In full name review, at what point should we list an entry as 'not a person'?
I have a few examples for this.
1: There are times when the AI has selected a single period out of the name. Should I index the whole name that the dot is a part of?
2: there are times when there is only a last name as well as the first and middle initials. Should I index what they have of the name?
3: sometimes only a first or last name is listed in a document. should I index this?
4: Sometimes a last name is indexed as part of a group of people who share the last name. I know I should index the name selected, but is there a way to check to see if each of the first names got indexed with that last name?
5: sometimes someone is listed as a spouse, but it doesn't have their actual name. Ex: John G Zane and Mrs. John G Zane. Should 'Mrs John G Zane' be indexed?
Answers
-
- When the dot or comma is in the middle of a name, I will add the appropriate highlights to the name, remove the highlight over the dot or comma, and index the name. If the dot or comma is not associated with a name I'll mark it "not a person."
- When indexing, we still index what we see. So if you see a last name with initials for the given names, index the last name in the surname field and the initials in the given names field.
- Yes, if there is no more than a first or last name go ahead and index it that way.
- I've seen this as well. I highlight the last name and index it with the first name that was highlighted. There is no way to check the status of the other names, but engineers have assured us they are all getting done.
- My guess is that this falls under the "index what you see" rule. So if the name is Mrs. John G Zane that's how you'll index it. Just make sure it all gets placed in the correct name fields.
You should mark it as "Not a person" when it is not a person. For example, I often see AI try to index a place as a though it were a person. This is a time you'll mark it "Not a person."
Thank you for your volunteer efforts!
1 -
Thank you for the info! got some new ones though…
6: What if a document is listing off last names of nobody specific. Like 'this section has the following last name' but all the other last names in the section are properly paired off.(Naturally the inverse of this situation being already covered.) I encountered one that has the last name listed but doesn't have any first names linked to it, or listings of others in the record in the same line for some reason. Its like its saying 'we expected to have this last name, but we don't actually have one.'
6-a: similar situation, except its one last name lined up with a lot of first names listed after it. When it selects only the last name, should we pick a first name to go with it that we don't remember indexing yet first? or just the earliest first name after it? or perhaps something else?
7: this one I'm not really expecting a good answer on. I've found one where the first and last names selected are of two different people. any weird rules we should go with on which name to eliminate and which to pick? maybe just go with the first one recorded on the page?
0 -
I was trying to post an image for an example, but its not showing up…
0 -
8: if only a first name is listed in adjacent text, should we look to see if their last name is listed elsewhere and include it?
8-a: if that last name is their spouses and the above is a yes, then should we still include that last name?0 -
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for number 6. A screenshot would probably help. (The attach paperclip is not working right now in Community, but you can always copy and paste a screenshot right into the comment box. ) If I understand correctly, there is a last name with no first name attached. In that case you would review only the last name. Don't add highlights for the non-existing first name.
6a. I have never run across this situation before. I'll ask the engineers for clarification.
7. I've heard other users claim that if you pick one of the names to review, the other name will show up later on. I don't know if this is true, but I'll ask the engineers.
8 and 8a - I'm going to have to ask the engineers.
We really appreciate your questions and that you are doing your best with Full Name Review. I will get back to you as soon as I have an answer.
1 -
Looking for a surname elsewhere can cause more problems. I would only add a surname if it is found adjacent to or in the same sentence as the given name. Example: more than one Betty or Jane can be listed in a will. An exception is a list or a census where the surname is at the top of the list or in separate column from the given name with ditto marks or slashes that might indicate the same surname is repeated for each person.
0 -
9: I notice a lot of this, and I'm wondering if it actually matters. A lot of the time, the system will lump together things that were listed in different highlighted areas into a single output spot. (the little sections where the names and such are transcribed.) Should we only allow an output spot to show its own text that was in its section? or is it ok for a name and initial to be recorded on the same line despite having 2 different highlight areas. (This is the kind of thing I feel could get overlooked a lot even if it turns out it is important.)
0 -
10: This is for clarification, because the system is starting to do this. We are not supposed to expand abbreviations right? again, I ask because I found a spot where the pre record system had already expanded the abbreviation from 'wm' to 'william'.
0 -
For number 6 : I think I understand, but if this doesn't make sense then please elaborate on your question. If you are only seeing a last name highlighted, and there is no first name associated with it (highlighted or not), then just review the last name. Keep in mind that prefixes like Mr. or Mrs. should be highlighted and added to the review.
number 6a: If the highlighted word is just the last name, followed by a list of first names that are not highlighted, review the first name on the list. In theory, the other names will get picked up and reviewed later on.
0
