LCX2-7XK (Joseph Bainbridge (1808—1865) has wrong age/birth date error because of an index mistake
I'd appreciate a way to note that an indexed entry on this site is wrong. See for instance LCX2-7XK (Joseph Bainbridge (1808—1865) who was incorrectly indexed as 32 years of age (along with his wife, and probably others on that page) instead of 52 years. This is because of the way in which the enumerator wrote his numeral 5 (on the same page there is a numeral 3, formed markedly differently).
I apparently do not have the requisite permissions to edit the index (which is fine) but a way to permanently note the error would be good.
I realise I can simply get rid of the notice.
Comments
-
Also for this person can someone see why it gives an error for Data Completeness: "A marriage date is missing" when there is a marriage date, and place? Thanks.
0 -
And I've just noticed that if I dismiss something (in this case it was complaining that Middleton is not Middleton-in- Teesdale (with or without hyphens), then if I later change the entry for the birth entry from Middleton-in-Teesdale, because there is more detailed information*, then when I look at the "Dismissed Helps" under "Quality Score Improvements" the new data is shown and the reason for dismissing makes little sense.
*(in this case for Forest and Frith, part of the civil parish of Middleton-in-Teesdale in one period.
I probably need to put this in a separate feedback.
0 -
If the problem called out by the DQS is due to an indexing error, you can dismiss the error with that explanation. In many cases, you can now also edit the index.
1 -
Yes, indeed, my thanks. But a way to permanently note the index error would be good so that it does not come back to haunt us. I am not sure why some people do and some do not have edit permissions on indexes, but my point is for those of us who do NOT have edit permission it would be helpful to add a permanent marker for anyone who follows.
Also note my third comment means that someone coming to the entries later will simply not be able to understand why the original dismissal was made. This is because the system apparently references (left side) the current situation against the original error and not the original situation for which the change was made.
0 -
@FrankLittle regarding your first comment referring to the 1861 census that is not editable. We cannot edit when the index is provided by a third party. The index from England and Wales comes from Find my Past.
1 -
@FrankLittle for your second question regarding missing marriage date, I believe it is referring to this:
There is a marriage place attached for Wisconsin. This needs a review and correction.
1 -
1
-
And, if the error in the 1861 census index is present on FindMyPast, you can submit a correction on the FMP website.
2 -
Ah, thank you for this clarification. That's useful to know.
So currently ALL England and Wales census data indexes are as taken from Findmypast?
I correct FMP errors as I come across them. And from time to time I recheck old 1939 Register entries, as these slowly become updated at FMP once a death has been confirmed (or the date for this passes).
The 1861 entry for FMP was corrected some time back and currently shows his age as 52 instead of the 32 it originally had.
So my question becomes: How often does the index here on census/Register get updated?
And my original question remains: some way to post a Note would be helpful. Not everyone has a subscription to Findmypast.
1 -
Ah, yes, I missed that. (Should have clicked on edit to see the incorrect place designation.) Removed it now, and thanks for the help. One learning for me is, don't just rely on what is shown on the main page. ;-)
0 -
Wrt the other point you made (I really should post these all separately and will do in future): Thank you for the reminder.
This child Charles Bainbridge was only recently added here in the FamilySearch tree I think. I see in my own notes at home that I have him (and potentially others, as yet unnamed) as needing further research.
This is a complicated family and the child of Joseph Bainbridge, Charles, needs—as always—more research. There are multiple people with this surname in Upper Teesdale and elsewhere in the area around Barnard Castle are regularly confused; proceeding with caution. ;-)
0 -
And I'd be grateful for a response on this my third point. Unless I'm mistaken, the way this works makes it very difficult to see what was originally done.
0 -
So currently ALL England and Wales census data indexes are as taken from Findmypast?
You can see the source of the index on each collection landing page. For example, the 1911 E&W:https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/collection/1921547
0 -
So for the 1861 England, Scotland and Wales census the last update was 3 December 2024.
1 -
The date in the citation doesn't necessarily mean any changes visible to us were made. It could have been a server change or something else behind the scenes.
2
