US-Indiana is not part of India. Programmers please note.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Seen on the India page for Historical Records, a statement

Current Indexing Projects
Volunteers are needed to help make records from India searchable. We currently have 1 indexing projects for India you can help with today.
US, Indiana—State Archives, World War I Enrollment Cards, 1919

Perhaps someone could tell the programmers that US-Indiana is not in India, in fact it is in USA.

LegacyUser

Brett said: MaureenE

Good one.

How problems with "Sources" occur!

No wonder so many "Indexed" records need "Correcting" - and, it is not all down to "Transcription Errors"!

Brett

LegacyUser

RealMac said: Many of us have labored for many years trying to get that point across, without much evidence of success. Errors affecting individual records need a simple mechanism so that users can fix the problems they detect, similar to what Ancestry has been doing for at least a decade. Errors affecting whole sets of records, due to faulty metadata, require (immediate!) intervention by FamilySearch to correct the data elements that apply to entire batches or parts of batches, such as India versus Indiana.

(Indiana and/or India comes up in another erroneous context too, because some census schedules for Iowa routinely used the abbreviation "Ia." for Iowa, and this has been assumed by many inexperienced genealogists to mean Indiana instead! The schedules involved usually show "Ind." when Indiana is intended.)

LegacyUser

Vivien Penelope Brown said: Amen! I do a lot of research in India and I have had indiana U.S. come up as an option many times as I have searched for names in India. Let's nip these errors in the bud, at the indexing level and if that can't be done, let users be able to at least add a note.

To springboard from this topic, here is another indexing/programing issue. When I get a record hint for an England pre-1837 christening (to be correct the records themselves are titled baptism not christening) and or burial record WHY does the abtracted/transciption record say Birth and Death and wants to put it in those fields. These are not birth or death records they are christening and burial records. This leads to misinformation and errors. What about the child that isn't christened until the age of 13 or any other age. The source linker prompts to the christening to be put it in the birth field. Personally I will not add them as a birth or death, but many people do. These errors could be stopped at the source...when they are indexed or programmed. There are so many other things that we have to spend time fixing or enduring when they could be fixed by programming.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: And while we're at it... there are many "Marriage Records" that are really "Marriage License" records, but are marked and treated as if the license date was the marriage date. In many jurisdictions (not all of them), the license must be obtained at least a day or more in advance of the actual marriage.

The problem, of course, is that the couple relationship area has no provision for noting a Marriage License and so evidently those who set up the indexes did not know what to do when it comes the using the source linker to attach the record to the couple and then add the event to their couple relationship area.

The FS personnel who read these threads have passed on gross catalog errors. As to indexing corrections, that is and has been a major issue since FamilySearch was fired up a decade or so ago. Why it has not been given the highest priority is beyond me.

We can only hope that the new code applied to the person's details page (accessible on the beta site) will also improve the couple relationship area.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Please don't get me going on this subject again! Too Late! I'm sure FamilySearch personnel are nearly all decent, hardworking and clever people - but serious genealogists? Afraid not. How could anybody, in a position to do otherwise, deliberately allow the continuing misinformation and inaccuracies?

Indiana is not India, a burial is not a death and a marriage licence record is not the record of the actual marriage event. Monkwearmouth, Durham is not in Manchester, Lancashire and a hint for someone baptised in the 1600s should not be offered on the person page of an individual who was buried two hundred years later.

Please forget all about the brilliant "enhancements" until you can get the serious inaccuracy problems sorted out.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: I have recently noticed that on the India page for Historical records
https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

under Current Indexing Projects
Volunteers are needed to help make records from India searchable. We currently have 1 indexing projects for India you can help with today.

"US, Indiana, Decatur County—Marriages, 1811–2007"
Perhaps someone could tell the programmers that US-Indiana is not in India,

LegacyUser

Gary King said: This is working correctly today

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: I hope that someone took note of this problem and this time fixed the underlying programming logic, rather than the indexing project being completed and it disappearing because of that.

I would point out that my original post was June 30, 2018 and the problem re-appeared two years later for a different indexing problem, (and possibly on other occasions in the meantime which I did not notice) so obviously the underlying programming logic was not altered previously.

It obviously doesn't help with an indexing project for USA if the request for volunteers appears on an unrelated country (India), so I hope this time the underlying programming logic has been fixed.