Thoughts on Correcting Errors in the Records
Comments
-
September Amyx said: Exactly WHEN in the indexing program does information get incorporated into the database? When a batch is identified as having no errors, and when a batch is arbitrated? Is the actual moment of the incorporation when I, as an arbitrator, push the enter button to submit the arbitrated document? Or is there a specific updating program that is done on a regular basis to do this?
i just read this new document.
https://help.familysearch.org/publish...
It says that no changes can be made to the information already in the system, which is the problem we want solved. I have identified a part of the program that is already in place that can be used for identifying errors by modifying it a bit. A response from Robert Kehrer that he has evaluated that suggestion and what his decision is, with explanation of course.
Would reindexing and submitting a slightly modified but 'identically identified duplicate batch' cause a change to the already integrated batch? By identically identified I mean that to the computer, it recognizes it as a specific batch already in it's system. Forcing the computer to accept data that it's already accepted does work in many programs even if the information is slightly changed.
How does the computer recognize and accept a reindexed batch that had been sent back by an arbitrator, as different from the previously submitted batch? Why won't that work for corrections, if the computer can recognize it's a reindexed batch?
If reindexing solves the correction problem, then there's no need to change any programming. People can identify errors by reporting them to a specific website, probably in the Family Search Research Wiki already in place. They can fill out a form with the information that's wrong, the correct information, a copy of the supporting document if not already a part of the Family Search archives, and the batch number (as some documents have listed or linked to) if known, to speed the process.
If the only issue is the amount of labor needed, I'm sure that can be addressed. Recruit skilled but not very active indexers and arbitrators by asking them to pledge to reindex x# of batches for error correction.0 -
Pam Courtney said: I found my great grandfather's death certificate info but when I looked at the record it had all the wrong info on it. The writing was bad but I could make out that it was NOT the last name of Miller. I agree there needs to be a way to make corrections known. I am new to this site and I am getting lots of info, so Thank You for all your hard work, but please make sure the people doing the work do it right.
Pam0 -
Jean Keener said: Just recently read online that Ancestry.com is in the process of purchasing Archives.com.
This project's partners, FAMILYSEARCH.com, ARCHIVES.com and FINDMY PAST.com, are currently recruiting VOLUNTEERS to index the 1940 census.
The CEO, Joe Godfrey, of Archives.com and the president of Ancestry.com, Tim Sullivan, both say the indexing will not be affected by the merger.
Lets hope these new indexing volunteers will use some common sense, be able to read & know how to spell.
Instead of new mergers, why don't these people do something about correcting the never-ending errors we see on these web sites or by providing a way for us to make the corrections? .0 -
Patricia Casey said: OH NO! THIS IS REALLY SCARY! Putting all of our eggs in one basket? Fam.Search Indexers are all volunteers! To my knowledge, there is no test or criteria to qualify! I was...and maybe still am?...listed on here as an indexer. I signed up last year thinking it would be interesting to do. A family emergency came up and I never did get started, but would recieve emails from FS thanking me for being an indexer! I looked into it a couple of times again but didn't ever start. Thank goodness! I would hate to be responsible for the mess that is happening on FS. Now it is in the plans for all of the most popular Geneology Sites to be using people like me???? I can't begin to imagine the damage to valuable records that can happen! If it weren't for this blog, many folks who run across errors in their own families information would have no idea of how wide spread these mistakes are! ANYONE can be an indexer! Arbitrator? You need only to index XXX number of 'batches' to become an Arbirator! That's not much of an arbitrator to me. I don't mean this personally to anyone who does this work... BUT...I do hope there will be tighter supervision and control...and EDUCATION of voluteers who are handling our ancestors valuable information!0
-
dennis gries said: Patricia, and others....
I do a batch or two every day or two, so I'm not a heavy hitter.
My accuracy scores range from 98 to 100. Most are careless errors, and some are difference in opinion about the surnames, and I have criticized the arbitration process on that score.
However, Patricia, the FS process really is very good. Two separate people index. The arbitrator then compares "the hanging chads" and there is a page out there that explains it. He/she then makes the easy calls, like when I get careless and repeat daughter in law in a block that should have daughter (by tapping D), or mulls over names.
Some of the indexing errors are forced upon us because we are expected to just read the image, and not go to other sources for surname help. I have gone to the prior census, draft records, and the SSDI for spellings. I may be "right", but this is not "what the system" wants. I do this only when the letters on the screen are not clear. If the census taker writes the name wrong, this will normally be the indexed name. You and others wlll need to do the same steps as hopefully you have learned to do on any other indexed records.
good luck0 -
Patricia Casey said: Hi Dennis,
I know that many of you (indexers) are as accurate as possible. Perhaps that last paragraph you wrote is a huge problem? You seem to be conciencious.. and not just anxious to get as many batches in as you can! THAT IS A GOOD THING! But perhaps the 'system' needs some improvements !!!! And before too much damage is done. Sometimes those seemingly small errors can through an entire "family tree" off!0 -
September Amyx said: https://www.familysearch.org/blog/tag...
Just found where management has written several articles regarding indexing and arbitration changes that people are upset about. Click on the link or type FamilySearch Arbitration in the search box!0 -
Rich Schulthies said: What Am I supposed to be reading?0
-
Cheyenne Parrish said: I just started looking up my family today and already found 2 errors! I hope they can build a correction system soon!0
-
Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: Last week I had an interesting experience while doing FamilySearch Indexing.
I downloaded a 1940 U.S. Federal Census batch from California in Los Angeles County.
Imagine my surprise to see a man that I had been helping one of my ward members prepare for temple ordinances several months ago. The surname is very unusual and the ages and birthplace matched.
We researched the members of this family and found a lot of information. We knew that the oldest son had moved to Los Angeles County, California and died there in the mid-1940s.
The name of the man is John Fredrich Marquardt.
The census provided information for his wife and two children.
Of course I contacted my friend and gave him the link to the page on the National Archives website (www.archives.gov).
He is now in the process of gathering more information on this particular family.
After I completed the indexing, I sent it through the system for the next steps.
Yesterday I reviewed the batch after the arbitrator had finished with it.
Now the arbitrator states that the man's name is Ian Fredrich Marquardt. I admit that the handwriting was pretty bad -- letters crowded together -- but I can actually see the name "John".
I know the name is "John" and not Ian. I found him on other records on www.Ancestry.com too and he is always John.
I asked for the name to be reviewed but is there anything else I can do? Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks for your time.
Mary Scott0 -
Lila Garner said: It is disheartening for an indexer to read a familiar name in excellent handwriting, type the name, then be warned that the name is "Not in the authority list." I was indexing a county next to my home county when this occurred. I went to school with kids having that surname, and even know how to pronounce it, even though it isn't pronounced like it's spelled.0
-
Patricia Casey said: Gosh Mary... I feel your frustration! And contrary to some claims, it seems like once the arbitrators declare that something is correct, it IS ENGRAVED IN STONE! Has anyone ever seen a CORRECTED record on FS?0
-
Jean Keener said: Please explain to me what this AUTHORITY list is. I'm interested in knowing from what it originates, who prepares it and exactly whose names are included in it.
Thanks
Jean0 -
twinmom22 said: I want to emphasize that I believe some sort of correction procedure is necessary, especially on the 1940 census when many of us either know the people involved, or the families in our local areas.
Today I found my father, with his parents and sister, in the 1940 census. The surname is spelled "Reed", rather than the "Reid" that the family actually used/uses. I understand that one because the written page does look like "Reed".
However, my father is listed as "Ronald", rather than his correct name, "Donald". Although the "D" is written awkwardly, a comparison with the "R"s written elsewhere on the page make it quite clear that the name is "Donald".
I am also an indexer, so I realize how difficult some names are to read. I also feel the two indexer/one arbitrator system is good. However, errors DO get through, like this one.
We need a procedure for "correcting" these; or at the least, adding a "note" with the alternative (and have the note indexed!).
My two cents...
0 -
Lila Garner said: So many databases besides the 1940 census need this correction capability. I couldn't find Barbara BESTOR in the index to Ohio, Deaths and Burials, 1854-1997. I only knew that she was living when she gave birth 9 May 1871, and she was deceased before her husband remarried on 18 June 1879. After finding one of her parents (name somewhat garbled) in the index, I ordered the film from which the index was prepared.
I simply started scanning from 9 May 1871 forward, and found her death on 25 January 1874. The handwriting is bad, and her entry is squeezed in between the lines.
Next, since the name Barbara is fairly legible, I searched Ohio, Deaths and Burials, 1854-1997 again with only first name Barbara, death date parameters 1874-1874.
I found the death Barbara "Breldt" on 25 January 1874. Breldt is what the indexer saw. I reiterate that the handwriting is very hard to read. No one else will find her unless a way is found to make corrections or online annotations.0 -
JEAN HARDCASTLE said: There is an obvious problem connected to the 2 indexers 1 arbitrator system that has not been addressed. That is -when the two indexers agree, their findings bypass the arbitrator. If they both agree that a word is unreadable the arbitrator is not asked to remedy this! An arbitrator who is familiar with a census area can often read village names and occupations that an indexer finds "unreadable". Likewise they can both make understandable mistakes - "reading" Sheffield instead of Driffield etc.0
-
Gregory Dale Wyatt said: The very first time I used this, I attempted to enter my father's name. I accidentally picked the wrong entry and that was it. The system didn't allow me to back out of the choice and now will not allow me to delete or correct it. I've blown this from the very start. As important as one's family tree is, why wasn't this scenario addressed from the beginning? Guess I'll stick to the old fashion paper entries!0
-
Janet Marie Nazer said: i would like to be able to go in and correct the incorrect information that other people have put in without having to go through other sources to do so. i know that there is some incorrect information that needs to be replaced and i would prefer to do it myself. i don't like to "add notes" to show what is correct and what isn't correct.
Janet Nazer0 -
Nora Ayad Quijano Javier said: i really need help correcting names in my record.... can you help me with this? i mistakenly put the name of my mother in-law in my father's wife and i cant remove or edit it.... please help me and tell me what to do....
thank you...
Nora Quijano Javier0 -
Buddie said: I believe it is necessary to do some indexing before making comments about indexing. Someone else does the same thing as you, then the results are compared. Most of the indexing is fairly accurate. If you had started research back in 1970 before most of the indexing, you would realize what a wonderful help the indexing is, despite a few errors!!! It used to take me 6 months to locate what I can find now in a few hours or minutes. Shirley G0
-
Charlotte Schipman said: I just found my husband and his parents on the newly published INDEXED 1940 Census for Florida. THEIR NAMES ARE MISSPELLED!! I had previously found them on the images BEFORE the indexing was complete. I'm disappointed that the names are wrong. There should be a way to correct them NOW!!0
-
Iniece Melissa Grover said: Some well meaning person has the city and state of my Dad's birth place wrong. I would like it totally deleted instead of being a long side of the correct place. There needs to be away to do that.0
-
Barbara Engel said: Interesting reply but it's been in the pipeline for over a year. Seems an inordinate delay. I like the idea of postings. I can understand reluctance to mess with original records but postings would alert to other possibilities. This would apply to original documents only. I don't know what we do about blatant errors of family entries. I don't even look at those. You can find people who have entered a 'relative' that was born BEFORE his parent etc or 100 years after a brother or other unthinking entries by 'family'0
-
Van Tassell Stonehocker said: I've just gotten into the records for my family - the family of Clarence Thomas Stonehocker (Idaho, Bonneville Co, Idaho Falls). In the index, he is identified as C L Stonehocker. I've looked at the census image and have to aggree that it was easy to make this mistake (an L for a T as it is written). I note that at present there is no way to make such a correction. Hopefully, you can work on that problem in the near future.
Being a Stake Director, I can certainly understand how such 'mistakes' are made as I've indexed and arbitrated several thousand records myself.
I would hope that you can set up a process to correct such errors. Since I am also a computer programmer, I understand somewhat what it will take to protect the data in the indexes. As a minimum, the person requesting the change should be able to support his/her contention by being a direct relation to the person with the error, such as a son or daughter, grandson or grand-daughter, or other close relative with personal knowledge or records to support the change. The requested change should also be supported by examining the census record to see how easy is was to have made the mistake in interpreting the hand writing, spelling, etc.
Thank you for your good work and the ease with which the indexing programming works for the most part. The primary source of most errors is in trying to interpret the handwriting which in many cases is down right horrible.
Van T Stonehocker, Indexing Director - Boise Idaho North Stake0 -
Bob Mowrey said: I found the same problem with my Father's family in McCall, Idaho. The "e" was left out of our last name even though it is clearly there in the image.
I can understand how these errors are made but I don't understand how there could be such a problem with making corrections. Everyone who is working on this 1940 census project is doing an amazing job. Sometimes the handwriting is awful hard to read. I have reviewed some of my batches and after seeing what the arbitrator settled on I could see the correctness of it, but there are other times though I am sure I was correct but the other indexer and arbitrator thought different.
I have been in IT for many years and feel this is just not acceptable. How can anyone find their relatives if the information is incorrect? In the case of my Father’s family, if someone were to review the image with my notice, they would see that the “e” is there. I think we need one more level of review, I would volunteer for that. Give me a list of reported errors and I will examine the original images and attempt to determine the correct spelling. This should not be too difficult to implement.0 -
Mary Elizabeth Willcox said: I think at first glance that is quite obviously "Donald". The D in no way resembles the R in the last name.0
-
Mary Elizabeth Willcox said: I have completely given up. I have families with children I've never heard of, my great-grandfather married to a stranger, a step-mother married to her step-son, children of the wrong gender .... I have written several people and asked them to remove the erroneous information but none of it has been. How do the notes help? Does anybody even look at the notes?0
-
Mary Elizabeth Willcox said: The majority of the names in my father's home county are not spelled correctly. It isn't that the handwriting was bad, but that the names were unusual and centered in that area. Of course, none of this can be corrected, but I have offered to index records for that area since I am familiar with all the names. Not interested. Evidently, we just want the records out there; we don't care if they're correct or not.0
-
Dianne Metz said: 1870 OHIO-Belmont County, Flushing Twp. has been indexed as NORTH CAROLINA!
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1...
SO....HOW DOES THIS GET FIXED????0 -
Chris said: Robert Kehrer's thoughtful response to this topic was written a year ago...isn't about time for an update on the status of the development of a procedure that will allow corrections in the 1940 Census by family members that have seen the correct names many times in family records and communications, and KNOW what the correct names are?
Errors were found on both paternal and maternal lines. On the paternal line the mistakes were very obvious as shown below in the header for my Uncle, Alan F. Toronto, and Grandfather, Albert Toronto (not Loronts).
"United States Census, 1940," Allan F Toronto in household of Abert Loronts, Ward 5, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City Precinct, Salt Lake, Utah, United States
I'm participating in the indexing effort and looking forward to the time when corrections by designated family members can by made.0
This discussion has been closed.