo a lot of merges because someone did not pay attention to the race and undo some merges for the gender. If I had the ability to add race to the search fields, there may be less mistakes done when merging families that look the same by just looking at the names and dates. There are many examples of black and white families born during the same time frame having the same or similar names that have been merged. This could have been stopped if the race had been carried over into the search engine requirements.
There are also many times that I have searched for a male & the search engine doesn't identify him as a male & has given me results of a female having similar or even the same name. Less experienced patrons and even missionaries will combine these individuals. This could be eliminated if the search engine parameters would bring over race and gender. Usually when doing family history, race should be a parameters that is part of the essential information and not a separate category under facts. People when putting in their family names usually know what race and gender they are.
0 -
Surely people should not be merging (or indeed creating profiles) without checking all the source metadata (and if possible images) first? If they don't do that, not being able to get accurate results for race or sex on a records search will be a minor drop in their ocean of resulting nonsense, I'd have thought.
2 -
You're correct with the comment above but we do not live in a perfect world and mistakes are made, on a daily basis, because the information given to us may not be correctly imputed into the system. Many times as an individual is looking for sources for their family members, they may find something that does not specify race or gender, and in their excitement they think they have found the missing information that they have been looking for and combine that source with that individual that they are working with. Had race been apart of the "essential information section" and not as an option in the "fact section", which is hard to find if you don't happen to know what in that section, it would have been more obvious that it was not the same person. We are living in a world that has many races and our search engines need to be aware of race when searching for sources. In fact more races need to be add such as Hebrew and Mulatto
The search engine in Family Search does not automatically input the gender into its parameters, which does not make sense because a lot of options will pop up that do not support what you are looking for. Race is not even an option within the search engine parameters and again allow more options to pop up when looking for more sources that should not even be there.
If we could eliminate the possibility of giving options that are not part of the solution then we could help improve our choices when doing our work. This could be done with the help of improving the search engines in Family Search, as does ancestry.com with their search engines. A lot of people are not aware that the family they are working on because their is not enough information when looking at a certain source because the input parameters did not require or did not make it obvious of their sex or race.
0 -
As has been pointed out, project instructions for indexing projects might specifically state not to index either sex or race, this often relating to the agreement from the record custodian on what FamilySearch can index, or not. True, many US census records do have race and sex recorded, but - in view of the fact they represent a relatively small portion of FamilySearch's collections - as Mandy suggests, this should be a relatively small factor when it comes to merging two individuals. In any case, if you are dealing with a large city I do not see that race would be a main factor in determining which John Smith is which, as there are likely to be a number of individuals of such a name - white, black or whatever - so are far more careful examination needs to be carried out than any concern relating to race.
Careless users will merge individuals of the same name, regardless of them never having lived with a thousand miles of each other, so I believe we are dealing with just one fairly minor factor here if we are able to determine race.
On the issue of sex, what if an indexer has recorded that incorrectly? It will matter little that it has been indexed / carried over to the search engine if the individual was not, say, a male but a female!
1 -
Thanks, I do see your point, but the issues with the search engine go far deeper than just the handling of race and sex. The results almost always include stuff you haven't asked for, even with Exact clicked (birth date ranges seem particularly bad); the order the results come up in is unpredictable; and there is no sort function. I can't see how anyone could realistically choose any record for attachment without at least looking at the metadata (and does the UI even let you attach the record direct from the results list?)
1 -
@Van E Jenkins, careful: you're overgeneralizing. In European genealogy, "race" is a nonexistent concept.
You're also greatly overestimating the accuracy of indexes. The reason FS includes results for "Juliana" when I search for "Julius" is because the algorithm is designed to take all indexes with a grain of salt. This is a Very Good Thing; as I wrote above, if I specified "female" for a search, I would fail to find about half of the relevant results.
As Mandy said, if people are taking indexes and search results as Gospel, then no tweaks to the search mechanism will do any good. For the rest of us, the existing setup is preferable to one where we continually need to remove irrelevant details to get the results we want.
2 -
If the race were to be put in the vital information section, then when a person is inputting their family names it is correctly defined and it would be very obvious to others that are doing their work what race that person is. So if they were to find a name that is the same they would automatically know that they are not the same person if the race was there and they would not have to search any longer on that person as a duplicate. In ancestry.com they will automatically put the gender in their search engine with the option to input the race as part of the search. Family Search does allow us to input the gender as part of our search criteria, could they also put race as a option for a search criteria?
0 -
@Van E Jenkins, once again: race is a nonexistent concept in most genealogy.
Really. You may as well put "eye color" in the vitals box. That's about as relevant and documentable as it would be.
If you actually put a "race" field on every profile, most users would feel like, "what's next? Favorite food?"
2