Suggestions
Mary Masterson Fox 9686-CM7 died in 1901 at age ~60. That may be old by the UK 1800-1899 birth segment, but she had been in the USA since ~1860, which probably extended her life expectancy by quite a few years.
The scoring discrepancies on Person Data need to be combined - 3 errors for 1 conclusion is a bit much.
I think the wording of "Person data is complete" followed by (currently) 4 discrepancies may be confusing to many users. I realize that you're probably trying to make a positive comment here, but I think it might be better worded. Perhaps something along the lines of Person data is mostly complete. These fields/conclusions may need to be reviewed.
And, again, the ages/years of birth on a census are rarely going to match an actual year of birth, if we have one.
Thanks.
Comments
-
From what I know about census records, would it be reasonable that if a source can be identified by the quality checker as a census record, then as long as the birth date in the census was ±5 years from the date of on the profile that it would not be flagged?
Or is it better to flag as shown above so people with double check the census records and make sure they have the right sources attached? If so, then this again raises the question of having dismissible flags.
1 -
Agreed. Between the uncertainty of who is the informant on censuses and the tendency for some to fudge their age, a two or three year discrepancy between birth years is extremely likely and sometimes expected.
1 -
Regarding ages on censuses...I have a great-aunt who only ever aged 5 years per census as an adult. On the last census prior to her death, she was listed as being younger than her daughter. Truly this is an anomaly, but I have seen many ages off by more than 5 years. If we aren't able to dismiss (do we dismiss the alert, or do we dismiss the source from being compared?) then this will constantly be in play, even when I have filled in the entire Reason Statement fully and created a Note with additional explanations.
0 -
I don't mean to get this topic wandering too far, but I have to add in the funniest thing I have ever seen.
The second wife of my great-grandfather divorced him, too. I'm approximating here instead of check back in her sources, but on the marriage record for her 4th marriage, her age is 20 years younger then her actual age, on the next census she was 15 years younger than her actual age. In a record a few years after that she was 10 years younger. In the newspaper article about her turning 100 years old, she was listed with her real age.
3 -
Between the 1901 and 1911 Ireland Census, my 2nd GGF, Michael, aged 14 years while the one daughter remaining at home aged only 4. When Michael died in 1912, he had lost all 14 of those years he had gained the year before.
1 -
Thank you for the feedback and suggestions. Subsequent updates should have the issues looking much more concise.
0
