Source Consistency No Longer Updating?

Áine Ní Donnghaile

I mentioned in this thread that I had edited an indexing error on 14 Dec, but the Source Consistency error had not updated by 15 Dec. I've been checking it every day, but it still has not updated.

My 3rd GGF was born in September 1811. In the 1870 census, he was enumerated as age 58 but the indexed as age 38. I edited the 38 to 58 and changed the estimated year of birth from 1832 to 1812.

As of this evening (17 Dec), the source consistency has not updated to reflect the edit.

In the past, any edits were reflected within about 24-36 hours.

Thanks for reviewing.

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LHJF-BJP

Rhonda Budvarson

Thank you Aine for watching this. I will get this in the que.

Áine Ní Donnghaile

Thanks, Rhonda.

Rhonda Budvarson

Here's another one: KJ5S-VBZ

Corrected index Waalf to Woolf. 26 Dec 24. 3:15 PM Pacific.

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@Rhonda Budvarson

I have just noted another variation of an edited record not updating in relation to the DQS.

On profile L7JL-736 for James Berrian Lowe, there is a source consistency error on the surname of Lowery for Lowe. But, if you check the details, the surname is correctly listed as Lowe.

I then opened the record, a typed index of deaths, and the name is correct on the record. The name above it is Lowery, but the record for my relative is correctly spelled Lowe.

Then I checked the change history of the record index, and what do I see? I corrected the name exactly 1 year ago, but some algorithm has apparently changed it back to the wrong name in May 2024. I suspect this dataset may have been processed by OCR since it is a typewritten set. It's easy to see why OCR might have processed 2 similar names the same.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSZH-7S7L?view=history&personArk=1:1:QPTM-YMCY

I have, in general, stopped trying to edit indexing errors, because the editor has so many flaws; a year ago I was still trying to work within the provided system. But, if the algorithm is programmed to revert correct user edits, we'll never have a usable system.

Thanks for reviewing.

If this needs to be moved to a standalone thread, I do understand.