Odd WWI Draft Registration situation
Today I noticed for the second time an odd thing about WWI Draft Registration records. The first time it happened I let it go. Today since the thing is identical and weird I feel compelled to reach out to the community. Maybe you know something helpful.
Every step of the following happened last week for someone else I don't remember who it was though.
Looking at the sources for David Stone Huntington (LHVZ-2RG), specifically his WWI Draft Registration, I see the message "This record was a duplicate and has been retired. We recommend using the most current copy." followed by "VIEW CURRENT RECORD". I click on the link and am taken to the record, but it is not about David. Instead it is about his "NEAREST RELATIVE", in this case his daughter Evelyn. Okay I say to myself Familysearch has made another one of their boo boos, I'll just find him in the collection and attach, simple enough. It turns out its not simple, in fact its impossible. David is no longer in the collection.
Like I said, this is the second time and exactly the same. The first time I decided the person was just difficult to find in the collection. The second time I decided something funny is going on. Any thoughts on this matter?
Answers
-
@Michael J. Allen - if you go to the "most current copy" on https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:W69Y-Q7ZM?lang=en and look at the image, you will find that it is for David S Huntington. For whatever reason, the name on that index record has been entered as that of his daughter. So it's an indexing problem.
There are two ways forward, as I understand it.
(1) Correct the name on the index and attach the corrected index.
(2) Don't correct the index (because correcting indexes can be tricky) but attach the uncorrected index and add a note to the source index record on David's profile to say that the index is incorrect. (This will probably give rise to a Data Quality warning to be dismissed at some point).
2 -
Today I came across another one GDXQ-WYZ. 3 indexing errors? Coincidence?
I thought it was a good thing to include the nearest relative. I was calling it progress, but no, its an error? Are you sure? There's something not right about this.
How does this happen? Indexers are given terrible instructions? Has the review process broken down?
I'm having a hard time believing these are just coincidental indexing errors.
0 -
@Michael J. Allen This issue has been recognized, but engineering is currently unable to resolve it due to the need to address a higher priority matter first.
To provide clarification, there were two forms used for WWI registrations: an older version and a more recent one. The original form requested the name of the nearest living relative. For all records utilizing this older form, the relative’s name has replaced the Principal’s name, which has resulted in thousands of records not being searchable. Because these records are organized alphabetically, the error is distributed throughout each film and likely stems from migration and not indexing.
The states identified as having this specific issue are: Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
3 -
Thnks for the explanation. There must be alot of them as I've since found a couple more.
0
