Data Problem Alert that shouldn't be there
I have found a data problem alert, the one when a child is listed as born after the mother's death date. Upon further observation, I discovered that the mother was not technically listed as dying before the child's birth, but was listed as dying "after ____" a year before the child's birth. Apparently the code for familysearch does not account for "after" specifiers for a death date. Has anyone else encountered this? How does one report a bug to familysearch?
P.S. Just to be sure the data problem was a direct result of the death date indicated above, I temporarily removed the death date, and the data problem alert went away.
Answers
-
You might want to double check that family too. Those messages are sometimes vague. The message that a child was born after the mother's death date on a woman's record could mean that:
1) Her death date was before she had a child that was born, OR
2) She was born before her MOTHER'S death date.
There are a minimum of 2 different relationships which that data error might apply to. I.e, it is ambiguous. Make sure that you check the person with the data error as being the mother, AND as being the child.
Descriptions in the Change History logs have been notorious for these types of ambiguity as well.
0 -
@Mathew Elliott Howard
.
FYI
.
'Yes', something that was NOT, "Coded"; and/or, "Tested", for ...
.
Just out of curiosity ...
.
Do you know whether the "Data Problem" could be "Dismissed" WITHOUT having the effect any "Change" to the Mother's record?
.
I just thought that it may possibly be a "Suggestion" (all-be-it a problem), that could be "Dismissed", rather than a "Change" required/enacted ...
.
Just curious.
.
As an aside ...
.
Firstly ...
.
Can I humbly suggest that you post this as "Feedback" in the 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum, where you are more likely to get the problem/issue looked and addressed/fixed, by an "Official 'FamilySearch' Representative" from the "System", rather than in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
.
Easy access:
https://www.familysearch.org/ask/getsatisfaction/fastpass
.
Secondly ...
.
I am "Tagging this post of yours in a recently created 'Group' in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, being "FamilySearch.org Feedback", that was created when the 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum was (recently) "Down" - you never know.
.
Brett
.
@FamilySearch.org Feedback
.
0 -
There are many aspects in which the suggestions system is rather, um, stupid; disregarding date modifiers is just one of them. In the instant case you can get around the flaw by entering "after [youngest child's birthdate]" as the mother's death date.
0 -
I just do not understand why some users feel it a necessity to complete every available field in the Vitals section - especially a birth or death date. There is nothing wrong with the programming, just bad practice by the user who feels the need to enter, say, "after 1900" for the death date if the 1900 census is the latest date any records can be found for the individual. The Landscape view does not show the word "after", so (from there) it appears the person died in that actual year (say1900), when they might have actually died 20/30 years later. Maybe they moved to another part of the world but, whatever the reason, don't input any "about" conclusions unless you are really sure a person really did die close to that date. With or without the warning flag, I remove any dates of this nature (no sources or evidence) that I encounter.
1 -
On death dates I agree with you 100%. On birth dates I input a bef date and an "of" location. This information is usually based on children's birth or marriage dates and locations. It has kept me from looking at the same record several times because of the blank field for a birth. Just another idea that may help others.
Carol
1
