Thoughts on Correcting Errors in the Records
Comments
-
Corlis Hicks said: As an indexer, it's been a great help to look at my accuracy scores. Yes, there are times when I made an obvious mistake through miskeying, or misunderstanding the instructions. I really like that we can send feedback and have an arbitrated value reexamined.
As a user, I'm looking forward to making notations regarding the records as part of evidence analysis. It's not changing the record, but leaving a trail for future researchers.0 -
Patricia Casey said: I have been looking for an hour to voice this very complaint! YAY! Found this INDEXING TRANSCRIPTION ERRORS! I totally agree with the above complaints. It is the TRANSCRIPTION errors that are a huge problem! Way too many errors! I too have original census documents that are correct..and now, the more indexing that is done on FamilySearch, the more inaccuracies are showing up!! NO ONE IS TRYING TO HAVE ORIGINALS CHANGED! Just PLEASE double check the indexers transcriptions!! They are ruining this web site! Mis-spelling of names and places... or simply just using a "best guess" is not how geneology work is done. My families records are so messed up on here that no one would be able to find who they are looking for! And if they do find them they could be passing on the wrong information. I think you had better re-think your indexing program. Stop making it competitive as to who can index the most records! Haste makes errors!!!!!!0
-
Patricia Casey said: I SO agree with this thread of comments ! I think I'm going to have to quit using Family Search. I am so sick of the inaccuracies and the lack of the "Authority" to even acknowledge them! As I said in my main post today, they are ruining this web site. What a shame, because before the "change" and before the increase in requests for indexers... I was very pleased with coming to this site for research! And I agree... "if it worked, why change it." or "if it's not broke, don't fix it!" Now it's BROKE!0
-
Patricia Casey said: PS... I did try to get some changes made to my family info...that suddenly was in error. I even got an email back saying "if there is anything we can do, let us know"... HUH? What had I just sent them? Never got a reply again.0
-
Patricia Casey said: Corlis, I am curious....Who decides your accuracy scores? I am not trying to be facetious but would like to know, since there are so many errors now. And what is the accuracy of indexes being compared to? Does someone actually sit down and compare the copying to the original document? All of them?0
-
Corlis Hicks said: Patricia, The accuracy score reflects the percentage of fields the arbitrator didn't have to change on a particular batch. For example, If I have to index ten first and surnames, and the arbitrator makes a change on one, then I'd receive a 95% (19/20).
An arbitrator does compare the image to the information I index.
I will look for the indexing process on FamilySearch and post a link to it here so you can read the most accurate description of how it works.0 -
Patricia Casey said: Now I'm beginning to wonder if the arbitrator is doing his/her job?? There really are too many errors that too many people have caught. Even if it is just a typo on the part of an indexer... that can be a very serious error for those of us doing the research.0
-
Rich Schulthies said: I am an indexer, There is a major problem. I have my photocopy of the page at home. I forgot the page number in the 1860 Illinois Bureau County La Moille area. This is the correct spelling for the whole place. I saw many mispellings in the computer DB. When can we have access to fix this.
Richard Schulthies, Arbitrator0 -
Corlis Hicks said: Patricia, Here's a link to a pdf document on indexing. I found this on the FamilySearch Indexing Facebook page. Pg. 33 describes the indexing process.
http://broadcast.lds.org/elearning/FH...0 -
Patricia Casey said: Thank you....... I read several of those pages. I guess I still have the question of WHY so many mistakes are going un-noticed at the indexing level? It would be better not to put them on line than to put them on with those errors.0
-
September Amyx said: I'm an indexer, and I've only been doing it for a year, but I'm anal retentive. Since I reached my 100th batch indexed they invited me to become an arbitrator, the person who checks it last. All the records are transcribed from the original documents. They have at least 2 indexers do each batch. If the batches don't agree, then the computer kicks it to an arbitrator. I've noticed since arbitrating for about a week now, that 80% of the batches I've arbitrated have one of the arbitrators completely misreading names! Say for Lucy, they'll put Sucy! Either these are teenagers who are deliberately doing this, or there are people from foreign countries who say they speak English, but not enough for indexing at all! And the computer only has me check the inconsistencies. If they BOTH got it wrong, then according to the computer it's right, and that's what goes in the record. I've been taking more time with the arbitration than I should because I'm trying to name and place check the whole documents, That's the way I'm going to keep doing it.0
-
Janet Hall said: This is very dispiriting to hear! An old fashioned "L" can certainly look like an "S" and we all know it, just as we know that an old double "S" looks like a double "F"--but surely they had SOME kind of training or tests for those doing the indexing?
I can't believe this ground-breaking project has been so carelessly administered. Is anyone from "Upstairs" reading this? I don't think these indexers are either foreign or teenagers, but probably enthusiastic amateur genealogists who sadly haven't had any guidance.
Thank you, September Amyx, for being so careful and diligent in this job.0 -
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: As an Arbitrator of the UK England and Wales 1871 Census I find a lot of confusion
amongst indexers re.the UK system of counties and towns. The Where Born column
is full of mistakes due partly to the writing of the original collector and also because I believe a lot of the indexers do not live in the UK. It would be helpful if they would invest in a good atlas. I use the RAC Road Atlas which includes a list of towns etc.in the British Isles.0 -
Jean Keener said: Too bad ,you apparently weren't involved when my grandmother's name, Bessie Evelyn Tucker, correctly shown on the original record, was entered into this system as CAFRIE SOGLEIS Tucker & grandfather's surname Hawkins as HAWTHORNE. .0
-
Janice said: I first posted to this last week when I was so frustrated at not being able to report something I had researched to correct. So many people are posting to this topic that I came back to read the Official Response above. They say they are working on it but don't have a completion date yet. My suggestion is that that they start a simple database of corrections. Then, at least, we would be able to check this to find if our ancestor is listed among the corrections. They could do this as an Internet interactive or simply publish an address where we could send our snail mail and someone at the library could post to the database. The error I found was by happenstance and no one related to me was involved. So I'm not likely to find it again and correct it when the system is finally able to handle corrections/comments. At this point, there are so many complaints/comments that I doubt the Officials are reading these posts anymore since they think they are already doing everything humanly possible to solve the problem. So I guess all we can do is pray for them.0
-
anzenketh said: A lot of work that is required to do this type of thing. It is not something as simple as changing a word on a single page. Thought must first put into how the system should be implemented. Thought must be put into how to prevent abuse. Then the entire system must be coded with all the restrictions in place that need to be put in there. Coding an entire system like this could take a few years.0
-
Patricia Casey said: I totally agree. I have heard back from an indexer..post may be on here somewhere. She assured me they were being checked twice by arbitrators and then checked again. She seemed very sure of this. ARE THE INDEXERS BEING FOOLED? Someone, somewhere is allowing these errors to continue! I have not found any of my errors corrected. And I can't even remember all that I found over just the past 2 months. PLEASE INDEXERS...quit guessing at record words/names and just say "unclear".
You have more knowledge and abilities than some of the Census takers of past decades. I can understand their errors, since perhaps those they were interviewing may not have know how to read or write... or even speak English very well. And some of the Census takers didn't have very good hand writing.....But to mis-transcribe today is not acceptable!
LDS has been the pioneer in keeping records for generations, and I have found them to be so helpful and quite accurate. I do hope these errors are not being transferred to their records!0 -
Patricia Casey said: THANKYOU, THANKYOU, September Amyx! For your honesty and knowledge sharing of the error problems with Indexers! And thankyou for being aware and conciencous about it ! Does it help for you to report these finding to superiors? Are there any superiors to report to?
It is also very frightening to think there is no control and ability to check on the qualifications of the Indexers. I had volunteered last year to be an Indexer on Family Search. I still get emails from FS Indexing. However, I never got around to starting to do that. I'm glad now, since I see that there are many who don't realize the damage careless transcribing can do.
WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU, SEPTEMBER AMYX!0 -
Patricia Casey said: Are you getting as many complaints in the UK as here in the US? So far, all of mine are re: U.S. Indexing errors... mostly of which I can pull up the image of the Census form, to verify the mistake made. I haven't gone to my UK Family files yet!0
-
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: As far as I know Patricia they are checked by two indexers and one arbitrator.
The arbitrator is (unfortunately) not required to check the whole document but only the words and letters that the two indexers disagree on. These are printed out in red by the automatic system for the arbitrator to check - if neither is correct the arbitrator can add their own version. If the original writing is illegible then you can press CTRL AND U
I agree it is preferable to enter U for unreadable rather than make a wild guess.0 -
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: I don't really know if there are many UK complaints Patricia - most of the discussions on this page seem to refer to the USA.0
-
anzenketh said: Indexing is volunteer work. Their are no "Superiors" Due to no-one gets paid to do it.0
-
Bernice Mistrot said: Indexers are given accuracy scores, but I wonder who is monitoring the arbitrators, and giving THEM accuracy scores? Obviously a lot of mistakes are getting past the arbitrators.
I'm not sure I agree that it is preferable to enter U for unreadable rather than make a wild guess. The better course would be to make the wild guess AND mark it unreadable such as with "??". Even a wild guess gives users a chance of finding the record; "unreadable" is no help at all. But it's important that it be labled a guess to keep from misleading the user who is searching for the name that appears (erroneously) in the index.
I also sympathize with indexers; many times the handwriting and/or ink quality is prettty bad, and only a person familiar with that person or family would know by context what it really says. Some mistakes are inevitable.
BUT ... I absolutely agree that the indexing contains far too many errors, and that there must be a way for alternate transcriptions to be posted by users, as Ancestry does. Occasionally, Ancestry will even accept the user-submitted info as the primary entry and make the original transcription the alternate version. The important thing is that both versions are now searchable, and no matter which of the two spellings you are looking for, you are alerted that there is some question about it.0 -
Leonard McCown said: If these folks are working from copies rather than microfilm, I can certainly see there are going to be more mistakes. At least with the image you can enlarge it and see what the word looks like. Hopefully these errors coming to light were done earlier in indexing and now the process has improved.0
-
Patricia Casey said: Hi Bernice,
Good suggestion! I could live with the 'wild guess' as long as it also read ? or unreadable/unclear/, as you suggested, or some such discription. Not as it stands now...as if it were the factual name or place.
I too sympathize with the indexers. They are working under unfair programing... If these indexes are being put out world wide, they really should be monitored in a better manner. Faulty records (and indexes) can lead us amateur Family Geneologists far off track.0 -
Patricia Casey said: Hi Jean Hardcastle:
Jean... Just what would an arbitrator "add as their own version" if neither of 2 indexers data doesn't match? Where do the arbitrators go for their information? This really sounds like a faulty system to me, and I am sure that FS has put a lot of time and money into the faulty system. Maybe it is time to stop...step back..and find out what is wrong with their system, before more damage can be done. I really do hope folks continue to complain until this gets attention from whoever is "the power that is" for Familysearch. I have loved the site for so long... hate to see this happening with the records they have so generously made available to us. Thankfully, I have many of the original records on my family from back to the early 1800's, and have been able to compare these errors with the originals. Mostly from Census original photo copies... some of which I originally got from this very site a couple of years ago. They hadn't been "indexed"! I have these both prined out and stored in my computer. Also are in my Family Tree at Ancestor.com.0 -
Patricia Casey said: Interesting, Jean.
Part of my family are "Tucker"s too. Glad I never came across Cafrie Sogleis Tucker in my searches. Somehow, that sure doesn't sound English, (as in UK English) does it? How in the world did someone come up with that name?0 -
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: If Indexers living in the USA etc. are not familiar with UK place names then both can interpret the original writing incorrectly albeit differently. If they both agree on the wrong interpretation it bypasses the arbitrator and goes through the system.0
-
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: The blame for all these problems should be laid firmly at the door of the original census collectors. Some of the handwriting is indescribable and it is difficult to understand how they got the jobs in the first place.
Volunteers working for The Genealogist Co.Uk have also the task of sorting out the occupations column. The indexes have been produced in India and the Forum has hundreds of howlers because the Indians are not familiar with English occupations - -a similar problem to the UK place-names.
. Free BMD has far fewer mistakes because the original records were typewritten after the early days and searchers can inform BMD re. mistakes -- when checks have been made the indexer is informed by email and they can go to the records and change the entry.0 -
Jean Keener said: Thank you for your comment, Patricia. As I mentioned, the original record was clearly spelled CORRECTLY & WAS NOT hard to read. Apparently, the transcriber either couldn't read or forgot to wear his or her glasses that day. I'll never understand how the name on a marriage record from Richmond, Virginia in 1905 was interpreted so incorrectly. Why did no one question this ridiculous spelling of a name & where were the arbitrators?0
This discussion has been closed.