Buchs SG - marriage - 1870 - Zogg & Caviezel - index problem
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66V6-DKNH?lang=de
The index lists here the marriage of Johannes Zogg (son of Heinrich Forrer and Anna Katharina Forrer) with Anna Caviezel (daughter of Hans Lutzi and Rosa Delunot) in Buchs (St.Gallen) on 29 Nov 1870.
At first sight there is a discrepancy between the names of groom and bride with their respective fathers. So I checked the original record (cannot view on familysearch - but the marriage register is also on the State Archive website).
The problem with this entry (and I assume many other entries from this book) is that the pastor did not explicitly give the groom's and bride's father's surnames - as they are identical with the children's. So Johannes Zogg was the son of Heinrich Zogg and Anna Katharina Forrer; Anna Caviezel was the daughter of Hans Lutzi (Lucius) Caviezel and Rosa (not sure about the given name - but not Rosa) Delunot (likely Denoth - but this would be the pastor's mistake with a name he was not familiar with).
The index entry cannot be edited and I have no connection to the indexing projects: who should be contacted?
Comments
-
Hi @WSeelentag , I looked at the record mentioned with this link [https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:66V6-DKNH] and can see the actual record and make edits. Because records are indexed with the exact information on the document, we should make a note with an additional field (perhaps "name change flag" would be the most appropriate). I do see that the source is properly attached to Heinrich Zogg LZXN-YTD, even though the source says Heinrich Forrer.
0 -
Hello @ShelleWells , thank you for your response - but I see several different aspects to this:
1) The source is attached to the right person - fine, but this is IMHO not the real problem.
2) You state "records are indexed with the exact information on the document" - but in this case this is not the case: the index is not correct, it gives wrong names for both fathers. My experience from several discussions here in the community is that many researchers, not being able to read the original record, rely on the index - and might import this error into their family tree.
3) My major concern, however: I believe I understand the cause of the problem - the pastor doesn't explicitly note the father's names (a habit seen fairly often) - and the person doing the indexing didn't interpret that correctly. Most likely consequence: there will be hundreds of wrong index entries like this.
As I have mentioned: I am not involved with indexing (and don't want to get involved) - just wanted to bring this problem to the attention of people concerned with indexing.
0 -
@WSeelentag I need to clarify the problem you see with the record, so I can pass it on to the indexing department.
Did the indexer transcribe the document exactly as the pastor wrote it, or did the indexer make assumptions about the parents' last names because the data was missing, and write them wrong?
0 -
He made two types of assumptions (see example above):
- Father had only a single given name: the mother's surname was assumed.
- Father had two given names: the second given name was assumed to be the surname.
As mentioned: to omitt the father's surname (with legitimate children) was quite common, as it would be identical with the child's surname (if that was mentioned - alternatively no surname would be given for the child).
Does that clarify the issue? If not - don't hesitate to ask again.
0 -
Got it, I'll pass this long to the Indexing team and see what they think.
0 -
@WSeelentag I learned that this particular record is on the programmer's list of records to correct. We'll need to be patient while the developers do their thing. I don't have a timeframe, but it is on the list!
0 -
I have just sent you a private message.
0
