Corruption of England & Wales Marriage Registration Sources
For the second time in as many days I have noticed that marriage sources I added to individuals in the past (the one today in 2021) have somehow become "corrupted" by being replaced to a related record with different names. Difficult to explain, but here is an example.
Lily Stott married John Sherburn at Burnley in 1911 (known fact), but - as is quite common - they have been indexed under different (GRO) references. This has led to John Sherburn appearing under the same reference as Nancy Heap and James Cooper and Lily Stott indexed with a Brian Cunliffe and Florence Lan(d)less.
What I always do in similar circumstances, is to add the record relating to the relevant individual to their Sources, with an explanatory note of why their correct spouse does not appear in the same record (one party being misindexed).
The screenshots below illustrate:
Even more baffling is how the record I originally attached to John Sherburn now appears as this!
As illustrated, neither the correct GRO reference (shown below) or the period of 1911 match:
On this occasion, I did add a note, but definitely to the source I attached in 2021 for John Sherburn, not Arthur Whittaker!
Could this issue please be escalated to the relevant team, as the problem appears to be widespread. One problem that possibly compounds the "ease" of finding a solution is the fact that FamilySearch apparently no longer has permission to include records from this collection in its database.
Answers
-
In summary, the correct records I originally added as sources (to John Sherburn and Lily Stott) somehow have been replaced by ones (especially in the Arthur Whittaker example) with no connection to the individual concerned. Also, please note the names of the spouse in these examples: "James" and "Walter E", respectively. In the past, the spouse in such records has never appeared with just a first name.
Something appears to have gone seriously wrong and needs urgent investigation by the engineering team responsible. Otherwise, the attachment of such sources will create considerable confusion and its value will be virtually useless.
Perhaps FT patrons reading this might wish to check similar sources - added to their English / Welsh families - to see if they can find / illustrate further examples of this mysterious problem.
1 -
Thank you for giving this issue your attention.
Looking back at the first example I provided, I can see the corruption of data is possibly worse than I first thought. Note that the source heading implies the record is for a Nancy COOPER. Even disregarding the fact that I originally added a source in the name of Lily Stott - as can be seen from the indexed record screenshot - there is not even such an individual as Nancy Cooper: it was a Nancy HEAP who appears to have married JAMES COOPER in the Burnley area in 1911!
As you will see, none of these individuals / events are to be found in a search from https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/collection/2285732
2 -
@Paul W There are record restrictions on this collection that make it hard to diagnose the problem. It needs to be investigated by another team.
Thank you for taking the time to share your concern—we appreciate your effort to help improve the experience for everyone.
To make sure it reaches the right team and can be reviewed as efficiently as possible, please submit it through the Record Issues form. This helps ensure that technical problems, errors, or restrictions are addressed directly by those best equipped to assist.
You can report the issue here: Records Issues Form https://forms.monday.com/forms/b2bab1e388c382c1ea229e6391abe7a3?r=use1
When submitting, please include as much detail as you can—such as the record name, collection, and what you’re experiencing—so the team can investigate thoroughly. Consider keeping a copy of the submitted information though the Records Issues Form and including a link to this conversation if you want to be publicly notified. Otherwise, use your email and we will contact you privately.
The Community is always here for research help, collaboration, and discussion, so please don’t hesitate to continue posting if you need assistance finding or interpreting records.
Thank you again for your contribution and for helping us keep the Community organized and effective for everyone!0 -
Thank you. I have followed your advice and submitted a Records Issue Form. However, I understood this was introduced primarily for querying access restrictions and complete disappearance of collections from the database. So I am disappointed there is not a direct escalation process available through Community, whereby a moderator / admin person is able to find a route for getting bugs / data corruption issues to the relevant engineering team.
1 -
@Paul W Thank you for submitting this issue via the Reports Form. We have contacted the department over England and Wales and are in the process of determining whether this is an error based on the record being restricted or something else. Please be patient while research is being conducted. Our findings will be reported here in this thread, as soon as they are available.
1
