reporting back to original transcriber
Is there any way that original transcribers can have errors pointed out? I know that I have tried using labs to inform of issues with indexing but lately I can't seem to have the screen available which says why there are issues.
The obvious problems are people not reading the project instructions e.g. including Middlesex as a parish when it is a county, assuming a death year when only burial year is stated, assuming sex from a given name, assuming name rather than transcribing as written. All of these errors have appeared in the same image I completed reviewing yesterday. Will this indexer be informed?
To compound my frustration, in the batch that I am currently reviewing the transcriber has assumed that the bride's condition i.e. spinster, is her prefix. Thank goodness there is not a prefix for the groom or Batchelor would probably have been inserted there as well.
Sorry for the moan.
Sheena
Best Answers
-
Jill, thank you.
I will make the suggestion in the ideas section although I believe it has been suggested before. The articles you suggested do not really apply to the problem I was having. I will continue to make any appropriate changes when reviewing since accuracy is important. Just sometimes we all get frustrated.
Sheena
1 -
0
Answers
-
Hello Sheena,
I can see how frustrating these issues are for you. Perhaps you can advise me of the details where the transcription errors are found, please?
I am currently unaware of any facility for guests to contact the original transcriber, but with the full information, I may be able to pinpoint a solution for you.
In the meantime, there are a couple of articles I found for you that might be of use in correcting such errors.
I look forward to getting the URL of the pages you were working on and all other information.
Thank you.
0 -
I agree 100%. At least when I used to be an arbitrator people learned from their errors but now there is no training since no one ever learns what they did wrong. I find so many more errors now than I did then. I heard that there was a time when indexers and arbitrators were able to communicate but that it became so abusive that they stopped it. That is only what I heard though and I don't know if there is any truth to that. But to get back to your comment, I really think they should implement a drop-down menu on every batch where the reviewer can select what errors were made so that the indexer can know what they did wrong.
The sad truth is that countless people never bother to read the instructions. I have been doing this for a long time and you would not believe what I have seen in even very straight forward English records. FamilySearch could list any possible error under the sun on a drop-down list and the reviewer could simply check what was done wrong. This way the indexer will know and will have learned how to improve. There has to be some kind of training and a way of helping people to do the work right. I think everyone doing this does it for all the right reasons and should be helped so they can all do it to the best of their ability.
2 -
Hello Sheena,
I am so sorry you have come up against this problem again and again. I have researched if there is any way to contact the original volunteer who indexed and unfortunately that is not possible.
If you are able to correct these transcriptions, that time and effort would be most appreciated, thank you.
If you feel there is too much for you to correct, you may identify the batch by going into the FamilySearch Indexing Tool, find and open it. By clicking on the Batch drop down menu arrow (beside the tree icon at the top left of the screen), click on 'Reindex Batch' and send it back to get indexed again.
The idea of having some sort of feedback loop enabling volunteers to learn might be something that the engineers could tailor. To tell them your thoughts, please click on Ideas (the lightbulb icon 💡to the left of your current screen).
I hope this addresses your question and has given you some information to help you resolve the issue. If it has, please click on the Yes button below.
Thank you.
0 -
Hi Sheena. What problems were you having with the Reason to Reindex Batch form? This is the second time in the last 24 hours that I have heard there was a problem with it. I know it still comes up to use, but, haven't had any batches to reindex for a while. Have you tried to reactivate it and it still won't work? Are you getting a red circle with a line through it? I wonder if they are discontinuing the lab or if the IT engineers need to know there is a problem with it. Either way, they need to know something is up with the experimental feature. (I wouldn't waste time with the Idea. That was the idea of the experiment - to use the form to let FS contact indexers and reviewers that needed a little extra help).
I know that you have been reviewing for a while and it sounds like that is a batch that could use reindexing! It doesn't sound like it would take you long to fix it either. Maybe we just can't worry about whether people get extra help. I would send it back for reindexing without the form and not worry about getting help for the submitter. On the other hand, I am currently reviewing another project where I am certain that 90% of the batches go on to a second review. It has been stuck at 14% for months and only goes up a percentage point like every two months. I just whisper "bless their hearts, they are trying" as I fix another batch!
"Don't let perfection be the enemy of progress".
2 -
That Labs feature to “Reindex with Reasons” is still available. Help>Labs. Then click “Active” and refresh your browser. Return to your batch. When you next click the Batch>Reindex option you should see the following form instead of the usual one.
2 -
This Labs feature may have sporadic problems, but I was able to bring it up on batches from two different Projects.
0 -
Thanks for attaching this picture so I could print just this one page - and thank you for all the helpful suggestions and solutions you give ---Merry Christmas
0 -
You're welcome. It's my pleasure. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
0 -
Does the original indexer get this Labs feedback info? I have one indexer who makes the same mistakes over and over and with one simple email I could get him/her on track!
0 -
They do not get feedback unless they are doing malicious indexing. Fortunately we do have good reviewers like you who catch these mistakes.
1 -
If they don't get any feedback, then why bother?
0 -
@slotbuddy when I read a few months ago (via a moderator post) that the computer system can produce a report showing repeated errors from indexers or reviewers, I quit using the Labs form. At least if a good reviewer corrects the errors and submits a pristine batch, either the next reviewer will be able to quickly review it, or it will go on to the pre-publication phase. But, I have a feeling that if the errors are non-critical, no one is being contacted - not the indexers or the reviewers.
1 -
Don't misunderstand me, I don't mean not to bother reviewing it. I mean why bother using the Labs form. I would always think reviews would be necessary. We all make errors and someone else may be able to distinguish a name that you just can't figure out.
I am 100% for reviewing or arbitrating whatever support wants to call it. I just feel that they should go one step further and advise the indexer when they make more than just the occasional error. When the indexer is making the same type of error repeatedly, some effort has to be made to let them know they are doing something wrong. How else does support expect those individuals to learn how to do things correctly?
1 -
@Melissa S Himes , @annewandering just mentioned/confirmed above that there is no feedback to anyone unless the Labs feedback form suggests malicious indexing.
So, I suggest that they simplify/shorten the form to be just that, a means to report malicious indexing rather than having Reviewers waste time making a detailed problem report that goes to no one. And perhaps take it out of the Labs context and make it one of the Reindex dropdown options in addition to keeping or deleting indexed data. As it is, I now realize that it is a waste of the Reviewer's time most of the time because, I hope, malicious indexing is relatively rare.
1 -
I understood you completely, @slotbuddy and that is why I said I am not using the Labs forms. @John Empoliti since the computer system can produce a report when it encounters a reviewer who corrects (or incorrectly "corrects") repeated errors from the same user, then I see no reason to use the Labs form and send the batches for reindexing. They can do this "in house" with their own reporting system. But, I do hope that it isn't just "malicious" indexers who are being counseled or denied the right to index. They have the ability to remove the indexing and review rights from any user until they receive some additional training, as they have always done.
0 -
Hi Melissa. @annewandering wrote just a few hours ago: “They do not get feedback unless they are doing malicious indexing. Fortunately we do have good reviewers like you who catch these mistakes.”
This tells me that whatever the source of the alert to an Indexer’s bad indexing - Labs Report, internal report, a Reviewer’s outreach, etc.. - those poor Indexers will be confronted and counseled only if they appear to be doing malicious indexing. So the vast majority of poor Indexers still cannot get any feedback on their mistakes - whether they want it or not, and many want it. So we really haven’t made any progress on this issue - not even baby steps. I’m disappointed.
0 -
I know @John Empoliti, I did read that and hope it hasn't come to only punishing the malicious. They used to have telephone conferences and remote learning for people who needed a little extra help and there was no form to fill out.
0 -
There is help on a local level to teach indexers how to better index. It is a kinder and more personal way to teacher them than doing an impersonal critical report of what they are doing wrong. We try to encourage people as much as possible.
2 -
I can be kind, Anne.
0 -
I know you can, John! You always are!
1 -
I seem to have set a ball rolling last August with my original moan. Having read the comments I think two things have come out of this for me.
- If there is no feed back to the original transcriber then I do not see why we are bothering with Labs.
- A lot of transcribers may be like me. I came to transcribing for FamilySearch through Transcription Tuesday in the UK because my volunteer transcribing at the local archive could not happen because of covid. I do not have a local group or an indexing group and am working on my own. Other people may be in a similar place and do not have a connection to the church. The offer of local advice is therefore not applicable.
Nevertheless I enjoy what I am doing and will continue transcribing.
Sheena
0 -
I have suggested (but not recently - so it's gone) the creation of an Opt-In on both sides Feedback process. It would involve only willing-to-receive-feedback Indexers and willing-to-give-feedback Reviewers. Following is a link to an idea on this issue someone else posted that I supported. It has received nine upvotes. Maybe you and others will want to give it additional upvotes.
It would be nice to hear from a representative of the software development team if this concept of Reviewer to Indexer feedback is dead in the water or has some chance of implementation in some form at some time.
Many earnest Indexers want some "efficient" way of getting feedback on an individual batch, especially early in their careers. Getting it from the Reviewer of their work is the obvious way. Sharing a Batch is another way, but it is not very efficient. Any such system might need to set higher standards for granting Reviewer credentials to be credible and successful. Anyway, here is one version of the Feedback suggestion, with comments, for your consideration, reaction, and possible support.
2 -
I think John's suggestion is a good one and a step in the right direction.
1 -
Implementing it might be easier said than done, but I’m confident their smart minds can figure it out, or some workable variation. If they want to.
0 -
I think it is a good idea as well.
Sheena
0
