Indexing Project Instructions (generic or specific) need to be revised
I received this response to a case I had raised relating to records being indexed under the wrong project title:
"Thank you for contacting the FamilySearch support team. You are concerned that the Northumberland records include Durham records. If you look at the Project instructions you will see that it says
Index all birth, baptism, christening, marriage, death, and burial records, regardless of the county where the record originates.
Please also look at the article attached to this message or use: Where do I find the indexing project instructions?
We understand that calling it Northumberland is confusing but please index all records in this batch even if they are not from Northumberland."
(Bold text is my emphasis)
The respondent gained the incorrect impression that I was involved in indexing the batch, instead of being a researcher who had found errors in records that had already been put online. Regardless, I don't know if the instructions are general, or if specific to this particular collection, but the instruction to index records within a batch that are not applicable to that area is clearly ludicrous.
Many of the records (though not all) do not even have a parish name indexed, so one would surely be reasonable in believing records within a collection with the title "England, Northumberland Non-Conformist Church Records" would indeed relate to a (non-conformist) chapel in the county of Northumberland. But, no, some relate to Anglican parishes in County Durham - although I have just noticed that the Wiki page for the collection has now been updated to advise users of that fact.
When I have encountered similar situations in the past, I have assumed records had found their way into the wrong collection, then put online as part of that collection by accident, so I was shocked to find this has been an action connected to project instructions. Surely, FamilySearch should not persist with this practice and only publish project instructions that are in line with record serious indexing and genealogical research practices.
Comments
-
I appreciate there is an argument for indexing the records that do not relate to the collection the batch is supposed to represent. However, the very least that should be stated (at the end of the instruction to index regardless) is a comment along the lines of, "But, rest assured, these records will then not be added to this collection, but will be transferred to an appropriate one before being placed online."
Unfortunately, past experience shows this has not happened in similar situations - where, at best, the accompanying Wiki article does acknowledge that some of the included records do belong in other Historical Record collections, but makes no suggestion they will ever be transferred there.
(Apologies for grammar slip-ups in main post.)
0 -
I completely agree with you Paul.
However as I a non LDS Church member, the impression I get from reading posts over the years, is that the Church views indexing as a means of engaging church members in church activities and has very little , or no interest, in accurate results.
Quantity over quality appears to be the emphasis, and in my view the policy with indexing instructions is that nothing should be said which would interfere with quantity.
Genealogical societies generally I believe try to transcribe accurately, but don't forget FamilySearch no longer calls itself a genealogical society.
A Church leader, I believe in charge of indexing, said in 2019 "If you like Italian food, you can be an Italian indexer"
FamilySearch Executive Town Hall - FamilySearch Executives
https://www.rootstech.org/video/familysearch-executive-town-hall?lang=eng
at 48.52 minutes.
To me, that is not a way of thinking which shows interest in accurate transcriptions.
0