I just want to report an entire database of images that are indexed to the wrong people.
This url is from Film # 007576101, image 338 (not image 337 as the url indicates) for the marriage of John Lewis Lindberg and Johanna Hays (on the right page), and another couple (left page). The index options for this image do not include either couple. This is consistent/wrong for every image throughout the film. < https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99XH-N2SY?i=337&cc=1987741 >
A phone call is not an option for me. Please forward to someone who can fix an entire database. Please don't respond by telling me to call someone who cares. If it can't be forwarded to those who can fix it, then so be it. I tried.
If family search feels it necessary to eliminate email error reporting to improve their databases, can they at least include a topic or a dedicated forum to report database-wide errors and/or errors that cannot be user edited? Pretty please?😊
Answers
-
(The URL starts counting with zero rather than one, so it's always off by one from the "Image X of Y" number.)
It appears that starting from the second part of this film (007576101), the index-to-image associations are all off by at least one: after skipping some unindexed pages at the end of part 1, they erroneously re-started the index attachments with image 259, which is a photo/scan of the outside of the register-book, instead of with image 260, where the marriage records actually (re-)start.
By the end of the film, everything's off by five: the names associated with image 920 actually appear on image 925.
This kind of error is annoying, and can be quite disconcerting to someone who has never encountered one of those "may be on this image" or "may be on this film" messages, but it's not as severe as other errors in FS's databases, such as the location errors associated with multi-part films.
0 -
The probable reason that FamilySearch does not intend to adopt your idea ("a dedicated forum to report database-wide errors and/or errors that cannot be user edited") is there are so many of these, but no resources (personnel) for the addressing of these reports.
Many metadata errors date back many years - most connected to incorrect record descriptions (wrong county / state on type of event: listed as baptism instead of marriage, etc.).
Obviously this is very disappointing because, apart from adding a note once a source is transferred to an individual in Family Tree, we have to continue looking at information that is totally inaccurate, knowing that most users are likely to accept the detail as factual and possibly compound the problem by transferring this information elsewhere.
Many will say that indexed records are only meant to be a guide to what is recorded in the original documents, but in many cases the original material is not easily accessible. I have never understood why FamilySearch takes a different approach to errors in its records, to just about every other website I use for genealogical research.
1 -
as you say "...apart from adding a note once a source is transferred to an individual in Family Tree, we have to continue looking at information that is totally inaccurate, knowing that most users are likely to accept the detail as factual and possibly compound the problem by transferring this information elsewhere"
I find this most annoying since the only way to properly cite these error-laden links/databases is to create a new source/citation from scratch and manually link to the associated profiles (which is not easy or simple when said people do not exist in your personal tree...)
These erroneous details cannot be edited before using the source-linker (therefore the errors multiply exponentially into every profile mentioned in the record.) They can't even be corrected when saving to "My sources"! 😖 The URLs and source/citation information cannot be altered even when incorrect. The only solution is to add a note in the description, which is not appropriate for proper documentation and/or any source/citation/footnote tracking methods or software, especially when said "note" needs to say "This citation and URL are not accurate. This record actually appears at image#_. It is indexed incorrectly to (insert wrong name/image 3) and the indexed information that should be attached to this image is attached to (insert other wrong name/image). Also of note, the image # in the URL is different that the actual image# and (insert any errors and/or non-indexed detail).
Better to write the source citation from scratch and not use any automated genealogy program to attach the document to any profiles which spreads incorrect metadata, links, citations, hints, places etc. throughout every profile & tree.
It baffles me that there are enough resources to answer phones around the world, but not enough people/volunteers who can be trained to 1.) reset index-to-image-associations 2.) correct metadata and 3.) correct global place and event-type errors. 😕
I "get it" that error correction in such a massive collection is an overwhelming task, but if it's not tracked and mitigated, even in small 'bytes' now, just imagine the exponential GIGO (garbage in/garbage out) of future generations' trees. 😱 Ignoring the error propagation is not going to improve anything.
It would be nice if Family search would/could at least flag these databases/films/catalog entries with known issues as they are reported, not just the blanket "you might have to browse...". It would be even nicer if the flagged databases also allowed user edits of the incorrect citations and URL's pointing to the wrong images.
As an example, the comment above by @Julia Szent-Györgyi should appear on every UI (user-Interface) for film #7576101, instead of being buried in a forum about indexing:
"...starting from the second part of this film (007576101), the index-to-image associations are all off by at least one: after skipping some unindexed pages at the end of part 1, they erroneously re-started the index attachments with image 259, which is a photo/scan of the outside of the register-book, instead of with image 260, where the marriage records actually (re-)start.
By the end of the film, everything's off by five: the names associated with image 920 actually appear on image 925."
I apologize for the venting. I know neither of you can fix the issue, and it's infuriating that those who can, don't care enough to even track the problem databases.
0