Source Linker Problem due to confusing Indexing issue
Regarding P9LG-QBH, the England and Wales, Census, 1911 includes a census taker note indicating a belief that the four children (marked as "Relative") listed are illegitimate children of Eliza. An indexer incorrectly marked the children as daughters and a son of Mary, Eliza's mother, which creates an issue for attaching the record properly. The "boarder", 7 year old Dolly Bellchambers, may be another child, but cannot be found on the GRO website; all other children leave "blank" the field that would otherwise show the maiden name of their mother. Dolly, later Doris, does appear as a "Visitor" on the 1921 Census, and the other children are shown as step children (first 4) and son/daughter (last 2) of Eliza's husband, Charles Stanley Rawlings, who she married in 1914.
Please help to provide a solution to resolve the matter, so that the source linker looks correct and does not tempt someone from detaching it, or trying to "straighten out the matter". The children with yellow highlight should be corrected to "grand" daughter/son of Mary Bennet; they are children of Eliza. Let me know if you need anything further to resolve the issue. Thank you!
Best Answer
-
The index for the 1911 Census for England and Wales is supplied by FindMyPast and therefore cannot be edited within FamilySearch. FindMyPast only allow single interpretations of items - so no "daughter or granddaughter" approach. Since the words "relative" have been lined through, and since the "illegitimate" comment is a pencilled note made at an unknown date, I believe that there is no chance that FMP will alter their index. They work strictly on the basis of indexing what is written, not what is logical.
I believe that therefore there is no chance of getting the appearance of Source Linker altered.
In terms of what to do, I would start by saying I believe that you have the right understanding of who is related, in what manner, to whom.
My approach (and all alternatives accepted) would be to go to each affected profile, edit the attachment of the 1911 to add to the Notes describing the attached source, words to the effect that "Research shows…" That appears to be all that can be done to the attachment.
When that's been done to as many of the attachments of that 1911 as necessary, then dismiss each of the Unfinished Attachments warnings.
Yes, there is still the risk that someone will Review Attachments and see the odd linkages, but frankly if someone can't be bothered to read your notes, they are unlikely to want to Review Attachments, I believe.
There will always be records like this where the original is at least misleading, at worst a downright lie. All we can do, if we respect the image and index, is to splatter notes all over the place.
3
Answers
-
Thank you, @Adrian Bruce1 for your reply; do you work for FamilySearch, or are you just a knowledgeable FindMyPast user?
I have added an Alert Note and Followed each of the profiles impacted, so hopefully that will help!
I've also reached out to FindMyPast just in case; so if they fix the problem, will FamilySearch need to resolve the issue somehow, or will the system correct itself if FMP corrects it on their end?
0 -
No, I don't work for FamilySearch, nor am I a member of the LDS Church. I do have extensive experience of correcting Ancestry and FindMyPast indexes - the latter are more difficult to correct because they only allow the single option so it's hard luck if there's genuine disagreement on the text.
As for exactly what happens when FMP correct an index, that's not clear. At least, not to me. If FS doesn't allow us to correct externally supplied indexes, then one possible explanation is that they might take another copy of the same index further down the line. However, I don't remember seeing this stated. Further, professional experience (in totally different systems) makes me wary of claiming that one set of data can be taken out and another, replacement, dropped in. I fear there may be connections that make it non-trivial.
2