Thoughts on Correcting Errors in the Records
Comments
-
Patricia Casey said: I totally agree...original copies can be difficult to read. Therefore... a notation must be made as to the accuracy ???? of the transcription!! And if these go through INDIA (!?) even more reason to question transcriptions and make notation on the record such as we have mentioned on here. Even a U for uncertain..unclear ! I wonder how hard that idea would be to get to record copiers around the world? Is it only the UK who uses India to produce indexes?
Why would European indexes be produced in INDIA? Help! They have 4 different languages in India, and the alphabet is different for each. NONE has letters such as ABC..they are more like symbols!! HELP!
What is Free BMD?0 -
Corlis Hicks said: Patricia, the indexing program allows indexers to mark a value as unreadable. Perhaps some of your questions would be answered if you did a little training, downloaded the indexing program and tried a few batches. Based upon your language preference, and level (beginner, intermediate, advanced) you may be offered the opportunity to index records from outside your home nation. Here's a link to the FreeBMD website.
http://www.freebmd.org.uk/0 -
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: I'm afraid that the answer to your "India" query is that, unlike Family Search and Free BMD, most web-based genealogical groups are in it for the money and having records done in India was a cheap option. Ancestry Com.,often mentioned in this Forum, is very expensive and even make money out of the free casualty lists from WW1 - if I want to find out the fate of my uncles and where my father was wounded I will have to pay Ancestry Com a goodly sum.
That is why I joined Family Search and Free BMD.0 -
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: Indexers work from scans Leonard and there is a facility to enlarge the text.0
-
Patricia Casey said: I so appreciate your conciencousness, SA.... That is a huge vote of confidence for me.. and HOPE that more follow your example!
I have many Brits on one side of our family. Had a reunion in London & Burmingham in 2000. Our UK family made us aware of the brick walls that get in the way for a lot of their research..because of the World Wars..especially WW11. SO MANY records destroyed in bombings, fires, etc. They often depend on LDS--for info. The Church of Latter Day Saints is probably about the best world historian we have today... A couple of our Brittish cousins actually came to UTAH a few years ago to research...before we had so much info on the computer! So..we have come a long way in a short time with making Geneology available to many. Just seems that the more info available, the more are charging for it though.
SO THANK YOU INDEXERS FOR VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME! Just please be careful :-) The more records being transcribed/copied by so many different people, the larger ammount of errors can happen... And soon, it will be impossible to 'weed them out'.0 -
Janet Hall said: >>They often depend on LDS--for info. The Church of Latter Day Saints is probably about the best world historian we have today... <<
A little clarification and thought is needed here. No one can be a "world historian" without records, and as you point out, many have been destroyed in various world conflicts, fires, etc. [ In the past 'submitted' records from LDS members were, as they will themselves say, rather fanciful.]
They are indeed the keepers of many records from around the world which otherwise would be not available to most of us., In some cases, they had accessed and filmed the records before some recent disaster took them...such as Katrina. (Of course some records and books are not filmed, and one does have to go to Utah to see those, which your British cousins did). Primary source records are the lifeblood of genealogy.
That's why this familysearch project was so exciting when announced. We can access these records without ordering film from the FHL and see them at home on our screens. This is a great boon to research. Here's hoping they get some of the bugs out of the system or at least acknowledge they're there.0 -
Patricia Casey said: By the way, UKers. While in UK in 2000 for a Family Reunion of some of my husbands family, I was so fortunate to work on my Family Tree and meet with the head Historian of County Kent, Gravesend. Just a few miles down (up?) river from London. My 1500's ancesters were from Milton, Kent, NearGravesend. Went to Milton Chantry which was originally a church where births, marriages and deaths were recorded. This is now a Historical place. It had become a Fort guarding the entry on the River Thames to London for centuries. Even in WW2! Huge thick walls form the fort and housed munitions and people. Today, there are records kept there. The Historian pulled out a HUGE book that took 2 people to help to move to a table. In it...she found my ancestor!! Beautiul hard to read scroll writing recording Queen Elizabeth 1's gift of a Manor and surrounding lands to my Ancestor in 1572! She was accustomed to reading the old Script Writing. Info even told who these ancestors parents were and where in England they came from. That was a new piece of info for me, but to see that I had the correct info up to then right there in black and white before me!...well.. THAT WAS THE HIGHLIGHT OF ALL THE YEARS OF GENEOLOGY I HAVE DONE! Just thought I'd share that with you fellow 'hunters'!0
-
September Amyx said: Wow! How cool for you was that!0
-
Patricia Casey said: Thank you for clarifying the LDS as "best world historians", Janet. Their practice, as you know started less than 200 years ago, when their Morman Religion had been established. Mid-1800's or so...when they reached Utah, USA. FAMILY history was very important..and still is to the Mormons. And to the best of their abilities, their accuracy was of huge importance. That by all means was not proof of accuracy. However, who would you suggest is the best keeper of Geneologic Information and records today? Perhaps "world historian" is not the best terminology, as I am not aware that they have records of World Events, but only of PEOPLE... aka:Geneology. Those records that they saved from Europe and other war torn countries is invaluable. The devistation of the World Wars was tremendous. Baptism, Birth, Marriage, and Death records gone forever..had not many been saved earlier by the LDS
.
And by the way, when my British cousins came here...the magic of Personal Computers hadn't really started. Nor were there Family History Centers all over the world (thanks to LDS) Today, just 20 to 30 years later, Geneology has grown and all of this wonderful information is right at our fingertips..literally!
Another adendum here...for lack of knowing where else to post this......
. Another source of Historic USA Research that is available to U.S. geneology and fact finding that should be pretty accurate is: THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS... in Washington, DC. IF a person has the opertunity to go there... OR access through a local public library or, I believe you can get some access online. Great place to find places, events, and people from the past. Even land documents.0 -
Jean Keener said: Two other great sources, of United States history, for genealogists are the DAR LIBRARY & the NATIONAL ARCHIVES, also In Washington, D.C.
Though I haven't used the online services for many years, YES, there is that access to the LIBRARY CONGRESS, the DAR LIBRARY & the NAT'L ARCHIVES. .0 -
Jack Henry, Sr. Williams said: One of the problems is entry in the Family History by the indexing, prevents the patron from doing what he should be doing, leaving the work to be just entered
not knowing if it is correct or not. I had an uncle with 3 or 4 wives, all with the same name but from different states and different dates.
I was told the indexing was initiated because the Temples needed the names because there was not enough work. and errors were expected. I am sorry, but like every other comment, to me, this is unacceptable for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. I think the practice should be placed on hold until it is corrected.
Jack Williams0 -
Donald Colley said: Too bad we can't sift through our own information as indexers and fix what is listed. I have found several entries for my family that I know are not correct (misspelling of Colley as Cally, etc). This to me would be a logical extension of membership, that when I am not indexing your batches, I could be indexing my family.0
-
Jean Keener said: My thoughts exactly!0
-
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: Here are some examples. Indexer B is in brackets. Indexer A did not bother to enter the towns at all.
Pimlico (pinhco) Somerset (lonerseh) Bath (Balham) Nottinghamshire (herefordshire) Kensington (kenardington) Norwich (Hop wichenford)
Islington (Junction) New Market (New Addington) Chertsey (Chacley)
Stevenage Gleverlage......etc.etc..0 -
JennBeers said: I can certainly understand misspellings in older records, after viewing some of the handwriting on the census reports off ancestry.com, but I have to admit I was very surprised to see that the Marriage Index for my parents missed the last letter in my mom's first name, and the event was in 1973, which was about 40 years ago. It's not like it was in the 1800s or even early 1900s!0
-
EdieJune said: Jenn, read your post of misspellings in older records. It does make it difficult in searches. I was surprised to find my Grandparent's marriage certificate (1902). Their birth names weren't used. My Grandfather had a nick name and my Grandmother used her middle name. I knew who they were but not everyone in searches are that fortunate locating family information. The confusion using only the middle as a first name of two different brides linked her to an additonal marriage showing she was in two marriages at the same time. Found many census as the same with nick names and sometimes only initials of children which only confused the issue further. Poor handwritten censes reports must be a nightmare for translating. Censes compilation has improved greatly over recent decades. I've been pleased with some information I've found from available sources and leads. Looking forward to the 1940 Censes information.0
-
Patricia Casey said: Use of middle names.... Amazing how so many people were known by their middle names, rather than first names. I'd say that is true in over 1/2 of my family.. Even up to my father. It took me nearly 10 years of off and on searching for info on my Grandmother's sister. Finally found her marriage... under her middle name. Before then, I didn't even KNOW what her middle name was. So... no error there, just not realizing how many people went by middle names and never looking for it! She was always Josephine M. Hurd in early census. Ends up went by J. Mary when getting marriage liscence in 1899. Ahhhh... the hints and clues in geneology are priceless! But just another reason for the necessity in not making errors in the transcribing of records today!0
-
EdieJune said: Patricia, how we are learning so much is priceless. This brought to mine of my Father's only sister that I had known since childhood who passed in my early adulthood. She was my Aunt "Marie" who I saw weekly living in the same area. In my searches her birth name, christening and deceased information is stated Gladys Marie. I understand sur-name deviation changes for one reason or another but wasn't prepared for first and middle usage expecially in earlier days of families using the same first names for generations with aunts, uncles, cousins. What comes to mind is like "this is my brother Darrell and my other brother Darrell". How funny is that but so true. I will go with the flow and continue digging. I am happy to be alive and back on here in my searches. Released from the hospital yesterday after eight days in ICU of antibiotics to treat dble pneumonia. Life is good!0
-
Jean Keener said: Very true,both my mother & brother were known by their middle names. Thank goodness, I WASN"T, since I've always hated mine..0
-
Janet Hall said: But going back to the original problem of ERRORS in the Family search transcriptions: I work in Ohio records a lot, and some marriage and death records are not only transcribed but also digitized. So explain to me how an indexer can write both HARDIN and HARDON county in the transcription, and no one catches it? If they aren't catching (or, more likely not even reading) such blatant mistakes, there is not much hope that other errors will be picked up which require some thought.
Hello? Is anybody upstairs reading these?0 -
Patricia Casey said: LIFE IS GOOD for sure, Edie June! I am so glad you made it through the dble pneumonia! Scary stuff!
Yes.. we certainly do learn so much as we go along in our Geneology detective work! And love when I come upon a family skeleton along the way. A 'shirt tail relation' of mine just found an Uncle who was a convict in San Quentin prison in early 1900's. Now the detective work really begins. What did he do to end up in that infamous prison? He was probably disowned by the family and the reason he hadn't been mentioned in family records. Have to love it! Even an old gal like me! (75 yrs old)0 -
Patricia Casey said: Hi Janet... ( I'm in Ohio.. )
I totally agree.. and I can't help but feel the automated thinking of some indexers.. or transcribers of anything. We aren't talking about errors in original documents.. or hard to read original writing here. There seems to be no connecting, logical relationship between head and fingers when copying something. That becomes so apparent when you are able to pull up a "picture" of an original document..(such as census, etc.) and the writing and spelling are so clear... only to have it copied wrong! That ONE mis-typed letter..or word.. can throw an entire search off! That one name or document could be discarded by the researcher, putting up walls to his/her search for their ancestor. So indexing.. transcribing... copying of important info should be taken very very seriously, regardless of whether it is done by a volunteer or a paid professional. I think there may be a breakdown in this new indexing on Family Search. The system of the arbitrators isn't working very well, evidentially, because the arbitrators aren't catching the errors either...or they are just passing them off as 'OK' ?
But I think they do have a couple of conciensious indexers!
I DOUBT VERY MUCH THERE IS ANYONE HOME 'UPSTAIRS', Janet.0 -
EdieJune said: Thanks Patricia. Yes scary and I am 67. I really thought I might encounter skeletons as well along the way but not so far. That is the interesting part of solving the puzzles. Just maybe there will be something out of it to hand down without fear of a black sheep in the family. I'm liking becoming the family detective, good or bad.0
-
EdieJune said: Janet, I'm in WV (a native) but my husbands records are in Crawford Co., OH area. I find OH more difficult in locating records. Will not be making a trip to research records in the area. Luckly a lady I have contacted through Findagrave has researched the cemetery where generations of one family is located. This has been wonderful.
Any suggestions of locating OH county records?0 -
Janet Hall said: The Ohio records I am speaking of are on the family search site, which we're all on this board complaining about. Despite the errors and problems, I recommend you search them. That seems to be the state with the most records on the site. You can put in your surname and search marriages, deaths, and some births. You don't need to use wild-cards, it automatically searches for variations on names. (A Good Thing!)
For early land entries, check the BLM-GLO site, if the family got there early in the 19th c, you can see the actual land patent document on screen, signed by the president (or somebody using his pen).
When I say I "work in Ohio records," the familysearch records are the ones I'm using - and the ones we have all been discussing. They have all the early Ohio marriages, and a lot of death certificates digitized. As for my suggestions for locating Ohio county records, do you use your local FHC and order film from the FHL? That's what I did for years, until the familysearch site got organized. That is why I am so very disappointed that this great idea has so many flaws. We will hope these get ironed out soon.0 -
Patricia Casey said: I live in Ohio now, but am originally from Minnesota. So far, I haven't found any connections with Ohio in my family 'tree'. But I did find some good info on family on Fam. Search within the past couple of years from several other states. I, like you, was thrilled with how easily I found this information on FS. So YES! It is a huge disappointment to see the inaccurate information showing up in the "new" indexes... from the very documents that were found right here a year ago! sighhhhhh... Bigger isn't always better, and as we have been learning through this Error blog, the indexers cover the whole world. I really hate to think of people in India, or non English writing countries, indexing American or England's files. I don't think FamilySearch was broken... so why did they try to "fix it"? It was my favorite Gen. site that I had found in several years. one of these days, when I am less frustrated, I will go into FS searches to see if any of the errors in my Family have been corrected! And I am really glad to have found this 'blog' about THOUGHTS ON CORRECTING ERRORS ON FS...even if 'the powers that be" don't bother to listen. Sure gives us a place to vent about it!0
-
Anne England said: I am glad both old & new sites of FS are still available - I REALLY hope it will stay that way, though the old site encourages you to look at the new one. The old ones are very interesting & sometimes gives clues, making the records easier to find. I like the Pedigree files & IGI ones. I don't expect them to be flawless by any means, but they have been invaluable in discovering things I could find nowhere else. Just saying.0
-
September Amyx said: Hi,
I just want to add something about indexing. When we index, we input what exactly the spelling is, at least those are theinstructions. So for the place Hardin and Hardon, I can see this easily happening. I've done this myself because one side of a marriage document said Hardin, and the other side said Hardon. You must understand we can't go inputting what we think it is! Even if it appears logical to you, there are many people who've never been outside their hometown, let alone their state, so they are unfamiliar with other place names.
I also want to say that when you do your searches, you should use soundex PLUS any other spellings by sound you can think of. Initials do bring up more information in searches instead of blank.
I just did a batch of Ohio marriages. I lived in Cincinnati for a couple of years in the 70's, but I was a teen and don't remember much, so I was unfamiliar with any of the counties. So I was literally transcribing 'in the dark', no memory to help. Also the batch of Ohio marriages I indexed was the WORST handwriting I've seen!!!! They were just scrawled as if the person didn't have any energy or was soooo bored by writing the info down they could care less.
Also, you do know they have the IGI and Pedigree files in the new FamilySearch? Not by ged, but the info is at the bottom of the first results page. If you didn't notice they also have an option to search in the IGI indexes.
I'll be working on the 1940 census the second they release it!0 -
Jean Keener said: If what you write is true & an indexer inputs exactly what has been spelled on the original record, explain to me how someone could type CAFRIE SOGLEIS, instead of BESSIE EVELYN, which was, is, & always will be VERY CLEARLY shown on the original record?0
-
Janet Hall said: One could say the indexer had his/her hands on the wrong row of keys, but that doesn't work. Keyboards in other countries ARE set up differently as I learned when trying to work a computer in France. I had heard that all records are indexed by people indigenous to the country where the record was made. Let's hope so.
Clearly this process is not working, no one is proofreading with the original in front of them, or if they are, doing a very poor job. I'm sort of afraid if we all complain too much they'll just stop the project.
I would be interested to know how many who have written on this subject have
(1) ever ordered microfilm from the FHL, which is the way we used to see these records, or (2) done any indexing for this project?0
This discussion has been closed.