Selection boxes vanished after use.
I realized I had made a mistake in my last entry, so I backed up to do it again, only the first name selection boxes on the document had vanished, so I had to use 'new highlight' to fix it. Wondering if this was feature rather than error, I backed up on one of the previous ones I had done, but none of the boxes had vanished in that case.
Answers
-
@AnthonyHopkins5 I appreciate your comment as I have been doing the Reviews for about three weeks now and find them very frustrating with little consistency in how things appear and disappear with little rhyme or reason, especially highlights. I am eager to see the UPDATES that Sam Sulser just mentioned. Perhaps the updates will cover the highlights and other things that don't make sense. Following.
0 -
Hey, new information on this one. I was indexing when a name vanished from it. However, the next record was about the same name, only the name that had vanished was different, and the one that had vanished previously was back. I figured this new information might help fix the issue.
0 -
@Mary Rice @AnthonyHopkins5 Can I take your comments to my team meeting next week? If you have any more you would like us to discuss, please add them to this discussion. I have been going to the Get Involved opportunities and working with them to see if I see what you are experiencing, and I have. We appreciate your reporting and commenting in this forum.
1 -
@dancingintherain Yes, that's fine with me. Anything that will make using these programs actually work more efficiently. Currently it takes me anywhere from 15-30 minutes to complete just one Family Indexing Review. I don't think we'll ever catch up with all that need to be done. It's just takes too long with the current problems in the programs. I will take more screenshots and send them to you as they arise.
0 -
@Mary Rice I am interested to know a couple of things, if you have a moment. How does that length of time compare with the time you would have taken to do a Review in the old manual indexing system? And does this review let you check the same things as the old one did? Thanks.
0 -
hibát ír ki állandóan így nem használom.
0 -
@MandyShaw1 Good question. The previous Indexing Review was totally different and often took just 5-15 minutes per name as the formats were sometimes different. ie. Sometimes there were just columns of names as in Lists of names in County/State Registers that were typed. Those would go really quickly as long as the Indexer didn't make mistakes. Others such as Baptismal Records in Zambia or Zimbabwe, Africa often took 10 minutes for the family due to difficult tribal names. Even taking longer were 16th and 17th century names and dates written in Latin in England Church Registers. Handwriting also greatly affects the ability to translate and decipher so that it might take 10-20 minutes per family to Review. The current FIR Review takes longer due to unnecessary bits like Linking and Unlinking both given and surnames, Highlights not being centered on the names so that each name has to have the highlight moved, or the Highlight being totally absent or incorrect, and Pages that have the Primary Person listed as <UNKNOWN> even though all on the page are clearly labeled but no one Highlighted. They're very labor intensive.
0 -
@MandyShaw1 Here is a screenshot that shows 2 records of Christenings of Primary Persons and Family members from the Philippines with good/fair handwriting and PP names even off to the side of each record and yet the program doesn't Highlight any name and asks if the PP is . It's strange to me that the program cannot recognize the PP names. So we either try "NO" or sometimes "Unsure" to try to find which name it wants us to recognize. Sometimes one or the other name has already been Reviewed by another Reviewer so only one needs to be Reviewed. It's a lot of unnecessary guessing.
0 -
Thanks @Mary Rice, that's interesting, sounds like there is still a way to go with the way AI indexing is configured, despite the careful approach FS has apparently taken to it, as documented in this video:
Does Get Involved provide a place to document the sort of detailed higher-level feedback you've provided here?
0 -
@MandyShaw1 Thanks for the video. I just watched it and it helped me to understand how the church is using AI and how the change is working so far. I have much admiration for those working on the project trying to improve things for everyone. As long as our electricity doesn't fail we'll be good!
0 -
@Mary Rice the various AI-related sessions from the recent RootsTech are well worth watching too, they didn't go into detail about indexing or Get Involved, unfortunately, but they did look at the best practices/ethics aspects of AI in genealogy, which I found really interesting. I personally think FS are doing a lot of good stuff with AI, in particular re handwriting/Full Text Search, and also re their high level CAI approach as documented in the video above, but I am unconvinced that Get Involved as currently presented is a great shop window for any of it.
0 -
@dancingintherain Hi, A very frustrating event that happens frequently. Please pass this error on ASAP as it uses my time. So I had just spent extra time, 20 minutes, completing a FIR on a small family for a Baptism-only 3 persons but the program kept mixing up the three names. Finally I pushed the SUBMIT button only to have this frustrating message pop up repeatedly as I kept refreshing. As usual it would never refresh my work and my only way out was to start over at FIR and lose my 20 minutes of work. This is unacceptable.
0
