Transcription Errors reporting
I feel sorry for those who report such issues here (usually relating to their ancestors) then go away expecting that their report will be acted upon.
The advice should be that there is no provision for such corrections at this time. In any case, it would be wrong to correct an entry if the "mistake" was in the original, historical document rather than the (LDS) transcription.
joe martel said: You are correct that this GetSatisfaction is not a method to correct historical records. I don't believe there is a formal ability to correct them. THat is a future enhancement.
My advice has been to provide the transcription correction in the Note of the Source that is attached to the Person.0
jacall said: This is the answer given in "Get Help"; https://familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Correcting-Errors-in-Historical-Records-... Get Help is a great resource to find answers to questions. Click on Get Help then on "Frequently Asked Questions". If in the list of 10 answers there you may type in a few words in the box for other answers to come up. I have found this to be a VERY useful tool.0
Paul said: A good article - except it doesn't advise HOW such errors should be reported. So even after reading, some patrons might feel they should come here to report a mistranscription. I assume they / we should report through Feedback. It would probably be better if there was a separate link or email address available, however.
Incidentally, is there any evidence that any changes HAVE actually been made to date? Even mistranscribed / wrongly titled parish headings that FamilySearch has known about for years have remained unchanged.0
RealMac said: Two separate issues are discussed in this thread. Both are important. I believe they require different solutions.
Errors in individual transcribed or indexed records, such as an obvious misreading of a surname, a date, etc., could potentially be corrected by individual users, as can now be done on the Ancestry.com site. This is a problem that has been discussed here for at least the past 5 years. We would all like to think that a solution will be implemented in the near future!
However, errors at a higher level, such as wrongly titled parish headings and similar anomalies, will have to be corrected by FamilySearch staff through some other method, and that will require both a clear procedure and appropriate software. In particular, the FamilySearch site needs a user interface to gather systematic errors (incorrect parish names, for example) and a process to assign, track, and report on them. The errors of this type that have been noted in this forum are significant, and sometimes complicated. I don't think an informal process is an option; it is far too easy for someone to drop the ball, in spite of good intentions. A defined process with clear responsibilities and controls is required.0
I agree there is should be a way to report a transcription errors but only for transcription errors. For example https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MMGL-28K shows the birth state as Kentucky when the record really says Kansas. This error should be corrected and no notes needed. While it is common for the actual census record to have errors on them those are the ones that need to have a note on the record of the error but the actual transcription record should not be changed and should match the actual record even when the actual record is in error. When the actual record and transcription match it should not be allowed to change the transcription so they no longer match and should be the ones that use notes.0
Hello, @U32462. I think the ability to edit all index record fields is coming. Right now, some fields on your example record are editable.0
The place of christening has been transcribed as "Mullingan" although the city is actually Mullingar [in County Westmeath, Ireland].
Source: "Ireland Civil Registration, 1845-1913," database with images, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGY7-5B7Z : 30 January 2020),
Richard Gordon Rogers, 7 Jun 1873; Birth; Ireland; citing General Register Office, Southern Ireland; FHL microfilm 255,885.0
I find it very frustrating that there is no way to report obvious errors in transcriptions of records. E.g LN7J-4ZN
matches an apparently newly transcript record. As the person listed is my sister (alive) and I have a copy of her very readable birth and baptism record available, I (and she) know that her name never included Sigrid (but Ingrid) and that she is indeed the person listed in the record (of a small 700 person village at that time). As you 'new entry' for an apparently different individual, born to the same parents, baptized at the same time as my sister in the same church, is obviously wrong and affects a living person, I would greatly appreciate that a way to have this corrected is communicated. I have read the church records (from your microfilms also myself and it is very obvious that somebody copied this wrong) and there is clearly no other individual besides my sister listed. It is clear that there are many other errors in the transcript historical records of individuals not alive any longer, and there will, I hope, be opportunities to correct those. You cannot misrepresent (and invent) information on living individuals (and their families).1
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Many of us will share your frustration. However, even more frustrating is the fact that most records (unless there is an accompanying image) cannot be corrected, in any case. So reporting them will do no good - there is just not the facility to go back and amend mistakes in records that have already been indexed. All you can do is make a note against the record when it is transferred as a source to her ID in Family Tree (e.g. note "Her name was INGRID, not Sigrid".)
Many of us reading your comments will have a great deal of empathy here, as we have similar experiences on a regular basis. However, FamilySearch does not work like most other websites (that deal with similar records) and who usually make it quite easy for us to report these mistakes and get them corrected.1
This is an FYI as to how reporting errors is done in Ancestry.com. There is a way to report what they call a "Suggestion", and that suggestion is now searchable just like the old information. When someone searches for someone, and the corrected field is found, the person sees both the original and the corrected information and can decide whether they believe it or not. And of course, that is the trigger to look at the original and make one's mind up after looking at the original.
Additionally, there is a way to add info that was not in the original and the person searching will know that this is added information. Consider the example where there is a last name and two initials for first and middle name. And let's say you know what those names are, you can add it as additional information and the searching person will clearly see this as added information.
Now the 1950 census is already available for searching in Ancestry.com. But it is currently the pre-reviewed information and contains many errors. For instance, I was 6 weeks old when the census was taken, but the AI captured data says I was 72 years old in 1950. Yet the original information in the record is correct and done the right way. I added the suggestion for year born and now both appear to someone searching.0
What @HerrJamesAlan1 describes Ancestry.com doing on historical records and any number of duplicate trees, FamilySearch does on Tree and to some extent also on historical records.
Having tried both, I hugely prefer how FamilySearch does it. If I preferred the Ancestry.com way I would be working over there, not here. Thank you FamilySearch for not being just like Ancestry.com.1
It's all very well saying that there is no way of correcting transcription errors, but it has the knock on effect of lowering the reputation of Family Search and the believability of the data. Also the errors propagate into other sites and have to be corrected in multiple places.
A typical example is my grandfather, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XWRF-T1H, who was a printer, but in one place this is mistranscribed as PAINTER FOREMAN COMPOSITOR, a nonsensical occupation. This page has an "Edit" button, but it is greyed out and cannot be removed. This misinformation has already propagated into WikiTree.0
@Peter Jennings_1, a couple of observations.
One: like FS's tree, WikiTree is editable, meaning that you can fix the misread occupation in both places.
Two: the reason the index is not editable on FS is that it's FindMyPast's index and image. Any complaints or corrections need to be addressed to FMP.1