1911 Census Issue on SourceLinker
There's an issue when using the sourcelinker on the 1911 England census.
If any person shown on the census needs to be added to the Tree and they have more than one first names. FS drops the first names and enters the second name in capitals in the auto box on the right side of the screen.
I've a couple examples where I have not completed the linking so this may be seen when attempting to add:
https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/linker?ark=/ark:/61903/1:1:X7PD-5Q7&id=PC28-362
https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/linker?pal=/ark:/61903/1:1:XWPV-NZP&id=KL56-FM5
I can find others if needed. Please can anyone looking at this not complete the linking of the census to enable the supervisors to see what's happening. Thanks.
Answers
-
Thank you for taking the time to report this and for providing two such clear examples of the issue — they have been very helpful.
Here is what I've found so far: after four attempts, I was unable to reproduce the error as shown in this test case: https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/linker?ark=/ark:/61903/1:1:XW1M-2WZ&id=K257-Y8Q&hinting=/tree/person/details/K257-Y8Q
Since your examples come from two different locations within the collection, this does not appear to be isolated to a specific record group. I also reviewed the record index, which was provided by Find My Past, and their transcription of the affected records appears accurate.
This will be submitted to engineering, but any additional detail you can provide would be genuinely valuable in helping them identify the cause. Small details can sometimes help.
0 -
@Kimley, @SerraNola I reported this problem at the end of January. It was from the same collection:
0 -
Thank you for the responses. I've taken a clip of one example which shows the correct full name at the top but incorrect entry within the new name area:…..sorry it has appeared so large!
0 -
@JulianBrown38 @Kimley I had not seen this thread back in January and it does not appear that it was ever reported.
I think we've ruled out errors in our database, since the names appear correctly in Search when entered as two given names. This points instead to a problem with how Source Linker is mapping the name fields.
My only question before handing it over to engineering is whether or not it is happening regularly, occasionally, or once in a blue moon. That information helps them determine the priority level.
1 -
@SerraNola Except for the examples in the two posts, I have not encountered the error. I'm an active contributor to the FS tree, and I do a fair amount of merging.
0 -
@SerraNola In the first example given by @Kimley there are several unattached individuals. The father, one of the sons and one "Other" person have two first names. If I select any of those, the proposed names of the new profiles are incorrectly populated. (In the case of the "Other" person, Ernest Hubert Smith, I moved him up to the Siblings on Record for the purpose of testing this.) All the other individuals have only one first name, and the proposed new profile name is correctly populated.
In the OP's second example, in addition to the case for Eliza Ann Petche, there are other unattached individuals who have two first names. If I select any of the siblings (who all have two first names), the proposed profile names are incorrectly populated. In the case of Thomas William Petche, the source linker provides a potential match (98K1-9PR). If I override the suggestion by clicking CREATE NEW PERSON, the proposed profile name is again incorrect. The one unattached individual (William Sumpton) has only one first name, and so his proposed profile name is populated correctly.
I have tried to find other examples in this collection as follows. I opened the Search Records form and selected the 1911 collection. I turned on the "All information" option with the thought that I would be able to find some records which were attached to a profile and which also had some "Others" listed with more than one first name. In these cases, there would be a reasonable probability that the other individual would not be attached, and so I could pretend that the other person was a sibling or child of the principal and see what happened. I've tried this on several such records, and I haven't found any which are incorrectly populated, except for the examples provided.
0
