AI Quick Name Review comment
@SerraNola Somehow we need to give instructions/directions to those using Opportunities projects. For example, when doing Quick Name Review, it is helpful, even necessary, to skim over the full page to correctly read cursive letters in the name. Also, reading the page and the column headings will help to determine whether the highlighted word is a name, a place or a title. Quick Name Review is for names of people, not titles, places or things. Another thing is Standardized Places — example if John Jones is born in the USA in1805 , its highly unlikely that he would be living in France or Russia on an 1810 census conducted in the USA
There's lots of reasons AI isn't the best way to go, just my opinion
Answers
-
It is rather sad and disappointing that AI is going to be used more extensively. That limits opportunities for we humans to do indexing and review. Also AI has not proved to be very impressive in the projects it is used in so far, such as the Quick Name Review, where AI frequently reads legal technical terms as names,
2 -
I'm hoping that all the comments on AI reach the people that are responsible for the not-so-great AI. I read a comment yesterday that AI indexed a name as Man****re. Human eyes are 50x better.
1 -
Hola me uno a este comentario, en primer lugar se habla de que la IA, puede contener pequeños errores, no son para nada pequeños, me ha tocado hacer revisión de registros de nacimientos:
1) en donde se mencionan a los abuelos los pone como padres, sería interesante poner en la lista, abuelo/a materno o paterno,
2) pone fecha del acontencimiento un año que no existe, o un país que no figura en ningún lado del documento,
3) hay eventos que ocupan 2 páginas y no podemos poner el nombre del padre o de otro miembro porque se ha quedado en otra página a la que no hay como acceder
4) y lo peor para mi de todo lo que describo es que entre el tiempo de corregir y marcar para adjuntar un dato, pone que ya pasó el tiempo y que hay que actualizar, y no guarda, hay que volver a hacer todo de nuevo,
perdemos más tiempo así, me gustaba más el método de antes que con la IA, de que sirve tener miles de datos erróneos, yo creo que es doble trabajo, que sin poder completar bien un registro, otra vez un tercero algún día va a tener que resolver, eso no incentiva a querer colaborar, terminamos frustrados, si quieren una ayuda por lo menos tienen que facilitar el acceso completo del registro, así sea que ocupe más de una imagen, desde que comenzaron los cambios, muchos registros no se encuentran, están mal cargados, a mi particularmente, me decepciona, y creo que así se pierde el interés por ayudar, pero voy a seguir intentando, ojalá solucionen pronto esa falencias…. FamilySearch ya no es como antes….
0 -
Google Translate of Miriam's comment:
Hi, I agree with this comment. First, it's mentioned that AI can contain small errors. They're not small at all. I've had to review birth records:
1) Where grandparents are mentioned, it lists them as parents. It would be interesting to include maternal or paternal grandparents on the list.
2) It lists the date of the event in a year that doesn't exist, or a country that doesn't appear anywhere on the document.
3) There are events that take up two pages, and we can't include the name of the father or another family member because it's stuck on another page that's inaccessible.
4) And the worst thing for me about everything I've described is that between correcting and marking to attach a piece of information, it says the time has passed and needs to be updated, and it doesn't save. We have to do it all over again. We waste more time this way. I liked the old method better than the AI. What's the point of having thousands of incorrect entries? I think it's double work. Without being able to properly complete a registry, again a third party will have to solve it one day, that does not encourage us to want to collaborate, we end up frustrated, if they want help at least they have to facilitate full access to the registry, even if it occupies more than one image, since the changes began, many records cannot be found, they are incorrectly loaded, I am personally disappointed, and I think that this way the interest in helping is lost, but I will continue trying, hopefully they will solve these deficiencies soon…. FamilySearch is not what it used to be….
1 -
@maryellenstevensbarnes1 and others on several threads on this topic—
Whether we like it or not, it appears the debate over indexing vs. AI has been decided. I do feel your anguish, @Miriam Beatriz Perez. Spanish Church records are some of the worst transcriptions I've seen. Going forward there's two things to talk about. Let's go with Full Name Review first. When I jumped in to test it I was able to make my way through two of them, but it was not an easy process by any means. On the third one I was given a list of children in a will, all with the same surname. Highlighting was a mess and it would not allow additional surname fields for the children. I gave up. So. yes, I agree this program can not yet be touted as a great replacement for indexing. It's going to take some time. In my opinion, before improving the instructions, they should improve the user interface. I haven't yet tried Quick Name.
The second thing that comes into play with heavy use of AI is the importance of editing. The Feedback we get through Image Viewer is packed with users wanting to make corrections in the index but can't figure out how or they try and it doesn't work, but we're working through those issues with engineers. The ideal situation would be for a user who is familiar with place names and surnames for a particular location to be the one making changes on those records. That is already starting to happen. Users report they are editing several pages, not just their own family. It's the same work as indexing except you can pick records you know and understand. One thing for sure—the crucial factor in the success of AI will be the same army of dependable indexers from the past.
5 -
I am trying to do quick name review, but most of the time there is no document showing up in the background - only a name highlighted with nothing to compare it to! Also there are NO real instructions and NO examples or help tools for this project. Yes, it should be a simple thing that is self explanitory - but with how badly AI is messing up, we NEED some real instructions. I used to love indexing, but now it is an exercise in wasted time and mounting frustration. This foray into AI is a bad decision and so far it's been very poorly executed. I have had no better luck trying out other "get involved" projects either. You need to give us proper instructions and training. Until then - I. GIVE. UP.
0 -
@PATRICIABAUMANN4 Please try again and be patient. Think of AI as an infant or toddler or even as a machine — it needs your help to accomplish all the genealogy/family history that needs to be done. For Quick Name Review and other Opportunities, the reviewer needs to skim over the entire document or at least the words/sentences around the highlighted name in order to see whether the highlighted word or letters are a person's name, a place name or something else. Use the edit box to include the surname with initials.
0 -
@maryellenstevensbarnes1 @PATRICIABAUMANN4 I have to amend (edit) my earlier comment. The program I was testing was Full Name Review, not Quick Name Review. I haven't had time to try that one, but it looks much easier.
1 -
@maryelen stevensbarnes1
that's the problem. There is NO document showing up behind the name I'm being asked to review. No name, no words and sentences surounding it, no document to peruse. There is nothing to compare the review name with. Am I the only one out there familysearch land that's having this problem?
0 -
@PATRICIABAUMANN4 Can you give us a screenshot of what you are seeing?
0 -
@PATRICIABAUMANN4 You should be seeing something like this:
If not, if you're using Chrome try testing the same URL with Chrome Incognito Window (to get rid of all cookies and cache, and Extensions) and let us know if you still see the same thing. Incognito is found in the upper right corner when you click on the three dots.
1 -
@SerraNola @Ashlee C. @MandyShaw1
AI is horrible. Based on all the comments, AI is not working. It's like a beta test. Why switch when there are no concrete instructions and AI is messing up on names? AI is not ready to be rolled out, imo. If enough people voice their displeasure with it, would that reach the engineers and they'll go back to human indexing and work to make the AI better?2 -
@SerraNola @Ashlee C. @MandyShaw1 Even though I've tried really hard to be Positive and Patient, it would be so much better if FS would talk with us rather than make up excuses/reasons. Example, real people with even a fleeting experience need to read and transcribe documents like wills/testaments, censuses, legal papers. AI doesn't recognize gender terms (mrs., mr. he, she) and it picks up the slightest flourish or drop of ink as a meaningful mark/initial/name which confuses lots of people. AI is not superior to humans to use it or even those who created it; even Elon Musk speaks of AI with regret and sadness. We speak with frustration, not meanness. Why doesn't FS ask for volunteers with certain experiences or education (like history, geography, legalese or languages )- to serve in an advisory capacity or panel. Why not put together a community forum specifically for Opportunities so we could offer suggestions? We don't ask engineers or computer techs to perform marriages, attend births, or read wills and land grants. I, for one, believe someone other than AI should be in charge at FS, imo.
1 -
@erutherford @maryellenstevensbarnes1
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful concerns. It’s clear you care deeply about the integrity and accuracy of the work being done, and we truly appreciate your efforts to stay positive and patient even when the process feels frustrating.
You're absolutely right that historical documents—like wills, censuses, and legal records—can be complex and nuanced, and that human insight plays a key role in understanding them. While technology continues to evolve, it’s not perfect, and feedback like yours helps shape how it's improved over time.
At this time, FamilySearch is moving ahead with the Get Involved projects. You can learn more about this at this Community announcement:
We know it may feel like decisions are made without enough Community input, but please know that your voice—and the voices of others who share their thoughts constructively—do make a difference. While FamilySearch does not have plans for an advisory council at this time, please know that your voice is heard. We welcome your feedback and ideas to help make this project even better. FamilySearch has long relied on the generosity and experience of volunteers, and that spirit continues to be essential in everything they do.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective—and for being part of the Community. Your passion and experience are truly valued.
2 -
My question is will we have indexing projects in the new system or is it just reviewing?
0 -
Quería destacar algo más de mi comentario anterior, pero como crítica constructiva para mejorar en la IA o en cuanto a la imagen, en este caso hoy me tocó revisar un registro bastante antiguo donde varias hojas estaban rotas, la IA toma las palabras o letras de las páginas que están debajo y que no corresponden al documento
Yo creo que para próximas digitalizaciones deberían colocar debajo del documento rasgado una hoja en blanco para que la IA no detecte las palabras de los documentos que están debajo, ya que ella no sabe que el texto termina en donde está roto. Lo comento porque al no reconocer eso, lo que hizo fue inventar una fecha, el registro era de un nacimiento y le puso como fecha de nacimiento 22 de setiembre de 1803, y esa inscripción fue del 7 de setiembre de 1803, lo que es incoherente, analizando las fechas y el tipo de letra manuscrita se aprecia apenas el comienzo de una letra para el día del nacimiento que debió ser entre el 1 y el 6 o 7, por la forma diría que fue el 1 escrito en letras, no permite colocar solo el mes y año, así que me arriesgué con esa fecha, tampoco me salía la opción de fecha probable, o algo similar.
Ajustes que habrá que hacer, por favor, extiendan el tiempo para que podamos hacer las correcciones, con eso de que se acaba el tiempo y que hay que actualizar y esperar unos minutos para volver a cargar los datos, es bastante molesto.
Saludos
1 -
Translation (Google) of Miriam's comment:
I wanted to highlight something else from my previous comment, but as constructive criticism for improvements in AI or in terms of the image. In this case, today I had to review a fairly old record where several pages were torn. The AI picks up the words or letters from the pages below that don't correspond to the document. I think that for future scans, they should place a blank sheet of paper under the torn document so that the AI doesn't detect the words in the documents below, since it doesn't know that the text ends where it is torn. I mention this because by not recognizing that, what he did was invent a date. The record was for a birth and listed the date of birth as September 22, 1803, and that entry was from September 7, 1803, which is inconsistent. Analyzing the dates and the handwriting, you can barely see the beginning of a letter for the day of birth, which must have been between the 1st and the 6th or 7th. Based on the format, I'd say it was the 1st written in letters. It doesn't allow you to enter just the month and year, so I took a chance with that date. I also didn't see the option for a probable date or something similar. Adjustments that will need to be made. Please extend the time so we can make the corrections. With the time running out and having to refresh and wait a few minutes to reload the data, it's quite annoying. Regards
0 -
I support moving to A I for extracting data from historical records. Yes, we do need instruction on specific corrections like for when names are hyphenated from one line to the next line etc. Also, if the highlights are incorrect, I think it is best to delete all the highlights and then replace the highlights. Also, for now it is best to use the "Unsure" icon for questionable names, etc.
I have worked on "Full Name" review for several days now. I do use the Unsure icon frequently. I am prompted in my mind on how to work with the highlights until the extracted data is presented correctly on many names.
Artificial Intelligence is not intelligent at all. It is a dumb machine making comparisons of one word image to thousands of images until a match is found. It should be named "Match-Up Maybe"
2 -
One day I downloaded a batch of English records to index. To my surprise this was a Samoan Birth Records registry and was written in a mix of English and Samoan with which I was unfamiliar. But I had an idea: why not use my cell-phone camera and 'a well-known application' to interpret what I was reading. To my great delight, what I saw on my screen was an instantaneous translation of Samoan to English and I was able to complete my batch easily. Two thoughts catalyzed in my mind and made me smile: 1) this must be a little bit like Joseph translating the plates, and 2) this is the future of indexing. This happened more than 5 years ago.
My recent experiences with AI is that it's very fast at extracting and interpreting recorded information but needs human input and feedback to learn nuance and variation in records. The shift we're seeing FamilySearch take is not to take the human factor out of the equation, but only take some of the administrative overhead off our plate and to shift our (experienced and beginning indexers) focus to revising and correcting AI output for the benefit of the family of Adam. Improvements always come.
2 -
@MichaelDurwardNash Would you be willing to tell us the "well-known application" that you used so that I and others might try this app? I am not familiar with camera-to-translate applications.
0 -
google lens
0 -
I too regret the loss of the "traditional" indexing options. I have been indexing for many years. Indexing is what brought me into become a volunteer at my local FSC. It was fun, rewarding and easy to do. Over time you could move on to review and more challenging records. One of the better additions in my opinion was dividing the records by difficulty so those with less experience didn't find themselves frustrated or in over their heads. The new features don't include this at all lumping experienced and new indexers/reviewers together. If the goal of indexing can be to introduce people into helping the community at large there needs to be simple projects, with clear guidance. Seeing the issues presented by experienced users can we anticipate the frustration that newcomers must be feeling? The old indexing allowed a very structured entry point. I am not sure this new change accomplishes the same thing. I am excited about allowing AI to vastly expanded the amount of records that will be added to the data sets and as we move forward with typed records the technology will be great. I just indexing many city directories and AI would have been great for that (even allowing users to correct errors) but in terms of handwritten documents from the early part of the 20th Century the amount of errors is to great at this time. Let those that choose AI go forward but return the traditional indexing to bridge new people.
1 -
I have used Google Translate quite often while indexing. (and giving instructions to my cleaners! 😂😂
0 -
I have to agree with Andrew Wright96. However, I have found that AI makes many many mistakes even on typed documents. You would think that reading typed names would be a given for something as highly touted as AI. Handwritten, (both printed and very legible cursive) names are also missed way too often to be an effective tool for genealogy work. It literally makes me half sick to think of how many documents might never be found because AI can't even read typed names. Then to have those names be reviewed by people (some with no indexing experience, some too young to type, spell, or read, some who just do it so quickly to get the job done, etc, etc, etc.) It just feels like we are opting for the quick route, not the accurate route. I just keep praying that it's early in the process and hopefully it will get much much better with time.
2 -
I'm just getting started with the new AI tools, although I've done indexing off and on for several years. My question is if there is a way to Add a name in the QuickNames. The tool navigates from name to name, but I have noticed names in documents that are not highlighted to be verified.
1 -
@Ms Carol B No, there is not a way to add a highlight in Quick Name Review. However, Quick Name is just the first step in the review process. When the collection goes through Full Name Review the highlight can be added.
2 -
What is the process with Quick name review?
- Patron matches as many names as possible and clicks "not sure" on other names.
2. The "Not sure" names are recycled to another patron who matches all names but one.
3. The one remaining "unsure name" is recycled to more patrons until the remaining name is matched.
4 The completely matched record is then sent to the "full name review" process until all names are "matched"
5. The record is then placed in Family Tree where patrons will have it available for their researh.
Is this how A.I. indexing works?
0 -
@Ashlee C. Could you check on this comment and give us an answer, please Thank you
0 -
@Smyth MJ @maryellenstevensbarnes1 I don't know the answer, but I'll look into it and get back to you.
1
