I have found some records with a date for burial of 1748/9 etc. and wonder how to index it. I tried putting 1748 or 1749 but it wouldn't take the or.
It would make sense to use or between the dates and there is a Knowledge Article suggesting that - but the project would've had to be set up to accept both alpha and numeric characters in that field.
This is the part of the first article which is helpful if you do not have specific instructions in your batch:
For better help, please share your batch.
I don't think many genealogy based websites handle this issue particularly well. A lack of consistency (in indexing) is usually the common problem when we try to establish whether, say, 6 January 1749 was recorded in the parish register as 6 January 1748, 6 January 1749 or 6 January 1750 - maybe even as 6 January 1748/49 or 6 January 1749/50!
The specific inconsistency with FamilySearch's approach is that for a date that would be recorded correctly in the 21st century as 6 January 1749/50 the general indexing instruction appears to be to index it as 6 January 1749 (see the post above). However, if I enter 6 January 1749/50 in a date field in Family Tree it standardizes as 6 January 1750.
On the issue of following project instructions, I am concerned that these might not always be consistent, either. What if one project manager says to index with the earlier date, but in another project the manager says to index with the later one? I assume project managers are allowed this leeway, but this contributes to the confusion that always surrounds this issue.
As I suggest, other websites (e.g. Find My Past and Ancestry) don't seem to deal with the problem much better. I have found (using my example) two indexed records for the same event - one having a 6 January 1749 date and the other (often immediately below in a Results list) showing the event date as 6 January 1750.
After the indexing project is complete, I don't think it matters what choice has been adopted - unless the researcher has access to the original record (say, parish register) they will always remain unsure as to how the date was originally recorded.
By the way, looking more closely at the advice Dellory has reproduced (above):
makes the advice seem even more crazy. Is it really being suggested (as the paragraphs imply) that (again in my example) a birth would be indexed as 6 January 1749, but all other events (including marriages, burials - and even baptisms?) as 6 January 1750?
Our "genealogy experts" (across the board) really need to reach a consensus on how we should handle this issue, so a common practice can be adopted.
In the Project Instructions, look for the section titled General Indexing Guidelines.
Also, this article may be helpful if the Field Help and Project Instructions for your batch do not answer the question.
I checked this link out, but sadly it didn't help.
Thanks for all your suggestions. I think at this point I can choose either date. The reviewer will have to make the decision.
I think you will find many of them are at the end or beginning of a year, which kind of implies that the death happened in one year, and the registration happened in the next one ( or the burial). But I believe the General instructions are to take the later of the dates (which may not be technically correct depending on whether you are indexing a death record, or a burial record) It is fine when the Image is available for the person to take a look at themselves - they will see this detail and work it out, depending on what info they re seeking - but more and more, images are not being available to the people who are doing their genealogical research, and there are more inaccuracies creeping in to people's individual research. It is frustrating as a researcher to NOT be able to see the image yourself as often this kind of question pops up. (eg a death will be registered in an entirely different month or Quarter to the actual burial - same with Births/Christenings)
Unfortunately, you have misread the issue. The question is about dual-dating in parish records, not birth registration records. In this case, how should an indexer record 1748/49 dates - as 1748 or 1749, given only four figures can be used in recording the year.
Nevertheless, you make a good point with regards to the latter. When I first started out in my research I thought records were missing - then eventually found them in the next "quarter", which often meant in the records for a different year to the birth, of course.