Corrected records reverting or changing
Can someone get the engineers involved in this?
I have been correcting records in a dataset from Bolivia. Just this week, I found that the FS computers have been randomly or systematically messing things up that I corrected. In some cases, it has been every record in an image. In other cases, it has been a random record on an image.
The most common change is that gender has been changed from what I put to "desconocido" (Unknown). This also messes up the "Parentesco" (Relationships) data, since that relies on gender.
Answers
-
There have also been a few instances where the computer broke family groups apart or forgot who the principal was.
0 -
@Jerry Hill Please submit a bug report using the form located here. Be sure to include links to example records.
I think I this issue may be related to the bug report I submitted on Monday.
I reported the gender/sex being changed or displaying as Unknown on all U.S. census records, many U.S. death certificates, etc.
A day after submitting my report, Support asked for examples. Below is what I sent them
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Examples:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQ3P-1T7?lang=enhttps://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MDKY-LJN?lang=en
The indexing on the source link states the Correct Sex:
but when I open the image, the indexing of the Sex states Unknown.
And here it is with the "Updated Look":
0 -
I submitted a bug report. They don't make it easy and things don't fit well in their dropdown categories.
1 -
On that 1880 census for Fred Conlon, the change history shows that the gender was changed from male to unknown by a user yesterday.
1 -
That is odd. I wonder if they are part of Support doing an experiment or if it's just coincidence.
I submitted my follow-up report, with the exact same screen-shots above, 3 days prior, on August 25.1 -
Usually, when support makes the edit, the name is FamilySearch. This is not. I blanked it out because we have been told we are not to display usernames for those not in the discussion.
1 -
I posted a question and made a bug report on this on Aug 25. Haven't heard anything back, neither from the engineers nor any moderator.
0 -
@Jerry Hill We received your form submission. Thank you for bringing this record issue to our attention. This will allow the appropriate team to review and investigate the issue. If additional information is needed, the team may reach out for further details.
Thank you for your patience, for helping improve FamilySearch records, and for being a valued member of the FamilySearch Community. We will provide an update if further information or a resolution becomes available.
0 -
I got to another image on this Bolivia record set. This one had the genders all set to English values, which still screws up the Parentesco (Relationship) values since, in Spanish, the gender of the parent determines the word that is used. The record set is San Luis. Bautismos abril de 1665–octubre de 1690. I started with image 94. Previous images where Gender field was set to "Desconocido" were in the 130 range. The current image I am looking at with Gender set to Male or Female is 145. I'll keep reviewing images I previously corrected up to 147, and I'm betting I'll find that Gender has been screwed up on those mages, too. After that, I'll be starting into images I haven't yet worked on.
Now I know this is not a one-time, "record specific" error. I work only in Spanish and I KNOW that I corrected ALL of these records and set the genders to Hombre or Mujer. So to find that the Gender field has been set to "Desconocido" or "Male / Female" is very aggravating — and it's all on you and your computers. Do you know how many dozens of hours I have spent correcting these records, only to find your computer has messed them up?
Jerry Hill
0 -
@Jerry Hill is the same issue you reported in the form, or a different one?
0 -
Different, but similar. These errors are substituting Male / Female for Hombre / Mujer.
The ones on the form were substituting "Desconocido" for Hombre and Mujer.0 -
But here's one that is different. In the same Bolivia recordset, image 147, last record.
I had corrected it completely several days ago, but when I was reviewing
everything yesterday, I found that one field had been deleted and data
values changed. For the padrino (Pedro Cumba), the given name (Po) was
gone, though the highlight was still present, and his gender had been
changed to "Mujer".0 -
@Jerry Hill without the URL, we can't see what "here" is.
1 -
It's a reference to a question that @shecorwe asked above in regard to a trouble report and this thread.
The record set is mentioned above.
0 -
@Jerry Hill I can see that you've been busy editing that record for San Luis. Bautismos abril de 1665–octubre de 1690! After review, we determined that the original record was indexed incorrectly in 2023 and came into the system with bad data. Thank you for correcting all 221 pages so the gender is now showing as it should.
We could not find evidence that any recent changes have been made to the collection - only your name is showing in the edits area. If for some reason you see changes in the future, please reach out again and we can take a look.
For now the issue is resolved and this thread is closed.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GY9W-9D7Q?view=index&cc=1922463&lang=es&groupId=M9GQ-FGV0
