FamilySearch records error reporting

LegacyUser

Paul said: If we can now report errors in the Catalog records, why is there still no provision for reporting other errors that FamilySearch should be correcting?

Examples include records located under wrong parishes in image-only collections and incorrect / missing parishes or place names against indexed records.

Do FamilySearch executives and managers have no pride when it comes to presenting their records as clearly and accurately as possible?

I am not objecting to the provision of error reporting in relation to Catalog entries, or that FamilySearch is using its limited resources to maintain a team that deals with adding place names to the system. But isn't the inaccuracy in its indexed and image-only collections of at least equal importance?

It is really sad there are records few users have any hope of finding, because they have been totally mislabelled or are to be found (or rather NOT found) under place headings that are occasionally not even in the correct country!

It is pretty shameful that FamilySearch has such an apparent lack of interest in presenting genealogical events in an accurate manner.

(If we can report Catalog errors in the manner shown below, why cannot the same provision be made in relation to Historical Records errors?)

LegacyUser

Paul said: To make my points clear, I am not referring to the one-off errors that it has been suggested one day (in the far-off future) we will be able to correct ourselves.

With indexed records, an example of the problem is where the whole batch is shown with the wrong parish - e.g. ALL records in certain batches relating to Alnwick, Northumberland, England shown as being for Corbridge, in that county, or all records being shown for Bale, Norfolk when they relate to a parish (I forget which one) still in Norfolk, but about 30 miles away .

For non-indexed (image only) records, an example is where there are apparently no records in the Norfolk Archdeacon's Transcripts record collection for the parish of Thurton, but these have been placed with those for similarly named Thurlton, alongside the records that do actually relate to that parish.

I notified FamilySearch of these errors several years ago, but they still remain uncorrected.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Agreed - a typical issue is that the parish applied to all index records on a multi-item film is the one from the first item, whereas there are multiple parishes on that film.

I'm not suggesting that always happens, but happen it does and it would not be viable (and probably not sensible) to ask users to submit individual corrections when that facility appears.

Jim Rex

• I was looking for a birth record around 1740 in Hollerich Luxembourg but couldn't find a "film" for it but the discovered by accident but the records I was looking for were mislabeled "Mariages 1738-1778" when in fact it had baptism and death records from 1738 - 1778.
• This is the link to the page with the error. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99WS-93SV?i=57&owc=STHC-T38%3A1500934001%3Fcc%3D2037955&wc=STHZ-TQS%3A1500963301%2C1501073940&cc=2037955
• Sorry if this is wrong place to post this. Jim Rex

David RH Fayle

Many fundamental things about this transcription are wrong: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6NCJ-SPQR

Surname should be Payle, not Fayle - compare the F of February etc. Father should be Christian. Mother Edith Naomi Ann.

Yet there is no button available to report errors - so as Paul said, it is really sad there are records few users have any hope of finding, because they have been totally mislabelled - or very obviously mistranscribed.

DRHF