Is this really quicker?
Is it just me, or am I the only one that doesn't see how reviewing the AI can be quicker than indexing the previous way. I just spent 40 min. on a two page document, reviewing and correcting each instance of each name at least ten times, sometimes the same instance being highlighted differently each time, sometimes it's all highlighted and correct but I'm still doing that same instance several times. This includes reviewing every clerk and judge ten or so times, and we never used to index those. In the old indexer/reviewer system it would have taken ten minutes for the indexer and then ten minutes for the reviewer. How is this system more efficient when we would just index the same name once, no matter how many times it's on the document?
Answers
-
this comment seems to relate to one that you responded to yesterday - multiple instances of the sane name in a document. If they are not manually reduced to a single reference then presumably when we search for someone we will get multiple hits to the same source. Wasting everyone’s time.
2 -
That's for sure! I am a long time reviewer, I know how long it takes for me to review documents. It takes me approximately TEN times as long now with the AI program. I cant help but think they already know this. The 1950 census was computer indexed. Reviewing took so long they had to pull it from normal reviewers and give it to someone else. (Have always wondered who that was.) Nonetheless that is what happened. Same program now—same results. There is VARIETY of reasons why it takes so long now. So if and when, are they going to fix this?
3 -
I definitely feel like I'm accomplishing nothing when working on documents with the same name listed multiple times. I miss the 'good old days" of typing names and experiencing a feeling of satisfaction.
6 -
I agree with @barbaragailsmith1 - if AI doesn't know the name John Smith by now, it never will —- Get Involved Opportunities are mostly tests of human patience, not "indexing" — When I indexed any document before 2024, I made available a reproduction that a genealogist, family member, or historian could read and interpret further as he or she may wish. Please give us human volunteers something useful to do to help advance the goals and vision of Family Search —- I'm going to try the Full Text Lab but I'm not going to make changes or merges to anyone that I'm not absolutely sure I can properly attest to with verifiable sources.
3 -
Can we at least get some hotkeys? My hand hurts :(
0 -
mayimagpie, I know. I did too much yesterday and now the muscles in my forearm and shoulder are so sore I can't do any today. With indexing you used other muscles as well, but with this it's constantly the same push on the mouse.
1 -
Reviewing is a hot mess. I gave up and moved on. FS said that the indexing program that we were using was outdated and that was part of why they moved to AI, but we went from desktop to online indexing in the years I've been here. Why move to AI when they could've found a way to update indexing. AI is unproven technology and Reviewing is proving that point.
6 -
Can we get a mod response here? My hands are begging for hot keys.
1 -
An alternative project I have moved on to is fixing and merging families in my Scottish line. Anyone else could work on any Scottish line as well if they want. Many individuals are sealed to spouse and with a separate ID are sealed to parents. Many census records are not attached to anyone. I use scotlandspeople.gov.uk as a resource and I do spend some money purchasing viewable images there when I need a particular record that family search does not have.
0 -
As MaryAnneReynoldsSmith said I too miss the good old days of indexing and the satisfaction of a completed batch. The system was intuitive, easy to use and provided hours of "fun". I still index some but I can't do nearly as much as I used to. I volunteer at a FSC site I have 3 hours a week. I used to spend the vast majority of that time indexing. First I moved to verifying place names which was ok, but I have a hard time verifying place names from somewhere like Uganda. So I try to do some of the quick name reviews and get frustrated with fixing the highlights, helping AI distinguish names (like Smith) versus places (like Smyth or Smithville) and reindexing the name multiple times in the same document. Please bring back the old indexing for those of us who prefer it and let others who choose to struggle with AI. That must be some out there who prefer it to change the whole system.
1 -
I too regret the loss of the "traditional" indexing options. I have been indexing for many years. Indexing is what brought me into become a volunteer at my local FSC. It was fun, rewarding and easy to do. Over time you could move on to review and more challenging records. One of the better additions in my opinion was dividing the records by difficulty so those with less experience didn't find themselves frustrated or in over their heads. The new features don't include this at all lumping experienced and new indexers/reviewers together. If the goal of indexing can be to introduce people into helping the community at large there needs to be simple projects, with clear guidance. Seeing the issues presented by experienced users can we anticipate the frustration that newcomers must be feeling? The old indexing allowed a very structured entry point. I am not sure this new change accomplishes the same thing. I am excited about allowing AI to vastly expanded the amount of records that will be added to the data sets and as we move forward with typed records the technology will be great. I just indexing many city directories and AI would have been great for that (even allowing users to correct errors) but in terms of handwritten documents from the early part of the 20th Century the amount of errors is to great at this time. Let those that choose AI go forward but return the traditional indexing to bridge new people.
1 -
I, too, would love to hear a moderator comment that at least they are seeing and hearing the feedback.
Proverbs 11:14 Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory. 💙 Proverbs 15:22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established. 💙
2 -
I haven't gotten a mod reply in a few months. A little frustrating considering the people in this thread likely contribute significantly to indexing.
0 -
Can't see that a mod was tagged here so they may have been unaware of any requests for mod intervention. @Ashlee C. can you help please?
0 -
Hi everyone! Thank you for your comments and contributions to this discussion. Your concerns and suggestions have been noted and will be passed on to the engineers.
0
