Record not shown as a hint when it is a super close match...

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: It was easy to find this record on search; however, I would think that this record would show as a hint for the person, but it didn't... Why?

https://www.familysearch.org/search/l...

Nvpattt

@LegacyUser It appears that you have had your question answered. Is that correct?

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: I think I know what the issue was. After I attached the record to these people, I looked at the name of the father and mother and found that the father had part of the last name (the tussenvoegsels, van and den) in the first name slot instead of the last name slot. After I fixed the names, I detached the records and changed the birthplace and date values as it was before (from 13 July 1857, Otterlo, Ede, Gelderland, Netherlands to 1858, Ede, Gelderland, Netherlands), and the hint showed up! So maybe you could consider last names / parts of a last name put incorrectly in the first name slot for the hinting algorithm... or not depending on negative impacts to other areas of the tree.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Interesting observation. Fortunately, I have very few people involved with surname (of) indicators (George van Coldwell - George of Coldwell). I see it with Pieter Claesen (von Norden) -- he was from the Norden area, but I have to wonder if some of that is not fabricated by those of later generations that want to indicate where Pieter was from. As far as I can tell, he never used von (or van) Norden as part of his name.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes, I found I was getting zero help from FS Hinting for my distant cousin's Danish in-laws until I realised that I'd entered the compound surname "Zahle-Lassen" (with hyphen, I think....) but the historical records were indexed with "Zahle" as the last given name and just "Lassen" in the family name.

I'm actually surprised that Jordi's suggestion isn't already carried out - it's seriously difficult to know whether officialdom has split a compound family name name over the given and family name items, or whether the earlier bit is actually just a traditional given name at that point. And I'm quite sure that officialdom isn't consistent. So why make things difficult by believing that the division is meaningful when it often isn't?

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Tom, I know for Dutch that when the family name was created around 1812, for most (others used farm names and others created their newlast name earlier etc), ancestors are referred to by that new name by geanologists and in documents. So a person who was never referred to the newly made last name in their lifetime can be referred to it in say a marriage record of their child. But sometimes geanologists continue that last name back when the people were never referred to that last name besides by geanologists. I use the patronym or farm name as the diplay name (if that is what they would have been referred to when they were born) and add the newly created name as an alt name if the person was actually referred by that name in a first-hand source. So sometime I remove the newly created name from a person because it was just fabricated by geanologists.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: Adrian, that's interesting. Yeah it's not always clear if a name is part of a surname or given name in records so as to index it right. I've had ancestors who changed it throughout their lifetimes where the middle name was put into their last name. And then put with a hyphen later