Indexing reports changed

LegacyUser

Thomas Michael, Sr Floodeen said: Why did you change the reports? Now you cannot see how you compare to others in the stake. This removes the ability to compete, which increases indexing results.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Did you ever consider that perhaps you shouldn't be competing, at least not by number of records completed? Perhaps you should be competing on quality of work and not quantity. It is more important that the transcriptions are done accurately and completely than they are done quickly.

LegacyUser

Thomas Michael, Sr Floodeen said: so you assume because I spend a couple hours a day indexing, I am sloppy and just going for the numbers. I like competition. I am motivated by numbers and statistics. I love the new My Contribution feature on the Familysearch mobile app because now I can see what I have done, and work to grow the numbers. There are a few of us in my stake that are also motivated by numbers. It pushed me to do over 8,000 last month. Now I am simply less motivated because there is no way to determine my status as compared to others in my stake.

LegacyUser

Cindy Hecker said: Family Search did a blog post just this week about Indexing not based on the numbers. Maybe reading it will help you understand. https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/...

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Oh I'm no slouch in the numbers department myself, at least so far as edits, profile creations and source attachments in FSFT are concerned. However the raw numbers are not the most important. Accuracy is the most important.

This is something which seems to confound a lot of people. If you create 1,000 transcriptions and then later because of the speed you did them someone else has to go in and correct systematic errors in them then you need to create a correction project, supervise a correction project and recruit people for that correction project. Correction of existing data is always less glamorous and sexy than creation of new data and so takes much longer. Far better that you only create 500 transcriptions but do it slowly and thoroughly enough that no corrections are needed.

Simple, raw numbers as a KPI is what's known as a perverse incentive. In other words going for it may produce the desired outcome (and sometimes not even that) but it also produces other, problematic outcomes as well. A good example is a waiting time target in a hospital. Merely aiming to get everyone seen within 4 hours of arrival (say) leads to distorting shenanigans being undertaken which can actually harm patient care. Same with a raw number of transcriptions target: it leads to people taking the path of least resistance and producing shoddy indexes.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Thomas, this comes up every once in a while and the problem always goes back to the indexers competing without regard to the quality of their work. Whether you are guilty or not is not relevant, but because a significant number of indexers are in it only for the numbers and recognition, that FamilySearch has taken this route.

LegacyUser

Thomas Michael, Sr Floodeen said: Sorry I even brought this up. Some day I might be righteous enough to be motivated out of the pure love of Christ. Until then I will do something else.

LegacyUser

Edgard Percy Vicente Leyva said: Working in projects and in development, what enriches a product is the level of reports that a tool can provide.
A few simple examples, the missionaries have goals, number of talks, number of contacts, hours of study, number of baptisms, attendance at meetings of new friends. In the chapels are counted the assistances, primary, Young Men and Women, JAS, Relief Society, Quorum of Elders. Stoker talks.... And we can list a lot (this is measured with numbers).
I do not share that some people see this work as a competition or seek adrenaline, nor should we NOT harm those who do this service with the best intention.

We can remember what happened to Abraham when the Lord sent the 2 angels to destroy the cities, what do we learn? If there were a certain number of people of good intention, the Lord would not harm them for love of them.

I beg and invoke that they give us the tools to work and help in this work.
Other idea. If they have detected people who index wildly and do not do it in the best way, the batches with more than 2 errors are not considered in their favor and perhaps this will make them reflect. (They can do this by giving reviewers this option.)

Any extreme or exaggerated does not lead to good.
Our actions must be measured by the good things and not by the wrong things

LegacyUser

Edgard Percy Vicente Leyva said: Trabajo en proyectos y en desarrollo, lo que enriquece a un producto es el nivel de reportes que una herramienta pueda brindar.
unos ejemplos sencillo, los misioneros tienen metas, cantidad de charlas, numero de contactos, horas de estudio, cantidad de bautismos, asistencias a las reuniones de amigos nuevos. En la capillas se contabilizan las asistencias, primaria, Hombre y Mujeres jóvenes, JAS, Sociedad de Socorro, Cuórum de Élderes. Charlas fogoneras.... Y podemos enumerar muchísimas (esto se miden con números).
No comparto que algunas personas vean esta obra como una competencia o buscan adrenalina, tampoco NO deberíamos perjudicar a los que sí realizan este servicio con la mejor intensión.

Podemos recordar lo que le sucedió a Abraham cuando el Señor envió a los 2 ángeles a destruir las ciudades, ¿Qué aprendemos? Si hubiera determinada cantidad de personas de buena intensión el señor no los perjudicaría por amor a ellos.

Suplico e invoco a que nos den las herramientas para trabajar y ayudar en esta obra.
Otra idea. Si han detectado a personas que indexan alocadamente y no lo hacen de la mejor manera, los lotes con más de 2 errores no sean considerados a su favor y quizás esto les hagan reflexionar. (Pueden hacerlo brindándole a los revisores esta opción).

Todo extremo o exagerado no conduce a lo bueno.
Nuestros actos deben ser medidos por las cosas buenas y no por las incorrectas.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: It should be noted that there is a strong trend in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints away from reporting activity. With respect to Temple Attendance, the local leaders, including Bishops, could no longer ask members if they attended the temple. Likewise, we were told not to ask people if they have submitted names for vicarious ordinances or even if they worked with FamilySearch. The most we could do is to offer assistance with their family research, implying that they should be doing the work.

Since I'm not involved with indexing, it appears that this is also happening with regard to any FamilySearch activity. A limited number of statistics was made available to certain leaders, but I am no longer in a leadership position. The report was not very informative (less so than even Sacrament Meeting attendance).