Errors in Discovery Pages
Is there a way to give feedback or suggest corrections to Discovery Pages?
The Discovery Page for my father, Jack Hockery, and for other Hockery family members, suggests that the origin of their surname is German.
("German (also Höckert): from a Germanic personal name composed of hugi ‘heart’, ‘mind’, ‘spirit’ + hard ‘hardy’, ‘strong’.")
It is not.
Charles Hochrie (1829-1875), great grandfather of Jack Hockery (1923-1967) was from Scotland or Ireland. He immigrated to the U.S. and he or his sons changed the spelling of the name to Hockery.
It is possible that the spelling was Haughery in Charles' father's generation, but research still needs to be done to document any generation prior to that of Charles.
No German ancestors are found on this Hockery line as of 2021 and DNA profiles for the child and grandchildren of Jack Hockery show almost no German ancestry.
It is not apparently possible to edit this information directly, so I thought perhaps there was a way to suggest changes.
Answers
-
Keep in mind the Discovery Page for name origin - is simply a generic page for the surname as a whole.
Obviously NOT ALL people with a single surname all come from the same origin / country.
(though as a genral rule the surname may be considered of a given - such as "Germanic" background.)
I also have my issues with "Name Origins" statements - as they all so often - are so very generic - that many people will find they JUST dont apply in their specific case of their specific line.
Surname Origin statements on this site - and most others - are simply extracts from name origin books - which provide the most common general thought as to the name origin. BUT it does NOT mean that it applies to YOUR banch of the family - - it is up to YOU to balance that stereotypical statement to your own specific line and your own research and see if it seems to apply or not.
The name origin statements on this site and most others - are not designed to be customized to a specific family branch.
THUS - in my humble opinion - name origin statements are of very limited value, and are often totally misleading - and in many cases we would probably be better without them.
Just my two cents.
1 -
Susan
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Further to what 'Dennis' has proffered ...
Please, DO NOT, take much 'stock', in those "Discovery Pages".
Those "Discovery Pages", are NOT meant, to be 'Serious' work of 'Research'.
The "Discovery Pages", are SIMPLY, to enable, those "Deceased" individuals/person, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', to be LOCATED in a 'Search' of the INTERNET - that is it, nothing more, nothing less.
Really, just another way to BRING people to "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' - nothing more, nothing less.
And ...
As an aside ...
I would take even less 'stock', on that "Name Meaning" Section on the "Discovery Pages".
After all, that reference, for some, if not many, for that "Name Meaning", is
Dictionary of American Family Names © Patrick Hanks 2003, 2006.
which can hardly be considered a definitive work.
Furthermore ...
There is NO "Edit" facility/function/feature available on the "Discovery Pages"; as,
(1) They are 'Static' - 'as is', 'as appears';
(2) The specific personal "Details" of an individual/person on a "Discovery Page" can ONLY be "Changed" within "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
(3) The, "Activities"; "World Events"; and, "Name Meaning" (and, the like), CANNOT be "Changed" by a User/Patron, NOT even in/through "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'; as, they are NOT Recorded against the individual/person within "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'. They are 'as is', in the 'Design' and 'Development' of the "Discovery Pages", by 'FamilySearch'.
I hope this helps.
Brett
ps: To be honest, I would prefer that my "Ancestors" DID NOT appear in/on those "Discovery Pages".
pps: We have enough trouble, with existing Users/Patrons in 'FamilySearch', making 'wayward' "Changes" with our Ancestors, let alone, an in flux, of some very "Inexperienced" people, joining in; and, making an even more total 'mess' of things.
.
2 -
One of my many objections to those discovery pages is that they're so full of fluff. The name origins section is particularly pointless: like genealogy, onomastics must start with "where" (and "when"), else it goes off into totally-inapplicable fairyland, as you have observed. Heck, even within a small geographic area (such as England), the exact location can make the difference between "matronymic" or "locative", and for many names, not even a detailed family analysis can determine the correct derivation.
Another problem with the whole onomastics-for-genealogists thing is that it causes people to equate names with genetics, as you have done. But names are no more genetic than geography. Yes, people generally bore names from the primary language used in their community, but there were many multilingual communities, and in any case, language isn't inheritable, either. And that doesn't even get into soundalikes, parallel evolution, popular etymologies, and all the other forces that muddle the name-derivation landscape.
(I guess I'm lucky that FamilySearch's meager name-origins database has no idea what to make of even simple things like András and Gábor, never mind Imre or Árpád, and surnames like Szent-Györgyi and Selmeczy are totally beyond its scope.)
1 -
I totally agree,
0 -
I just noticed that my spouse's grandfather's discovery page claims that he has zero sources. This is a blatant falsehood (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LR9T-BMQ). What the ...?
0 -
Julia: can you include a screen shot of what the disocvery page says so we can better understand what you are referring to?
0 -
Julie
Hey ...
That is NOTHING ...
One of my Grandfathers has x91 (Valid) "Sources"; MANY, Many; many, of them are, in fact, "Sources" from 'FamilySearch' itself.
Whereas, his "Discovery Page" indicates that he ONLY has ONE "Source".
And ...
Like you ...
Even worse ...
My OTHER Grandfather has x51 (Valid) "Sources"; again, MANY, Many; many, of them are, in fact, "Sources" from 'FamilySearch' itself.
Whereas ...
'Lo and behold' ...
His "Discovery Page" indicates that he has NO "Sources" (ie. "0" ... NONE ... NAUGHT ... )
The FIRST ...
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
"Discovery Pages" ...
The SECOND ...
"Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' ...
"Discovery Pages" ...
When, in fact, there ARE actual "Historical Documents", that are attached to BOTH of them.
And, MANY; Many; many, of those actual "Historical Documents" ARE, in fact, "Sources" DIRECTLY from 'FamilySearch' itself ▬ just like that LONE one above, for "The FIRST" ...
just another EXAMPLE ...
And ...
Hence, why I suggest that:
Please, DO NOT, take much 'stock', in those "Discovery Pages".
Those "Discovery Pages", are NOT meant, to be 'Serious' work of 'Research'.
The "Discovery Pages", are SIMPLY, to enable, those "Deceased" individuals/person, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', to be LOCATED in a 'Search' of the INTERNET - that is it, nothing more, nothing less.
Really, just another way to BRING people to "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' - nothing more, nothing less.
And, my thoughts
Brett
2 -
Dennis, Brett's last screenshot is what's on Lajos's page as well.
I'm rather thoroughly perplexed. A page that claims that there are no sources cited for any of its conclusions is not exactly a genealogical enticement, in my view, so such falsehoods cannot possibly serve any of FS's purposes. Why are they allowing these pages to outright lie like this?
I mean, I can live with ignoring the name origins and "history" boxes. They're obviously only vaguely-related fluff, and not user-contributed or user-controlled. But FamilySearch is where all the sources are. If an FS page claims that there are no sources, then it makes it look like FS's Family Tree is indeed the unsourced, worthless trash that many people believe it to be.
2 -
0
-
Thank you all for your information and perspectives.
As Julia noted, even if the clearly generic content is taken as fluff and disregarded, it seems like this feature has other legitimate accuracy issues FamilySearch needs to address.
Brett, I appreciate your thoughts about this being designed to bring in interest (and maybe search results). Of course it is off base for me, or anyone else, to hold that kind of information to the standards I believe we are striving for together to build an accurate shared Family Tree. I am such a fan of FamilySearch that I guess anytime they have a significant piece that seems out of place with the overall diligence and value that it really stands out.
I really appreciate all the comments and generosity on this thread and I hope those with the power to make improvements will look at fixing the clearly factual errors on the Discovery Pages - at a minimum.
Happy researching, all! - S
2 -
I agree - - though the intent may be to develop and grab interest - I get that - but the pages should not display blatantly erroneous information.
A little out of sync is one thing
but blatantly and totally erroneous or false - is just plain not acceptable / not right.
(though I haven't analyzed the accuracy the way others have - so I'm merely basing my words on what others claim to have found.)
1 -
Dennis
FYI
Just take a look, at this 'FamilySearch' "Blog" Article; and, in particular, the various "Relies" (ie. 'Feedback') by MANY Users/Patrons.
New Ancestor Discovery Pages Provide a Rich, Engaging Family History Experience
11 January 2021
https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/ancestor-discovery-page/
I subscribed to that Article; and, have been getting continual "E-mail" when 'Feedback' is made.
And, I have been 'reading' that 'Feedback'.
To date, there are some x16 Pages of 'Feedback' ...
A considerable amount, of that 'Feedback' is, that the "Details"/"Information" that appears on the "Discovery Pages" for an individual/person, is NOT that (ie. DOES NOT match that); as, that which appears for the SAME individual/person in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
That is one of the MAIN concerns.
I totally understand the premise of the "Discovery Pages".
But ...
That Said ...
What appears to be lacking, is in the 'execution', with regard to what appears, in the "Discovery Pages", NOT being that, which is actually recorded; and, appears, in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
Address/Fix the aforementioned, is what is really needed.
Oh ...
And ...
Get rid of/dispense with that ... Name Meaning
That "Dictionary of American Family Names © Patrick Hanks 2003, 2006" is certainly NOT (hardly) a definitive work.
MANY; Many; many, individuals/persons are not from "America".
Leave the "Research", of the meaning of a "Name", to the individual/person, from all parts of the World.
Just thought I would 'throw that into the mix'.
Brett
1 -
With my dad's record, even though his detail page clearly indicates his first wife died a couple of years after their marriage, his Discovery page implies he never remarried; dates do not match his life and grammar is lacking.
1 -
FYI
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
As afar as I am aware ...
The "Discovery Pages" ONLY "Display" ONE Spouse.
The "Discovery Pages" DO NOT "Display"/record if there was MORE than ONE Spouse.
In fact, I believe, that the "Discovery Pages" ONLY "Display", the "Preferred" Spouse.
I just checked, the "Discovery Page", of one of my Grandfathers ...
The "Discovery Page", DOES NOT "Display"/record, his FIRST Spouse; but, does "Display"/record his SECOND Spouse (my Grandmother); as, she is the "Preferred" Spouse.
Not sure on that; but, such may be the case ...
The "Discovery Pages", DO NOT "Display"/record, ALL of the "Details", in 'Family Tree", for an individual/person, just SOME of the pertinent ones.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: You may like to 'Read' my previous 'Comments' in the post, for some insight and perspective.
,
1 -
I'm not sure the "Preferred" designation does anything. That is something I'm able to change on the main entry page. Perhaps it is because my grandfather only had children with his second wife, but changing his preferred spouse to his first wife did not change his "Discovery Page."
My only other ancestor I could remember who remarried and had children in both marriages does not have a "Discovery Page" associated with her record, so I couldn't try it on her record. For that reason, I'm definitely not sure about this.
0 -
Your great question and comments about the Discovery Pages for our ancestors has generated a lot of discussion. I agree that much of the information may not be totally accurate or complete, and that your specific question about name origins is very valid since the reference is not from FamilySearch, but from another sources as described by @Brett earlier in this discussion.
I do know that as we change and improve information about our ancestors on the Details Pages in Family Tree, we allow updated information to appear on the Discovery Pages which are being updated from time to time.
I also have to admit that while not everything is accurate, when I see the banner at the top of the details for one of my ancestors I can't help but go to see what has been used for their Discovery Page.
I personally continue to appreciate the efforts made to encourage each of us to learn more about our ancestors, and all for me, there is always something exciting when I recognize that much of the information on these pages has been provided by other contributors and not just by me.
Thank you for your question, which generated so much interest.
1 -
Which spouse shows up on the fluff page is definitely not related to the "preferred" checkbox, as that's a per-user setting, and the whole point of the fluff (as I understand it) is for people to be able to see it without logging in.
Both of the multiply-married folks with discovery pages that I could think of had their first spouse featured. By "first" I mean the one who appears at the top of the Family Members section. As near as I can tell, spouses are sorted by the date of the earliest relationship event entered, and "empty" sorts last. I haven't had a chance to observe what happens if they're all empty, but I would guess it would be alphabetical by name, the way it does it for undated (or same-dated) siblings.
There's really no good way to test anything regarding fluff: it only gets updated every few weeks.
2 -
This makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that the algorithm would make the marriage that resulted in children the "preferred" selection over a previous marriage with no offspring.
0 -
Thank you @CDBurk .
Yes, it has been a good discussion. After reading the responses, and considering how little surname history notes effect any research or family history document accuracy, I think the surname origin section is rightly considered fluff of little importance.
This is especially true since I think I understand the interest-generation goal of this feature.
That said, I believe the other accuracy issues in this thread are worth consideration by those revising this feature over time. One reason I contribute to the work here, and have all but abandoned Ancestry.com, is the accuracy plus the efficiency of collaborative work.
As always, I appreciate this marvelous, ever-expanding resource!
1
