wrong records attributed to wrong parish
How much longer do I have to correct constantly the wrong parish?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
wrong parish. the whole set is actually Irsch bei Beurig, Saarburg (nowadays known properly as Irsch, Saarburg, Rheinland) - NOT Irsch, Bitburg, Rheinland (a very different parish way up north of Irsch bei Beurig
Who do I contact to get this corrected. It is NOT a single person, it's the entire parish record (film 464879 shows it is Irsch bei Beurig, in fact the whole parish is listed in Germany, Rhineland, Diocese of Trier, Catholic Church Records, 1704-1957 with wrong parish name - Irsch, Bitburg, good grief).
I have so many of my family in this parish and I have to correct the parish name.
And it is not only parish. There are 2 other parishes with exact same problem - same town name but different parish (3 parishes in Saarburg having been attributed to 3 wrong parishes in Bitburg).
Comments
-
W David Samuelsen said: another one - wrong parish identity
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
it's Irsch, Saarburg, NOT Irsch, Bitburg0 -
Antoinette Jo Castricone Dever said: Maybe we should be happy we even have parish records to look at. Sounds like you are doing a lot of good work by correcting wrong information.
Because you have family there you know better than anyone. Makes you the perfect one make corrections.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I don't think W David Samuelsen wants to spend hours, even days, going through hundreds or thousands of parish records to correct the place from "Irsch, Bitburg" to "Irsch, Saarburg". It should be easy for FS to change this all at once.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Helsdingen, You got that right! There's 250 years worth of correcting wrong place.0
-
Paul said: There are plenty more of these - especially, I have found, in the records for the English counties of Norfolk and Northumberland. In many cases the problem relates to all records being indexed under the parish at the start of a microfilm, which might contain numerous other parish records from parts of that county - though sometimes from a different part of the world! (What FamilySearch used to do to use the whole length of microfilm!)
I reported my examples many years ago but they remain just the same - thousands of individuals baptised at "Corbridge" instead of the correct parish of Alnwick, etc.
"FamilySearch does not have the resources to address such issues" is the usual reply. I imagine Antoinette has never experienced this problem, or she would know users CANNOT make the changes themselves, so are dependant on someone at FamilySearch finally realising resources are required to address these reported issues.0 -
Paul said: W David -
When you say, "How much longer do I have to correct constantly the wrong parish?" I assume you are talking about correcting the parish name once in Family Tree as - last time I read about amending indexed records - I understood this only applied to the names of individuals (not places), and even then still only in limited collections.0 -
W David Samuelsen said: correct names, dates, everything - BUT WRONG PARISH.
Whole dataset is blatantly wrong linked. I am NOT talking about a single record. I am referring to the WHOLE dataset. The hints are blatantly wrong where the parish is concerned.
Who is the responsible party I need to contact to get this corrected because I see many hints attached as sources blindly, not realized by others that it's wrong parish in first place.
Irsch bei Beurig, Saarburg, Rheinland (aka Irsch, Saarburg, Rheinland) is NOT same parish as Irsch, Bitburg, Rheinland. The image records belong to Irsch bei Beurig - NOT that other one in Bitburg region.
Ditto for Scheiden, Merzig, Rheinland. The records are blatantly wrong identified as Schleiden, Bitburg, Rheinland despite what the records said
Whoever did this, did NOT bother to look at the title pages of the volumes. They are clearly identified.
Here's the first one (this one is of my Konter family)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
WRONG! It's not Bitburg.
Take a look at the image record
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
It is Saarburg one.
The problem is Germany, Rhineland, Diocese of Trier, Catholic Church Records, 1704-1957
Go to Record Search
Select this particular group
enter name Konter (one of many surnames I have for this parish)
and enter birth place Irsch.
Every one came up Bitburg - every one is WRONG! If you see a lot of them already linked, you will find it's my family with corrected parish name in personal pages, and I can't edit the record record because it's in every source record
Somebody has been making a lot of mistakes.0 -
I have no knowledge of German parishes but I have similar problems with English parishes and I have a theory as to what the problem is.
It intrigues me that Irsch, Saarburg and Irsch, Bitburg are so close together alphabetically, which is a symptom of my own problems.
The errors that I have found in 'English Deaths and Burials, 1538 - 1991' are similarly close alphabetically.
I have found records for Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire, England listed as Broughton.
And records for Milton, Hampshire, England as Micheldever.
Also records for Tisbury, Wiltshire, England as Trowbridge.
I am not a Database expert but I am a retired Mainframe Systems Programmer, and so here is my theory.
When you create a Database you DO NOT put e.g. 'St Michael, Bugbrooke, Northamptonshire' into a record because there will be 1000's of records with the same data and that just wastes space.
What you do is create a LOOKUP TABLE with parish names listed alphabetically and each record has a pointer to the correct parish name in this table, added when the record is loaded into the Database.
Now this LOOKUP TABLE should NEVER, EVER be updated after the Database has been loaded because the pointers in the records may then point to the wrong parish name. Probably the next name alphabetically. Which is why these symptoms point to this type of error.
I think that the LOOKUP TABLE has been updated without the DB being reloaded.
Hope this helps
0 -
0