Creating a new index for a non-tree record
For South Africa, can a new project be launched to index source records? I have possible relatives in a source record with exact, shared names. One set of parents and child are indexed and searchable and linked to my Tree. The other seems logically related, unindexed, and cannot be linked to my tree, as both births share exact location, same names and surname, but differ by 1 year and contain different parents. Search is trying to force me to conclude that the births are the same child, but the record clearly shows this not to be true. Different dates, different set of parents.
I'd like to index this record so as to be able to create a new, separate record, which could be found by someone, and hopefully to figure out how it fits with my tree. I noticed that other births for this parent pair was indexed, but not attached to any tree either. Apparently, there's a separated, yet whole family there that cannot be correctly linked to a tree, because no tree record has been created for them. Further, cross checking cannot be done either, as there's no existing tree link to link up with (at this stage).
Please would you activate indexing for me and a direct feature to create a new tree family, even if that family cannot be linked to a specific tree yet. Any workaround, e.g., to attach members in some way in order to get them into the tree, is going to destroy the truth reflected in the source records. There seems to be a functional gap in logically linking unindexed, yet exact-same-in-part records correctly (from source) available on tree search.
Specifically for South Africa, after the 1902 Anglo Boer War, there were many, many orphans taken in by families with different names. Up to 3 generations were destroyed. It takes painstaking research to try and reconnect the orphaned children to their correct ancestors, and this cannot be done unless new records (currently unrelated, yet obviously connected by shared names and surnames) may be created from source to a null tree.
These records either have not having been indexed yet, or not attached as a new set of records in the Tree search yet. Meaning, researcher could easily make logical mistakes to link incorrect records to same names, in the process destroying the original family links to the set of parents and family lines.
I realize this sounds confusing, but this is a reality in trying to reconstruct "missing" records from a war. AI needs to be able to match the index to the tree search, and it does. However, If no index, or tree record exists yet, AI would default to similar names, which may be semantically correct, but in reality in conflict with the source.
Please advise how to get these source records into a family tree, even if that family is the first link in the recorded family tree (new tree), and not connectable yet to my line. Thank you for your consideration.
Answers
-
@RobBenjamin1
Indexing for FamilySearch is now completely AI-based, with human review.Details are at
0
