Should we index 'clerks' and 'judges'?
I've done a lot of records not thinking twice about indexing them, but now that I've had it explained to me that were indexing for families, it now comes into question. Judges and clerks will have no family on the records they are addressed as such on. Are they 'not a name' relevant to the record?
Answers
-
I recall that you passed a question to the engineers for me concerning where we can identify the acceptable metadata items for any given Historical Records collection. This information is not in the FS Research Wiki. I haven't seen an answer as yet but such information would be very useful if you could chase it up please.
I understand that the engineers said users were supposed to index only family members, but it would be good to see the metadata structure that backs up that statement, given how many collections in my experience index non-family individuals who would potentially be of considerable use to researchers. But of course, if there is no configured metadata item/label to attach a specific name to, there's no point in indexing it.
References:
1 -
@AnthonyHopkins5 The primary goal of the Get Involved opportunities in FamilySearch is to help make historical records more searchable, accurate, and accessible so people around the world can discover and connect with their ancestors. So of course the family names are the main focus and requires more attention on detail and accuracy. In Family Indexing Review there are other people mentioned in the record that are not family members. They are identified as “no relationship to Primary Person.” Whether or not the unrelated persons mentioned in the record are included in the transcribed record, they will still remain on the original record and will still be searchable and findable. The records that are updated by Get Involved activities use a journaling system, so no data is lost. So the names for the Judge and the Clerk on the original record can still be found by those who want to know that information.
0 -
@MandyShaw1 We have not received any information from the Engineers that said we were to index only family members. There was a question in the community about why we have to include unrelated persons in the indexed record. In asking the engineers, their response was “you don’t have to include those persons in the transcribed record. The names of unrelated persons on historical records will still remain searchable, and those persons who wish to have that informations will be able to find it.”
Your questions were sent into the Engineers, I wish to share with you now their response:
In the Get Involved Opportunities All content is from CAI.
Older content is from formatted records, these are no longer being encoded by CAI.
Newer content is only from Full Text.
Quick Name Review is for reviewing and correcting of names (spelling, invalid characters).
Full Name Review is for classifying parts of a person’s full name and includes Quick Name activities (when you find incorrect names).
Indexing Review (or Family Indexing Review) is for connecting names to each other to denote ancestral lineage (can also be used for the activities provided by Full and Quick Name). Currently this inventory is mostly from Latin American records.
Verify Places is place standardization.
The records that are updated by Get Involved activities use a journaling system. No data is lost (i.e. original names are not overwritten) but new data (corrections) do extend the search ability of the records (by adding new search terms). So, if you change a name from Matt to Mack that record will become a search result for both Matt and Mack.
- Many different record types (census, births, death…) but that is no longer being curated, only full text is currently being scanned.
- None of the data collected by Get Involved is currently used to train AI models.
- Place and relationship activities are currently available in Get Involved. No plans for date correction.
I hope that the information from the Engineers have answered your questions.
1 -
@dancingintherain Thank you very much for getting this information for me, it really helps. I will write up the output of the overall Get Involved 'strategy' discussion so far for you to check (I'll put it in a separate thread).
1
