Indexing error
I have a baptismal certificate here that is not correct. Joannes Schmitt's gender is stated as female. I found this Johann in the civil registry, and there he is clearly stated as male.
https://www.familysearch.org/de/tree/person/details/GG9J-TZV
But this quality check program insists that he is female because that is what the indexed baptismal certificate says. I have tried to correct the incorrectly indexed gender information. It doesn't work. That's why I deleted it. Nevertheless, the program insists that Johann Schmitt is female.
Comments
-
You can dismiss the error with the explanation of an error in indexing.
3 -
@Bettina58 Thank you for the feedback. In this case the DQS is working as it should, and calling out an inconsistency. In cases like this, if the record can be edited, and you can do this, that is great. Unfortunately, many records cannot be edited at this time. In which you would check the information and dismiss the flag with a reason for dismissing.
2 -
@Rhonda Another problem is that the indexed data is given special weight. They are placed above all other sources together. As the quality of the data is currently being assessed, it does not make much sense to provide more than one source. I can even understand that. Furthermore, I can only see this overvaluation as overvaluation when I think of how many problems I have with indexed sources that for whatever reason cannot decide whether they are correctly linked or not.
I don't recall the indexing program being able to find all the children in a family. And then it says children not found by the indexing program all with indifferent ratings. . At most.
After all, sources are also given, such as other genealogy forums. Of course, these are also important sources of information for genealogists. If I no longer feel like copying such data, I post the link so that the person looking for the data can continue to search there, not as proof.
Such Forums are very unsuitable for that. After all, anyone can post data on Heritage or Geneanet or or or and then cite this data as a source on FS. I don't do that because I get bogged down enough on FS and don't have time for other forums except for copying. But it is POSSIBLE. And if there are no other sources, citing such a forum is better than nothing, especially THEN, if the actual sources can be found there.
But civil records should be given at least nearly as much weight as church records, especially since civil records are more detailed, more accurate and easier to decipher than church records. I won't even begin to mention the inability of FS users to go along with the grammar of the Latin language. This problem becomes most annoying when academics with anything other than a Dr. title in languages don't want to be told anything by non-academics.
0 -
@Bettina58 You are correct in that FS indexed sources are given more weight. This is due to the fact that the algorithm can read and utilize the indexed information.
As far as using a forum discussion as a source, here is a link to understanding Genealogical Proof Standards: https://www.ngsgenealogy.org/going-to-the-next-level/understanding-genealogical-proof/
0 -
The difficulty is that there are indexed transcriptions which are simply wrong (as is evident if one can access the image). In many cases the indexed transcription cannot be edited (which may be just as well if only to avoid confusion). It would be helpful if there was a standardized way to provide a warning note on any such item.
As for the use of other genealogical sites as sources, I agree with the first poster that this is useful but sometimes can lead to misunderstandings and confusions. I'm particularly concerned where a site makes claims about a record but does not contain a reference to evidence which backs up that claim.
I can't expect FamilySearch to have the algorithms examine such a site to determine if its claims are backed up with any evidence (or, at minimum, some reasoning to back up a claim). I do think that a way of annotating any such source to indicate the presence or absence of evidence would be helpful.
0 -
Thank you everyone for your input. If you can share links to indexed data that needs a review, I can forward it to the proper group. Or post them in the "Search" category.
0
