Indexing errors
Hi, I would like to report a slew of egregious indexing errors. In looking at 1888 New Bedford, MA birth records I have found that the birth date has been indexed incorrectly for every single person on every page of the source. An example can be found on this page: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99VD-JGX6?cc=2285843. Unfortunately, the problem exists on every page I have checked in that whole run of birth records. Please take a look and tell me if I am seeing things; there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the dates that have been indexed but they certainly have no relation to the source. Thank you, Eric Boggis
Best Answers
-
Thank you!
0 -
@Eric Boggis Due to a change in how we work issues that need specialist assistance, we have moved your question back to the Search category. This will allow you to still get to it and give others the opportunity to make comments too.
We have also forwarded the issue to a speicalty team for review and resolution. Someone from that team might contact you if they need more information (or have good news to report).
(Note: the post directly prior to this one was created by a moderator in order to give our specialists additional information about the problem. You might find it helpful.)
0
Answers
-
We are checking this out and will escalate if needed.
0 -
Problem: The patron states, “In looking at 1888 New Bedford, MA birth records I have found that the birth date has been indexed incorrectly for every single person on every page of the source.”
Troubleshooting:
This is the patron’s link:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99VD-JGX6?cc=2285843.
On this page, I would agree with the patron’s assessment that “there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the dates that have been indexed but they certainly have no relation to the source.”
This is Film # 004285108, Vital records, 1650-1900 [New Bedford, Massachusetts]
Birth register(v.5) from O'MALLEY, C. 1874-1882 Birth register(v.6) 1883-1888 Birth register(v.7) 1889-1893 Birth register(v.8) 1893-1896 Birth register(v.9) to GRAY, H. 1896-1899.
Here is the Catalog page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/746878?availability=Family%20History%20Library
Following the link on the Catalog page indicates that it is included in the collection Massachusetts Town Records, ca. 1638-1961.
The link from the indexed information at the bottom of an image indicates that it is part of the collection Massachusetts Town Deaths Index, ca. 1640-1961.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:DZXQ-C26Z
The patron’s link is image 182 of Film # 004285108. The first image with information is image 7:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99VD-JLYK?i=6&cc=2285843
It is for the year 1882, and it has the same problem.
The last image with information is image 779:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99VD-JLRZ?i=778&cc=2285843
It is for the year 1899, and it has the same problem.
Here is the Catalog page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/746878?availability=Family%20History%20Library
Film # 007577062 on the same catalog page has the same issue.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89XC-F9HF?i=4&cc=2285843&cat=746878
Film # 007577063 does also:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9XC-X9L5-C?i=6&cc=2285843&cat=746878
We only checked the three films that are listed as birth registers. We aren’t sure if some of the others have issues.
0 -
A new batch of marriage records for Jefferson County Missouri was all incorrectly indexed as Jefferson County, Louisiana. I've been fixing these one at a time as I encounter them which is tedious because one has to find and highlight the handwritten Jefferson, Missouri fields. It there a way for someone to make a global correction to these records?
0 -
Not sure but I think you posted your question in the wrong place. I'm just another member who's looking for help with a different indexing problem, and your question appeared as a reply to the question I posted. Don't know if it will be seen by anyone else... hope I'm wrong. Good luck!
0