The attached URL has been misindexed as Pulaski, Faulk, South Dakota but in reality it should be indexed for Pulaski County Indiana.
It appears that this entire batch, at least if not the whole project, has the incorrect place.
I am merely pointing out that it has never been a priority of FamilySearch to address this type of problem ( involving metadata issues). My response made it clear to me that "Support" is providing notification that there is no program to address these problems (not just my specific one with the Northumberland collection) in the near future.
Moderators have been giving the impression that such reports will be passed to the appropriate team for review and resolution (as you have suggested here). Perhaps you have evidence that this will be the case. I just do not wish to see users being given false hopes if this is not currently FamilySearch's policy (as Support appear to be suggesting to me) and these issues (correction of incorrect collection titles, parish names, etc.) will not be addressed in the foreseeable future.
(Please note the two points made in the email from Support, which make it clear to me that my highlighted issue - with the Northumberland collection - is not being specifically commented upon:
"A team is evaluating our record collections and exploring options to make such corrections in the future."
"We apologize for the indexing errors that are in our record collections. We hope that corrections will soon be more widely available.")
Thanks for reporting. Someone will be along to escalate it to the right team.
Please check-out https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/90586/why-does-familysearch-persist-in-refusing-to-correct-metadata-errors#latest for the likelihood of this matter being addressed, at least in the near future.
@DavisGGardner, Thank you for reporting the incorrectly standardized place names in the Indiana Marriages collection. Pulaski county Indiana was incorrectly standardized to a town named Pulaski in South Dakota, and we have found this error evident on 4 digital folders, affecting over 7,000 record transcriptions. This type of error is sometimes seen as a result of problems with the automated place name standardization procedure, and it is correctible.
This report will be forwarded to the appropriate specialty team for review and resolution. We appreciate you taking the time to notify us of the error.
@Paul W , your comments about transcriptions from Northumberland county England are difficult to confirm without viewing the actual images which are restricted to viewing at Family History Centers. But it is interesting to note that the specific folder you mention (DGS 7903839) does include some records from Newcastle, which is located in Northumberland. The film set this folder is in is called "Parish register transcripts of Sunderland and various other parishes in Durham and Northumberland, 1719-1879" as shown in the catalog entry for the folder at https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/171145?availability=Family%20History%20Library.
My response to your comments has just disappeared - as have those made at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/90586/why-does-familysearch-persist-in-refusing-to-correct-metadata-errors#latest, so using that link now makes no sense.
Basically, I was saying that although moderators are agreeing to pass such issues to the appropriate team, my email from Support suggests there are no plans to address these matters at this time - merely that an investigation is being undertaken as to the feasibility of such an exercise (in correcting metadata issues).
I just don't want users' hopes to be built up that these corrections will be dealt with, when Support is advising this will not be the case - at least for the time being.
@Paul W , The problem reported with Indiana marriages is recognizable as an error from the automated standardization of place names. When this type of error is reported, an engineering ticket is created to address the specific place the error occurred (in this case, more than 7,000 entries in 4 digital folders covering marriages in Pulaski Indiana). No false hopes on these specific errors, although we never promise a time frame.
Regarding "incorrect collection titles, parish names, etc," these types of catalog errors are not currently being researched/resolved individually because the FamilySearch Library Catalog is undergoing a major renovation/upgrade. The Catalog we see on familysearch.org is locked and not editable at this time, and will be replaced with the new version when that renovation is complete. Again no time frame is promised, but it will definitely not be 2021.
We hope you'll still find much to use and enjoy your research at FamilySearch.
PS- I have no idea why your previous comment is no longer visible!
I have reported many of these historical record cataloging problems. I received one reply. The salient bit is this:
corrections to collection titles are not currently being made. Engineers are exploring options to make these kinds of corrections easier in the future.
A suggested work-around is to just edit the index records as we find them. I used to do that. Now when I find one of these systematic cataloging problems I stop working with that collection. I can wait for proper repairs.
Thank you very much for your further comments and clarification on the different types of metadata issues - one of which can be currently addressed, the other (relating to Catalog problems), which can't.
Perhaps my interpretation of my response from Support is incorrect, but - after working with FamilySearch records for around ten years - can also speak with direct experience of the problems I have had in getting any type of metadata errors addressed / fixed.
I hope my opinions do not appear to be negative, as I am sincerely happy about the prospect of an ongoing programme that will address matters like the "Indiana Marriages" one, which is the subject of this conversation.