Attaching indexed records
After years of prayers, the records of my region in Italy were indexed and available for annexation. I was so happy that I dived in. I have been able to attach thousands of them for which I'm very grateful. Many had errors, but I have been able to fix some. My most concerning problems was with misaligned image vs indexing. I believe the misalignment was caused by the index pages. Anyways, I believe they found the errors were substantial and the indexing data was re-published which caused the duplication of the records. What would you do in this case? Would you attach the duplication? I don't like that because the duplicated sources makes it very difficult to review a person's evidences. Would you mark as "Not a Match" and select duplicated image. Would you delete the duplicated indexng data in the image?
I have been marking as "Not a Match" and selecting duplicated, but honestly, I would rather delete the duplicated indexing data. I would rather do that on my most relevant ancestors, which I like to keep pristine. However, I don't know what would be the best in relation to the backend databases.
What would you do?
Best Answers
-
In those instances, I change the Source Title to add the words "DUPLICATE RECORD" or "DUPLICATE RETIRED RECORD"
Another reason not to dismiss/ignore/detach a duplicate record: sometimes that duplicate has more information than the new/updated record. In those cases, I have marked it as "RETIRED RECORD BUT SHOULD NOT BE!" Those were mostly marriage records and if someone had dismissed them, then their parents' names would not have been known. A few of the were baptism records with the new record only having the baptism date, but the retired record had both the birth and baptism dates.
Example:
9QKC-ZDX
https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/sources/9QKC-ZDX
2 -
@CeciMindelli Are these records from Bergamo, Italy?
Is this the same issue as this one?
1
Answers
-
@CeciMindelli thank you for the feedback. Can you share the link for the images you are looking at?
0 -
While I cannot speak to your specific situation, I can definitely say that if I were looking at two truly duplicate sources, I would never mark one of them as "Not a Match" to show my preference for the more newly indexed source. This would definitely mess up the various search algorithms that function behind the scenes, and I would fear that would cause other source suggestions to not be made.
If you "ignore" the record, it is then ignored for everyone. If it is a record that pertains to that person, it needs to be attached. If it is left unattached, the risk is high that someone - especially any automated projects - will create another profile, leading to more duplicates. So, I would add both. Truly interested users can drill down to the details. Also, should one index to the data set be deleted due to obsolescence, or having been superseded, I am assured that my sources will remain accurate.
4 -
Great topic! I have had people delete Souces just because the Title was the same! My solution is to check the last portion of the URL. If they are different then I copy it, edit the Title, and paste into brackets at the end, like this:
George Lonzo Farnsworth, "West Virginia Marriages, 1780-1970" [FRV9-N9N]I wish they would do this automatically. I think it would be very helpful to have unique titles for ALL sources.
1 -
Thank you all for your input. Here is a link to a discussion regarding Duplicates and Merges.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/183186/merge-experience-presentation-thursday-13-nov-25-at-11am-mst#latest
0 -
Thanks for the link. I learned a new thing: "Find Similar People"
However, I'm not sure how this pertains to this topic.
0 -
I know those are duplicates. Here is the link for the profile of my great-grandparents marriage: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9BX-Z94M-F?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AXQNY-4DCL&action=view&cc=2328379&lang=en&groupId=
I created their profile with marriage information when I submitted their names with PAF5. So, their profile are part of the legacy.
In 2024, when this microfilm (Ostuni, Puglia, Italy) was not yet indexed, I was able to manually attach this source. I have to confess that I have many, many profiles that were created with sources manually attached.
I was exhilarated when I the Ostuni's microfilms were indexed and made available around Feb this year. I tried to out run anyone that could make a mess in my family tree as I had the luxury and the weight of being almost the single person researching that region.
So, you will see in the screenshot of the sources below that I'm kept the 2024 manual attachment. In April 2025, I attached the indexed source.
The next screenshot shows the first set of data that was attached in April and a second set of data that was added this week.
My options to deal with this problem would be to add the second set of data…. I have attached over 13,000 sources this year, so my guess is that I'll attach all the duplicates now? I can mark them as Not a match and select the duplicate function. I have seen some instances that a data set was deleted because it was a duplicated one. Or I could manually delete the second set of data to keep it clean (which would be a very time consuming endeavor).
I'm not really complaining, I have been able to find many records and ancestors that I didn't have before. I only had online access to some years, now I have access to many more. I'm just trying to decide what would be the best way to handle this problem.
Personally, I would rather select the best set of data and delete the duplicate. It's the most time consuming route but I would rather keep it pristine.
I haven't seem all the Ostuni films yet, but the first set of indexed records had a number of errors. Most of them I have been able to correct.
The most common problem I found appears in almost all death records from Ostuni. The data set shows the surname of the father-in-law of the deceased in all death records in the book, even when the father-in-law is never mentioned in the record. It's not a big problem, but the sheer number of this event is a bit time consuming.
The most problematic error is when the data set is misaligned with the images. It was not that common, it might have happened in only one film, but covering more than 1 year. I have reported these cases before.
Here is the link of a death record showing the father-in-law. Link: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9BX-67ZZ-W?view=index&cc=2328379&lang=en&groupId=
This link is of one microfilm, but fairly all death records from Ostuni show the same problem. As you can see in the screenshot below, the first set of data has the spouse as Angela Greco and another person named only Greco. This Greco individual is a artifact. The data set says that this Greco person is the father of the widow, however, very rarely the name of the father-in-law of the deacesed is mentioned in any death records, Even when a in-law is mentioned in the death record is because it would appear as Angle Greco di Antonio, so the father of Angela Greco would be Antonio Greco. But the indexed would show only Greco.
I believe an analyst manipulated the data to populate the surname of the father column, but they forgot to clean the father-in-law surname column in the case of death records. My solution in these records has been to delete this individual as he is not present in the record. Note that the indexed data set fixed the error.
I'll try to find the instances where the indexed data was misaligned with the image as I'm kind of in a hurry now.
In the next screenshot you will see a piece of my family tree. All these profiles have had no pending records to be attached. Now I have all with notifications, so far they are all duplicates. I found one that wasn't, so I have new notifications mixed with the the duplicates.
Many of these profiles already have over 20 sources (manual + indexed ones) if I add the duplicates, the number of sources may reach 40 for each individual. One of them have no notifications because I have cleared all of them. If I delete the duplicates, I'll probably have to work on thousands. If I mark as not a match and select duplicate, I'm not sure what will be the implications.
Let me know if I was able to explain it properly!
Thank you all!
0 -
@Nyx773
Mine are from Ostuni, Italy, but the case you shared seem very similar.
1 -
So the problem isn't duplicate records but duplicate indexes. That is a completely different problem than what everyone was giving their opinion to.
Please see the comment from @SerraNola here:
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/183164/duplicate-indexes-from-nov-10#latest
0 -
Yeah, sorry, my mistake. My problem is duplicated indexes.
0
