Just plain wrong
The youngest sibling of my 2nd great-grandfather (that is my 3rd GG Uncle) died in 1881. His spouse and 2 children survived him.
Someone has just updated the 1900 census attached to his wife because the source linker lists him as "unknown."
We KNOW he is not enumerated in the 1900 census. We KNOW we don't index people who are not listed.
Why does the Source Linker invite/encourage this inaccuracy?
Thank you for reviewing.
Comments
-
Is this the type of thing the DQS routine would catch as a non-dismissible error? (when it is working) It seems that is should be able to look at the record type of Census, the census year, and an individual's birth and death year and flag impossibilities like this.
And could that type of error checking from the DQS be built into the Source Linker to prevent this type of attachment to begin with?
1 -
It doesn't seem so.
0 -
Would be a good flag for them to add. Any source dated earlier than birth should have a non-dismissible flat, I would think. A source with a source type similar to a census where it could never be correct should be non-dismissible. There may be some source times that could generate a dismissible flag. And some, like obituaries which could be for a child or grandchild and dated long after the person's own death, that should never generate a flag.
2
