Is there any way to get incorrect source links corrected?

LegacyUser

Paul said: I am quite used to the experience of the required record not being on the page that appears from the link provided, and know I (usually) have to scroll through several pages before I find its correct location. However, in this case, the link takes me to an incorrect set of records altogether. The link takes me to the 1806 Norfolk Bishop's Transcripts set, which includes 72 images all relating to that year, whereas the record in the image displayed is an 1808 record and (rightly) found in the 1808 sub-collection of records. Is there any way of reporting these errors and subsequently getting them fixed?

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: I would suggest that you create a case with the specifics and see if support cannot make a correction.

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: Thank you for the input.

Providing a link to the record with the incorrect image link is helpful. Providing a link to the correct one is even better.

There may be a wide spread issue that we can correct.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Interesting. This is a major issue and will need to get someone involved in setting up index to image connections. I don't think opening a case would do anything other than delay getting the problem to the correct team.

I have reported in the past, an issue where an index was produced for images of the second page of a two page record, which then was completely bollixed because the index should have covered both pages. Phil Jeffrey reported he opened a bug report on that problem, but it has not been resolved. (See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...) This issue is not the same.

I have also reported in the past, an issue where two indexes were released, just days apart, for the exact same image, but contained different information. I do not believe that problem has been resolved, either. See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... Again, this issue is not the same.

Hopefully, this issue doesn't drop into limbo where it will not be addressed, even though it is reported through Get Satisfaction. The Code of Conduct says we are not to bump issues, but these kinds of unresolved problems need to be given some kind of priority to get them addressed or fixed and a notification that the appropriate team is aware of the problem and actually working on a solution.

LegacyUser

Paul said: I'm afraid I have complicated this a little by showing a screenshot from the father's source ("John Wall mentioned in the record of John Wall"). However, the general problem remains the same, so I will provide the URL shown on the son's page:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

The link from there is to the incorrect 1806 records at

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

However, I have undertaken a manual search and the correct (direct) link to the page on which this 1808 record appears is:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
(second entry on this page)

Hope this helps!

(Incidentally, I am about to add the last source / URL to the father, son - and mother. I am leaving the incorrect links on their pages, but adding a suffix to the title showing the URL is incorrect.)

LegacyUser

Lundgren said: Thank you!!!

We've notified the data team of the issue.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Thank YOU for taking an interest in the matter. - P.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Lundgren

Hoping you are still following this topic, as I have been looking at some of the other individuals named on the 1808 record (of Norfolk Bishop Transcripts), which I have shown as the "correct" link, in finding John Wall's baptism.

The first point to make is that 1808 records for this collection have not been indexed. So, as expected, the other four names I checked at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... are not to be found in a search at https://www.familysearch.org/search/. Therefore, it is not a case of replacing the existing, incorrect URL (for 1806 records) with the 1808 one as NEITHER should be appearing as an indexed record.

The other four names I checked all have that incorrect link, which, ideally, should be removed.

However, from a search at https://www.familysearch.org/search/ I have found three of them have a correct link to the Norfolk Archdeacon's record for Great Yarmouth (a totally different collection). Although found on the same page, at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619..., neither "my" John Wall or a Mary Ann Woolmer have a link to it from the Search page (https://www.familysearch.org/search). I can only think this is due to very bad indexing (or the names being omitted during the indexing process ). For example, Rebecca Webster has been indexed as "WEBSKI" and Mary Ann Woolmer as "WOOLNER" - but even with a wildcard search I could not find John Wall.

In summary, the links to https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619... are obviously incorrect for anyone on the page I've found (i.e. with an 1808 baptism). But it is not a case of simply replacing them with the "correct" link because these records are not indexed, so should not be appearing as search results.

To confuse matters, there are three sets of records for which images are available for this period on FamilySearch. These appear (for Great Yarmouth and other parishes) under the headings of:

(1) Norfolk Bishop's Transcripts (NO correct link from the Search page)
(2) Norfolk Archdeacon's Transcripts (3 out of 5 correct links)
(3) Norfolk Parish Registers (1 out of 5 correct links)

(Above relates to the 5 sample names I checked from the "BTs" page)

And to confuse matters even more, all these record collections appear to have been PARTLY indexed - some so badly, that the names cannot be found in a search, even when they should be there!

Basically, I have posted this to save the time of anyone investigating - since, as explained, it is not a simple case of solving the problem by replacing one URL with another.

(Extract of page, including 3 of the 5 sample names checked