Thoughts on Correcting Errors in the Records
Comments
-
Jean Keener said: Indeed I did!!! When I began my researching, many years ago, ordering micro-film from the FHL of the Latter Day Saints Churches was one of the best ways to go. They also had a library of research books on site, about different subjects. Their volunteers were fantastic.
The very 1st film, I ordered, arrived written in German. Since I knew absolutely no
German at all, a volunteer showed me a book which listed all the letters of the alphabet & the different ways they might have been written in that language. I was able to do my own translation using it.
Most of my searches were done in person. I traveled everywhere, to courthouses, libraries, archives, colleges, churches, cemeteries, etc. Living near D.C, i was able to use the Nat'l Archives, Library of Congress & the DAR Library. I went to Ellis Island though I knew my people had all come before that place existed. It was a very moving experience. Sadly, I never traveled to Germany or England because I didn't want to go alone.
There also used to be a way to order micro-film through local libraries using the inner- library system. Don't know if that system is still available.
As I mentioned on a previous post, I made a disk with some of my info & mailed it to Utah. It wasn't complete at that time, but was ACCURATE & posted to the IGI.
In my opinion, the Family Search web site WASN"T broken, so why change or fix it.
Now I'm too old to think about indexing, was 80 last summer.
Good luck to everyone, I doubt my maternal grandparent's' names will ever be corrected on the web site. I've been compaining about it since 2010.0 -
Janet Hall said: Nope, that doesn't work. The image of the Ohio record is right on the screen. In this case it was a PRINTED FORM with of course, the county name spelled correctly. I do understand that indexers have to write what they see and cannot change to what they think it should be. But in this case, a typo, and no one caught it. As the risk of repeating myself, but it seems necessary, the most egregious errors occur when the obverse of a form is paired with the wrong front image. John Jones on the front and Bob Smith on the back. Makes searching a real challenge.0
-
Rolando E Creagh said: After reading everything I feel discouraged about the accuracy of the information displayed. My mother has the wrong birth date. Two uncles have the wrong birth place. 3 of my grand childrens have errors. If Wikipedia is able to provide editing (and I have done so where appropriate) I fail to see why I can correct those mistakes.
R. E. Creagh, MD FACS0 -
Patricia Casey said: I so agree, Rolando. Very discouraging. I just hope these errors don't bleed over into other Geneology Sites.. or get RE-copied to some place that is public accessable!
WHO IS MINDING THE STORE ON FAMILY SEARCH???
Pat0 -
Julie Hopkins said: I am very disappointed that things cannot be changed. A person has written that my Aunt was married to her dad and had 2 children one of them was actually her brother (my grandfather) and the other one was her nephew (my uncle). I really think some of this should be able to be corrected. It will be passed down for generations and is grossly incorrect. They think they have the correct information because someone with the same last name gave them this information and therefore it must be correct, but it is not.0
-
Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: What type of record are you talking about for your relatives? I can't imagine a civil or church record with these types of errors.
This forum actually is discussing the correction of records which have been incorrectly indexed by the participants of FamilySearch Indexing.
Your own situation raised some questions for me, however.
How can the aunt be married to her dad? Wouldn't the dad be your own grandfather? You said that one of the "children" is your grandfather -- so how does that work?
If this situation is from New FamilySearch, it CAN be changed but it may need some time and perhaps documentation. No one wants New FamilySearch to portray these relationships because these records on NFS are to be treated as the most sacred.
Also, is there a way to contact the original submitter of this wierd situation? They need to know what they have done and they might be able to make the necessary corrections.
If the situation is in Pedigree Resource File or Ancestra File, there must be a way to counter what other researchers have done in the discussions or you might be able to submit your own files, complete with sources and notes, to Pedigree Resource File. (Is Pedigree Resource File still available for submissions? I am not sure.)
Pedigree Resource File and Ancestral File, as I understand it, are supposed to be separated from the new database forming Family Tree which is in beta form at the moment. (Someone else know about this fact?)
Julie, please telephone 1-866-406-1830 and talk to FamilySearch support. Ask for a supervisor if necessary. Explain the situation with your aunt and see what you can do to help straighten it out.0 -
Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: Just to share the very recent situation I have had from working on FamilySearch Indexing.
It has been my pleasure to index some of the Dutch civil birth records from Gelderland. I have been researching Dutch families for decades and feel comfortable with the names, dates, etc.
I read all the project information and followed them.
After I sent in the birth records, I noticed that the arbitrator had made "corrections" which were not acceptable.
My indexing was being marked down because I had (1) not added the surname of the baby (the surname was not there and we were told to mark the field blank if it wasn't there and to not assume) and (2) I had marked the wife's occupation blank because the Dutch phrase meant "without occupation" and that was a form of "none" or "no occupation".
I wrote FamilySearch Indexing and was told that many arbitrators do not follow the project guidelines. The person who wrote me apologized and told me to do the best I can.
They can not control the arbitrators nor can they correct them.
Moral of the story: it might not be the indexer who made the mistake but the arbitator who did.
What is the use of having the indices available if they add more problems then they solve?
Please let us have a way to attach comments, insights, opinions, etc to these indexed records!
We REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need a way to make comments or add a second opinion to the indexed records.0 -
Taillefer said: I totally agree with you Mary Susan. I have had the same problem with my indexing. The arbitrator or arbitrators that worked on some of the batches I indexed most certainly did not follow the project guidelines. I wrote in to suggest that project managers find a simple way that would allow an indexer to submit an entire batch for a second look by a more experienced arbitrator.0
-
Joe Worrell said: Just as I wrote earlier the names of Irish and scotish names are this way.. O' Bannon not O'Bannon it is a slang and also in general to irish to run it together, as I myself am Irish.0
-
Joe Worrell said: Sorry did make mistake . Scottish is mispelled. on my prior comment, not capitalized not doubled tt.... I am still human..lol0
-
September Amyx said: ROBERT KEHRER!!
I'm sorry, but only showing the last 15 replies IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!
Why did you change it?!
Going back through the replies gives a lot more information on the problem, and prevents people from seeing answers they may find acceptable.
I'm also curious as to why you didn't post a message that actually responded to the complaints listed? It looks as if the message was written one year ago as it states next to your name. But it's a new message, obviously.
I find this behavior very distasteful and underhanded.0 -
Lori Willis said: The error that I need fixed is that someone linked my Great, Great Grandfather to the wrong Anna Henderson . . . the years of birth and death are somewhat close (so I can see where someone might have thought that they had the right "Anna Henderson" . . . but, mine was born in New York (not Canada) and her parents and siblings aren't even close. How do I unlink this "Anna" from my family tree, so that I can get the right Anna in place?0
-
Patricia Casey said: Totally agree with you Robert Kehrer! Seems like we are getting a "spin" reply here. And overall, it is a helpless feeling to know that there seems to be nothing we can do to correct blatant errors... including mis copied information! I think all of us will agree that if original old records were incorrect, because a census taker or recorder made the error, (the "creator") it would be impossible to blame FS for transcribing that. But for BLATANT TYPO'S OR GUESSES TO BE ACCEPTABLE, is totally UN-ACCEPTABLE!
Such as Jean Keener's post of 21 days ago! (which with only 15 posts will be gone from here soon!)
Jean Keener 21 days ago
"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?"
HOW BLATANT IS THAT?
I am still concerned that someone is going to mess up the 1940 Census. And I still am not convinced that there are good arbitrators or a 3rd arbiter checking anything questionable!0 -
Jean Keener said: Patricia,
I wholeheartly agree with you. I too am very much concerned about the 1940 census, because I have already seen some bad handwriting on those original records, BUT
There is also some extremely easy to read handwriting too. That doesn't mean an indexer or transcriber will enter it correctly, as in my grandmother's case (CAFRIE SOGLEIS instead of BESSIE EVELYN)..
In case any of those indexers, transcribers or arbitrators are reading this "I DO HAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL" so I know the name was spelled correctly!!!!0 -
Janet Hall said: I have a mental picture of the arbitrator table. I may be doing them an injustice, but it comes from an experience of some years ago, before computers, when I was involved with a county historical society whose volunteers were abstracting probate and land records to index cards. It was more a social occasion; someone would bring coffee cake, and they all sat at a long table and talked nonstop, scribbling away on their cards all the while from old record books. . A valuable service, and some of it is actually correct. I'd say about 60%.
Knowing something of the hierarchy of the LDS, I am not sure the arbitrator posts went to the most qualified people with strict standards of accuracy. I hope our complaints are being read by someone, but I suspect there will be no official word and we can only hope that someone with authority and respect for accuracy will hear our pleas and quietly fix this system. It is such a valuable project and it's so sad to see it wrongly done.
Well, it's better than the IGI (stands for "I Guessed It").0 -
Joe Worrell said: what were their name(s)??? I doubt my maternal grandparent's' names will ever be corrected on the web site. I've been compaining about it since 2010.
Comment
Joe0 -
Joe Worrell said: send me the PID andf I can help resolve this and also directly if you like. I live in Utah and do this daily And errors happen and I will glad to walk you through the changes and removal of the wrong ancestors.
As Always In The Gospel,
Joe Worrell
435-720-23520 -
September Amyx said: Thank You!0
-
September Amyx said: It still doesn't list all the answers, and, no, I didn't post about needing to see the replies just so I could have the narcist gratification of seeing my name. I truly think ALL the replies should be available. It shows the trend of what people are looking at, and what has been done about it. The thread showed at least, though there had not been any 'official' comments for some time, Family Search DID have a logical and responsible transcription system in place, even though there were inevitable errors. The satisfaction at seeing an 'official' response was immediately tempered by the editing of the site. :-( I personally am very supportive of and encourage others to make use of the valuable FREE service LDS offers through FamilySearch.0
-
September Amyx said: I think I have an answer regarding completely inaccurate transcription of names, at least as far as what may be accepted by FamilySearch from Ancestry.com. I was researching again on Ancestry.com, and came across one of MY correction inputs. However, it was completely inaccurate and my fault. An Ancestry.com original image shows the transcriptions, each individual record/line allows you to add a correction. When you click on the name, the boxes from the line are auto-filled. However, if you then go to a different line on the same image, and click on a name, the program auto-fills from the previous line! If you're not watching, and you only want to correct the first name, the surname box will have the wrong info and needs to be corrected before saving. Make sense? I'm not sure why Ancestry.com auto-fills those boxes, but I'll let them know how errors in corrections can be made, and recommend they remove the auto-fill for corrections only. I hope this helps.0
-
Jean Keener said: Their correct names were Collier HAWKINS (not Collier HAWTHORNE) and BESSIE EVELYN Tucker (not CAFRIE SOGLEIS Tucker).
Collier's father wasThomas H. HAWKINS (not Thomas H. HAWTHORNE)
You can see I have also been complaining since 2010.0 -
Jean Keener said: Your meaning for IGI is very clever!0
-
Tom Nelson said: not relavent0
-
Dennis Savage said: Whilst I can understand mistakes occuring through bad handwriting etc I cannot understand how a complete families baptisms can appear in the wrong parish, Ancestors Jeremiah Piercy and his wife Jemima's children according to the photo copy of the register on the Historical Register Site were baptised at Blakeney Parish Church Norfolk, As an example of the errors Arthur Piercy was baptised on the 12 Sep 1870 at Blakeney as per the Blakeney Parish register but on this site he was also baptised in the parish of Glandford also on the 12th Sep 1870.
All the Piercy children born at Blakeney were baptised in that parish as were other delayed baptisms of children born in other parishes but none in Glandford0 -
Conrad Velaun Blake said: Having a way and means to correct, or at least annotate, the errors cannot come soon enough. the 1940 census is not correct, my mom would have been a Rollinson, instead of Rawlinson and I suppose my brother would have been Rollin (down the Highway) instead of Rawlin, he he
ps the arbitrators do need to be reviewed, but there is a means of doing so once the batch is arbitrated.,,
The sooner the better
Conrad0 -
Jean Keener said: I totally agree. While I haven't seen errors on the 1940 census yet, I imagine they will probably be numerous too. Some of the old handwriting is atrocious
Just found a big error on a 1930 census record made by the indexers on the ancestry web-site.
They combined two completely separate households into one and the families lived on TWO DIFFERENT streets. There was absolutely NO conection between them.
I'm currently in the process of trying to get Ancestry to correct their mistake. Hopefully, it will be easier then trying to get the Familysearch people to do the same..0 -
Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: I like the idea of having a second look by an arbitrator for batches that are submitted. I realize that we can ask for a review of the arbitrator's changes and have done so for every time the arbitrator completed the field when it should have been blank. However, since I started requesting the reviews almost three weeks ago, nothing has been reviewed. I wonder how long it will take?0
-
Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: Please return this topic to the way it was before. Actually having more comments than 15 will be beneficial to FamilySearch and to the participants on this topic.
We need the various comments and replys in order to see what has already been suggested. Then we won't be wasting anyone's time making suggestions which have already been done.
Another possibility is to let us search the older replies. Fifteen replies is just not productive.0 -
dennis gries said: I've done several batches in the 1940 census, and also wonder about what "makes" an arbitrator. The last batch had several of my "right" entries made wrong, including using the house number for the family number for one of several folks in the family. I had the right number consistent.
In the interest of "doing it right", when I really have trouble with a surname, AND the computer checker suggests I relook, I do relook. I relook to the 1930 census, WW1 draft registrations, and the SSDI. This gets the name right, but NOOOH, the arbitrator changes it to wrong, which certainly makes the indexing less accurate.
The vaunted 3 eyes really may not be working any better than over at Ancestry. Example: Family 448 in Mill Creek, New Castle, DE in the 1860 census is rather clearly Springer, but NOOH - family search, with 3 sets of eyes, has Phillips, Joshua, etal.
It certainly cannot be impractical to have a form to submit proposed corrections of errors.0 -
Conrad Velaun Blake said: I think the reviewing is done, but i don't think corrections are ever made...there is one option for review that will take you directly to SLC for a review by the missionaries in the Joseph Smith memorial, but then again i haven't bothered since the first time (when they made me feel like a two year old...I'm well into my fifth childhood!)
Conrad0
This discussion has been closed.