Thoughts on Correcting Errors in the Records

LegacyUser

Ann Bergelt said: This has been an enlightening series of comments. My only input is this. As a more-than-forty-year researcher, I have seen just about all types of errors, and feel capable of knowing the difference between simple mispellings, etc. and definite mistranscriptions. I agree we should have the courtesy (not to us, but to those who will follow) of being able to offer correct information AND be able to cite the source of our correction. That, I would hope, would be from actual event documents and church records, not just family trees and stories. Less experienced genealogists may not be immediately capable of doing first-name searches, etc. and without alternate input could spend a lot of time looking for a record that is misspelled or misplaced.

LegacyUser

Janet Hall said: It remains clear that there is no plan underway to allow any comments on the bad transcriptions on the familysearch site. We all write these heartfelt messages and we get corporate-speak responses. How very sad.

LegacyUser

Leonard McCown said: Corrections limited to those made at a stake center, or with codes only available there will be fewer, and make FS less valuable. Why start requiring proof for corrections when proof is not required for sending in your info to SLC. Sorry, Ancestry still has the best idea.

LegacyUser

Leonard McCown said: I think perhaps it depends on how far off the spelling is. Some spellings would never ever be found.

LegacyUser

Sally said: I actually do not think an online correction is necessary.

I have been researching one very rare surname and have found over the years numerous obvious transcribing errors in the spelling on this site.

The correction comes when you check the source of the information and update your own documentation and records.

Yes, we want to save others doing research the problems we experience but surely we want that other person to really be putting their heart into it and not just copying.

Now if you perhaps use an online genealogical site to build your family tree where you will always ensure the information is correct and where you have already made corrections on the errors "transcribed" on this site you will probably discover that very soon a new entry with your own information which is correct will appear.

I have considered this fact many times.

Therefore I put it to you all, if your own online family trees do not contain errors then eventually you will discover a supposed correction in the very near future. These have not been transcribed but transferred. Or simply submit your trees to this site.

Do you notice multiple entries of the same person and eventually you gleam the prize of one that states all that we need. This is the one where that special person with an online family tree has done all of the work and this site has used it. Or very occasionally a named contributer has submitted it.

My own online database is effectively in the public domain free for all to use so I do not complain that it finds itself into another site that is basically free for all to use.

I love this website because there would be no way I could get to hard copies of records within the world.

It is a fantastic searchable database, see it as such and go directly to the source to check the facts for yourself.

Alas this is the only problem, how can you when you are not really aware of who holds the hard copies or can give you the reference from an archaic book. This is really what underlies my comments.

I find no fault with the value of this site and thank all the hard work that the transcribers do for us.

Is it not the most rewarding feeling when you find that elusive person, rather than it all being down in black and white all T's crossed and i's dotted, otherwise there would be no point would there.

Thats what this site is all about, us all pulling together and putting the jumbled information together. I wonder when the project might be completed?.

LegacyUser

Sally said: I personally do not post any hard copies on line but will post BMD references for their assistance.

LegacyUser

September Amyx said: I'm wondering about the corporate speak myself, but I've begun to realize that each entity has to go through periods where inept, lazy, narrow-visioned, or just plain ignorant people will be in places that block true improvement in that entity. I don't understand why Ancestry.com's wonderful input ability can't be integrated somehow with FamilySearch. It makes no sense. Be that as it may. I've been donating my time for over a year, and the more I interact with FamilySearch I realize they have their own foibles. They have logic circles that can drive you crazy, the slap hazard way of giving instructions for each project is just getting worse. The untrained or inexperienced arbitrators, who accept or change items for no reason I can really understand. I've been inputting two names when it's obvious that the name can be interpreted two different ways, and they ALWAYS pick one or the other. Why? Why can't there be two records that point to the same document? They seem to be everywhere for the foreign transcriptions. I can find 5 search results with different spellings for the same person. Why doesn't the English records do this as well? I've noticed I can read a record one way, and then the next day it looks completely different. I don't think it means either view is wrong, it means there are two ways to interpret it. I hope someone up there is listening.

LegacyUser

Anne England said: We praise Ancestry for the ability we have to add comments, but if they remain comments & are not changed or adjusted, it's only visible to whoever opens the record. I get "Thank you for contributing" emails, but an 1860 census in Indiana with places of birth listed by a transcriber as Iowa because the census taker put "Ia" instead of writing "Indiana" - is still wrong. No one can figure that there were no 2-letter state abbreviations in 1860? Could be worse, but those searching using the birth field may overlook this blatant error. So the challenge to find our relatives remains, no matter what site we search from.

LegacyUser

Kathryn Leigh McGerty said: Gladys Ann Carpenter (LHJQ-FNT) was incorrectly sealed to William McGerty.(LHJQ-N74) She was never married to William McGerty, she was married to a John McGerty. She also has not met the requirement for her work to be done without permission since she was born in 1912. I feel this is a huge error. How can this be corrected?

LegacyUser

Janet Hall said: To repeat: We cannot change original records. We cannot change original records. Our contributions to those ancestry.comcomments are seen by others looking at the same record, so it does help. We can't expect them to change a 150 year old census page!

And, yes there were actually two-letter state abbreviations in 1860, and IA was used for Indiana. (Frankly do not know what they used for Iowa). I have old family letters from 1860-1880 and IA was used for those sent to Indiana. The census pages you are seeing on ancestry are pages done at the time of that census.... it's interpretation by The ancestry.com indexers that is the problem. So we who know, can put our comment about "Oops - that's Indiana, not Iowa."

The current two-letter state abbreviations were worked out by the US Post office so that machines could read them and sort mail.

We always have to read old documents with our head in that time, not the current year. Yes it is, and always will be, a challenge to find our ancestors. But a genealogy prof always told us: Remember why a record was created in the first place. Census wasn't done to help us find our ancestors 150 years later; it was to count heads, so representation in Congress could be apportioned properly, and to plan for schools, roads, etc for a growing population. They weren't too particular about getting the facts straight, just the count. We don't know who the informant was, or how careful the enumerator was, or how accurate the later copy-clerks.

LegacyUser

Anne England said: To clarify: I never suggested correcting the original census. I never suggested correcting the original census. It's the indexing - and errors by indexers on the record (I have done quite a bit here on FS) should be analyzed & correctly arbitrated. If a census was taken in Indiana, & 40 people on each page were born in IA, it's not hard to figure out. But I do agree with the rest of your post!

LegacyUser

Jean Keener said: I seriously doubt anyone expects to have ORIGINAL records changed. Those who has been doing genealogy research, as long as I have, clearly know there were all sorts of writing mistakes in old records, especially the census records.

I'm speaking of a marriage record from 1905 & since I have a copy of the original record, I can say without a doubt that the error shown on Family Search was definitly made during transscrption.

My copy shows everything (names, spelling & date) in the original record was correct. All I'm asking is to have these transcriptions from old records rechecked by a 2nd or 3rd party & to use some common sense before posting to the website.

LegacyUser

September Amyx said: Since we are detail oriented people, and that's why we like indexing, these glaring inaccuracies are really difficult to ignore, and since we want to help others, we want to fix them to make them easier for researchers. I understand what you mean about what they were collecting information for, because all my folks are from Kentucky and would run and hide or answer questions with less than truthful answers! lol And by fix inaccuracies I mean to have a system such as Ancestry.com has for providing alternate information on a record, so that it can be found with a better rate of success. Just to be sure, I went to an 1850 census on Ancestry, looked up some of my ancestors in Kentucky, and bingo! Right there a whole family had been given the surname Amch when it clearly said Amick, and Nicholas was Niphola (really? I mean, really?) So I entered the alternate info. Then went back a few hours later, did a search for Amick for that state, and the alternate spelling I had entered came up right away with the correct family! Even when we disagree within our family regarding dates and spelling, it still would be better to at least find Amick, because I sure wouldn't have thought to type in Amch. I thought you all had a better working relationship with Ancestry than I guess is true. It seems a simple enough system for a programmer to put into a program, especially when it's already been done by Ancestry. I know it's not your priority, but we DO a lot of work for you all!!!!! How's about a little sugar in return? Pretty please!

LegacyUser

Anne England said: my sentiments exactly.

LegacyUser

Marilyn Gertsch said: My comment has nothing to do with research of long ago. I am frustrated that my sister who died 8 years ago, is listed as the biological daughter of my biological father and my step-mother. Also on her records, it states that she has been sealed to parents but does not allow me to see who , according to their records, she has been sealed to. She was actually sealed to our biological parents at the age of 2. But now I have doubts about what is on her records at Ancestory. com. I know I am new at this kind of thing, but I don't understand why I am unable to speak to someone on the phone to find answers to my questions and hopefully learn how to correct these errors.

LegacyUser

anzenketh said: You actually can call someone and get assistance.
https://www.familysearch.org/help/con...

LegacyUser

Cheryl Rush said: Am I the only one who is wanting a way to add my own personal information to this data base? Apparently I can not be found :-( Nor are my siblings, spouse or parents listed. Information I can easily provide and provide supporting documentation if necessary. Just wondering..............

LegacyUser

Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: Are you using New FamilySearch (NFS) as a community member? If so, then NFS needs you to provide the information.

Living individuals cannot be seen by others. For living individuals, a record may just contain their name and then be used to connect your pedigree to deceased ancestors.

For deceased members of the family, you must provide a death date in order for entries to be visible to anyone else.

The system is set up to record the information for deceased individuals as the priority. This is due to rights of privacy issues but also because NFS is the primary way that temple ordinances are cleared for the LDS temples.

If you are a member of the LDS Church, your information should be in the system and is provided from your membership record. See the ward clerk if your information is not there and you are LDS.

These are just a few of my first thoughts on your posting. I am sure many other participants can add more details and give you assistance.

LegacyUser

Janet Hall said: We're discussing original records which are scanned or transcribed on the familysearch site. The information on that site is not contributed by individuals who want to be included, but from records archives, and those are assigned by the familysearch organization.

I think there is a privacy issue here, for living individuals, plus the very real issue of identity theft. Eventually there will be "a way" for your records to be added to this data base, when enough time has passed. If you are eager to have yourself, siblings, parents online somewhere, there is always ancestry.com's multitude of "trees." Lots of "livings" on those.

LegacyUser

Ann Bergelt said: And lots of "errors" on those.

LegacyUser

Jean Keener said: The only records I ever sent to Family Search was long before, the web-site was changed to this new format. I made a disk from my computer PAF files which was then mailed to Utah. It was correctly posted to the IGI records. Though not complete, at that time, there were NO errors.

The errors I'm seeing, regarding members from some of the families in my ancestry history, have been made by the transcriptions of the national, state, couny & city records

As I find almost daily on ancestry, when one person enters a mistake, other's copy and it just snowballs until someone notices & finally questions. This is why I will continue to say, these record entries need to be checked & rechecked, before applying.

IF THIS SOUNDS LIKE a BROKEN RECORD, SO BE IT !!!.

To the person who wrote, you can get assistance, I tried that in 2010 & again in 2012 and was told ""there is NO way to make corrections yet".

LegacyUser

Lorna Audrey Morrison said: I was of the understanding that only deceased persons were allowed on this data base. LDS members can see their membership info but no one else can have access to living person information due to the privacy acts in many countries. You may give your contact info .

LegacyUser

Mary Susan (Carlson) Scott said: In order to link the living members of the LDS Church with their deceased ancestors, it is sometimes necessary to create a "bridge" record. Ideally this bridge record might include just a name or a surname. If there is NO death date, then this record will not be visible to anyone else -- only to the person who created it.

LegacyUser

Kathy Halliburton said: This is a good example of why we could use correcting errors:

Ancestral File

« Back to search results
name: Allen Burris MCDANIEL
gender: Male
birth: 26 Dec 1866
Marlin, Limestone, TX
death: 1862
AFN: 3DS9-JD

Thanks

LegacyUser

Janice said: I just spent about 30 minutes researching a death record that I came across that was very difficult to read. The transcriber team couldn't even come up with a county name or town name. By studying the doctor's handwriting, I could see that the county did not start with an S as interpreted by the transcribers. By crossreferencing possible letters with length of word, etc. I came up with a town and county that not only matched the words but was a match for the name of the cemetery. As well the mother's name was not even attempted, though it was (to me) clearly Upchurch, probably an unfamiliar name to the transcribers. And when I finished I looked for some way to report this. None!! This is a BIG problem. I agree that Ancestry has found a good answer to this. Are you somehow prohibited from adopting their system?

LegacyUser

Janet Hall said: The Authority has not even bothered to respond for the last few posts. WE all know this needs to be addressed. THEY apparently have no intention to do so. I'm very very grateful for familysearch and will continue to use it despite its flaws.

How very sad that they seem to be closing the door and their minds on this subject.

LegacyUser

Shanna Owen said: It's sad when a document is indexed in a whole other state from which it occured. This is a HUGE mistake that will now be "mis-information" for future researchers. And no way to correct it? I hope anyone searching for marriage records in Georgia also look in Kansas. Wow.

LegacyUser

JEAN HARDCASTLE said: I didn't know that the "authority" had responded to any posts. I thought that the replies were from enthusiastic individuals.

LegacyUser

Janet Hall said: Go to the top of this screen. ONE year ago, Robert kehrer, noted as an "official rep" and an "employee" commented on this. The only other official comments on this board have been when church members bring up matters of church doctrine, baptism, sealing, etc., which are not appropriate to this discussion. So THEY are reading our comments and pleas - they are just not commenting any more.

Shanna, I have not yet run across an entire state mis-indexed in the wrong state - now there is a "user message" it would be great to see! If the indexers and the 'proof readers", if any, don't care, we do.

I still hope someone in authority who cares about accuracy is trying to deal with this problem. Come on, we know you're reading these. Say something!

LegacyUser

Shanna Owen said: Thanks Janet. I was shocked to see my 5x greatgrandfather Ephraim Dicken had married in Ouachita Arknasas while it's listed under the Georgia marriage index. (And my mistake, I said Kansas while I meant Arkansas). Mistakes mistakes.