wrong records attributed to wrong parish
How much longer do I have to correct constantly the wrong parish?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
wrong parish. the whole set is actually Irsch bei Beurig, Saarburg (nowadays known properly as Irsch, Saarburg, Rheinland) - NOT Irsch, Bitburg, Rheinland (a very different parish way up north of Irsch bei Beurig
Who do I contact to get this corrected. It is NOT a single person, it's the entire parish record (film 464879 shows it is Irsch bei Beurig, in fact the whole parish is listed in Germany, Rhineland, Diocese of Trier, Catholic Church Records, 1704-1957 with wrong parish name - Irsch, Bitburg, good grief).
I have so many of my family in this parish and I have to correct the parish name.
And it is not only parish. There are 2 other parishes with exact same problem - same town name but different parish (3 parishes in Saarburg having been attributed to 3 wrong parishes in Bitburg).
Comments
-
W David Samuelsen said: another one - wrong parish identity
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
it's Irsch, Saarburg, NOT Irsch, Bitburg0 -
Antoinette Jo Castricone Dever said: Maybe we should be happy we even have parish records to look at. Sounds like you are doing a lot of good work by correcting wrong information.
Because you have family there you know better than anyone. Makes you the perfect one make corrections.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I don't think W David Samuelsen wants to spend hours, even days, going through hundreds or thousands of parish records to correct the place from "Irsch, Bitburg" to "Irsch, Saarburg". It should be easy for FS to change this all at once.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Helsdingen, You got that right! There's 250 years worth of correcting wrong place.0
-
Paul said: There are plenty more of these - especially, I have found, in the records for the English counties of Norfolk and Northumberland. In many cases the problem relates to all records being indexed under the parish at the start of a microfilm, which might contain numerous other parish records from parts of that county - though sometimes from a different part of the world! (What FamilySearch used to do to use the whole length of microfilm!)
I reported my examples many years ago but they remain just the same - thousands of individuals baptised at "Corbridge" instead of the correct parish of Alnwick, etc.
"FamilySearch does not have the resources to address such issues" is the usual reply. I imagine Antoinette has never experienced this problem, or she would know users CANNOT make the changes themselves, so are dependant on someone at FamilySearch finally realising resources are required to address these reported issues.0 -
Paul said: W David -
When you say, "How much longer do I have to correct constantly the wrong parish?" I assume you are talking about correcting the parish name once in Family Tree as - last time I read about amending indexed records - I understood this only applied to the names of individuals (not places), and even then still only in limited collections.0 -
W David Samuelsen said: correct names, dates, everything - BUT WRONG PARISH.
Whole dataset is blatantly wrong linked. I am NOT talking about a single record. I am referring to the WHOLE dataset. The hints are blatantly wrong where the parish is concerned.
Who is the responsible party I need to contact to get this corrected because I see many hints attached as sources blindly, not realized by others that it's wrong parish in first place.
Irsch bei Beurig, Saarburg, Rheinland (aka Irsch, Saarburg, Rheinland) is NOT same parish as Irsch, Bitburg, Rheinland. The image records belong to Irsch bei Beurig - NOT that other one in Bitburg region.
Ditto for Scheiden, Merzig, Rheinland. The records are blatantly wrong identified as Schleiden, Bitburg, Rheinland despite what the records said
Whoever did this, did NOT bother to look at the title pages of the volumes. They are clearly identified.
Here's the first one (this one is of my Konter family)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
WRONG! It's not Bitburg.
Take a look at the image record
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
It is Saarburg one.
The problem is Germany, Rhineland, Diocese of Trier, Catholic Church Records, 1704-1957
Go to Record Search
Select this particular group
enter name Konter (one of many surnames I have for this parish)
and enter birth place Irsch.
Every one came up Bitburg - every one is WRONG! If you see a lot of them already linked, you will find it's my family with corrected parish name in personal pages, and I can't edit the record record because it's in every source record
Somebody has been making a lot of mistakes.0 -
I have no knowledge of German parishes but I have similar problems with English parishes and I have a theory as to what the problem is.
It intrigues me that Irsch, Saarburg and Irsch, Bitburg are so close together alphabetically, which is a symptom of my own problems.
The errors that I have found in 'English Deaths and Burials, 1538 - 1991' are similarly close alphabetically.
I have found records for Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire, England listed as Broughton.
And records for Milton, Hampshire, England as Micheldever.
Also records for Tisbury, Wiltshire, England as Trowbridge.
I am not a Database expert but I am a retired Mainframe Systems Programmer, and so here is my theory.
When you create a Database you DO NOT put e.g. 'St Michael, Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire' into a record because there will be 1000's of records with the same data and that just wastes space.
What you do is create a LOOKUP TABLE with parish names listed alphabetically and each record has a pointer to the correct parish name in this table, added when the record is loaded into the Database.
Now this LOOKUP TABLE should NEVER, EVER be updated after the Database has been loaded because the pointers in the records may then point to the wrong parish name. Probably the next name alphabetically. Which is why these symptoms point to this type of error.
I think that the LOOKUP TABLE has been updated without the DB being reloaded.
Hope this helps
0 -
Is this still unresolved? I just found a whole group of records that are tagged with the wrong parish and wanted to get it fixed but am I correct that my efforts are futile? It is a shame that people are looking for records and they're there but indexed wrong. And sadly, the images are not available.
0 -
NOT RESOLVED as of 24 Feb 2023.
Hints for Irsch, Saarburg (aka Irsch bei Serrig) is still listed as Irsch, Bitburg
Scheiden, too
Constant correcting as of today.
0 -
@W D Samuelsen contact me please If you view the image you initially posted (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPS7-JCFB) through Search> Images> DGS 008138573, there is a feedback tab on the left hand side. You can click there and enter your evidence why it is wrong and should be changed. There is an option to leave your email if you wish. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK3-W9Q2-K
0 -
Metadata is correct
It is INDEX Hint source that is wrong.
Quick example (it is not only one name, it's the whole parish), same for Scheiden, too
0 -
@W D Samuelsen contact me please in this case, you can edit the indexed info to correct the place. Since this shows up in the catalog incorrectly, have you asked to have the catalog corrected? How do I request a correction to the FamilySearch Catalog?
I still think that you could also click on that feedback link at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK3-W9Q2-K?view=explore&groupId=TH-909-71196-30894-53 and explain that the locations in the image group data does not match what shows up in the indexed record when you attach it to the person in Family tree.
0 -
Maile.
You got it in reverse.
The catalog is very very CORRECT. The images are what the catalog says. It is Indexing project managers making mistakes. Indexes are ALL wrong. Indexes says BITBURG when it is utterly wrong in first place.
Absolute insanity, having to correct EVERY indexed person info!
As for that link - I can't enlarge! LOCKED in itty bitty sizes.
And I have the Familienbuch for Irsch, Saarburg,
Take a look at the Group Data (it's correct).
Images says SAARBURG, the index says BITBURG. The index is WRONG.
0 -
More bits of info showing BITBURG is wrong in index.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1037270?availability=Family%20History%20Library
Die katholische Pfarrei Sankt Gervasius und Protasius in Irsch an der Saar, mit Ockfen und Schoden (1712) 1808-1899 (Collective genealogy, arranged alphabetically and chronologically by surname, compiled from registers for the Roman Catholic parish of St. Gervasius and Protasius in Irsch (Kr. Saarburg), Rheinland, Germany. Includes entries for Ockfen and Schoden. Includes index of occupations, family and place names.)
One entry in index - for Petrus Weber (12 Aug 1876) , Proof is here - in SAARBURG (#3 in first family entry)
an der Saar = Saarburg.
0 -
How to report an issue in an indexed record that has an image
- Open Document Information, usually found under the doc image in the indexed record.
- Copy the Digital Folder Number (do not click to open). Also note the Image Number if it is listed.
- Go to Search> Images> More Options.
- Enter the copied number from the Doc Info into the Image Group Number (DGS) box and click Search.
- Open the result that matches the indexed record Collection Information.
- Find the image that correlates to the indexed record. This is where you can enter the image number, so you don't have to look through each image.
- Click on the Feedback tab, usually on the left-hand side of the screen.
- Choose an emoji.
- Enter the error or issue with the record in the box below the emojis.
- Click Submit.
0 -
Maile L,
Does that meant I have to report EVERY IMAGE, considering how many of my folks in those parishes tagged incorrectly by indexing department?
0 -
You can tell them the scope of the error when you report it.
0
