"UNKNOWN" in Census and Marriage Records

LegacyUser

Richard George Reynolds said: "UNKNOWN" shows up somewhat frequently in sources (Census and Marriage Records most notably) being linked to a record. When such appears the "UNKNOWN" field cannot be handled while the Source is being attached, and in order to avoid an "Unfinished Attachment" label being left on the source for the record the user must open the sources for the record, click on the "Unfinished Attachment" to confirm it is indeed the record with "UNKNOWN" Fields, close the source, repeat the selection process and then "DISMISS" the "Unfinished Attachment" label.

The "UNKNOWN" for Census Records always appears on the lower left side of the screen and at the bottom leftish for Marriage Records.

I am looking for a way to "DISMISS" "UNKNOWN" without the repetitive and redundant process of handing the Record and Source multiple times.

Associated with this "UNKNOWN" are often Servants, Hired Hands, or Boarders in which case Real Names appear. I leave these Sources with real names "undismissed" ... thinking there is still hope of someone finding the name for their records. IF these names are not discoverable by some to attach as a source to their ancestor, then they too, like "UNKNOWN" could be dismissed during the attachment process of the Source to the Record, vs. requiring somewhat extensive post-processing.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Have you got some examples of UNKNOWNs in source records? (The URL to link to them is good). I may be lucky with my source record collections because it's not a problem I remember seeing...

LegacyUser

Richard George Reynolds said: Are you saying the "UNKNOWN" designation is an active link, with data behind it?? Never expected that to be in a record that is clearly an extraction of an original paper record. I was reading "UNKNOWN" as indicting the extractor could not read the record. As soon as I find a couple again I will see what it does and, I will post.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I've no idea what the situation is, which is why I was asking for the URL of the record so I could take a look.

I'd take a wild guess that there are at least 3 possible cases of why UNKNOWN might appear:
1 The original says that (eg the census enumerator wrote that for someone's birthplace)
2 The indexer couldn't read the original - various conventions apply in such a case - eg writing Su--- if only the first 2 letters are legible.
3 The item is empty on the original where normally something should be entered, eg father's name on the baptism of an illegitimate child. In that case, I'd expect that the item should be left empty.

I've no idea which case (s) we're talking about here, but I would be worried if it was case 3 and we're generating profiles for a father called Unknown. So I think we'd be grateful if you can find one or more so we can see and, if necessary, warn FS.

LegacyUser

Richard George Reynolds said: I am talking specifically about two source types ... U.S. Census, and marriage records. #1 No. #2 perhaps, but the ones where I have looked at the original, not the case. #3 Most certainly, (not the illegitimate child case) but certainly parents of the "spouse" in a marriage record, and I cannot figure out what question is driving the entry in the Census Records -- where the area usually has "servants", "boarders", or 'Farm Hands' listed. Just not clear why "UNKNOWN" is entered. All I want, since it is not record-able or actionable information is to easily dismiss it.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: If you can, please provide the URL to specific sources with this problem. I'd like to take a look at them to see what is going on.

I suspect the FamilySearch engineers will want to do the same.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: One place you will see it is 1939 England register entries. I've seen a couple of examples. That comes from records of those born less than 100 years ago for whom no matching death record has been found. Those records are still present in the households but are closed for data protection reasons and thus have placeholders there awaiting the openimg of the record (upon proof of death being provided, matching of a death entry in a place like the GRO death index or expiry of the 100 year period).

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Richard clarified his concern in specifying U.S. Census and marriage records.

I have never seen "Unknown" used in either and would like to get some URLs to places where "Unknown" is actually used in the record.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes, the 1939 Register - whose index may come from FindMyPast, I think? - is a special case since it generates a warning in FMP that there is an entry at this point in the original but it's been redacted - it also has a purpose as the key for a request to open that redacted entry, so it's entirely sensible for something (with a redacted name) to be there in FMP's index. There's actually no point in those entries being in the FS version.

LegacyUser

Richard George Reynolds said: Here are some URLs for records containing "UNKNOWN".

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Oh. They've actually indexed "Never Md" as if it was a real person.

I wonder if "Never Md" is consistent across that collection? Probably too much to hope for but if it were, then the indexes for that collection could be updated to remove all the personas for a person named "Never Md".