I'm using google crome as a browser.

Aunt Alice was one of the biggest fibbers. I believe the error message could be better worded. The official birth record (in this case her church baptism that includes her DOB) should be considered a more reliable source. I think the wording of the error should be reversed since the dates/ages on censuses are far less reliable. I foresee accurate dates of birth being changed to match the movable feast of dates in other records based on the error message.

Thanks.

Holleran, her married name, is spelled every possible imaginable way EXCEPT Holleran, but the score sees no conflicts. Meanwhile, on one record, Reilly is written Riley, and the score calls that one out. https://www.familysearch.org/service/tree/tree-data/labs/person-scores/L8PR-4K3/summary

Also - if a date is approximate, using the word "about," could the algorithm skip the "missing a month" warning, please?

Starting at the top of the Score Details and going down:

Person data complete

• This person is missing given name... This infant was never christened. Never given a name and will never have one. Stars: 0
• The 23 Feb 1873 birth.... Yep. For some reason we didn't put in the family's full residence. Stars: 5
• The 23 Feb 1873 death... Again neglected to enter the full residence. Stars: 5
• The Burial conclusion is missing... Infant deaths in this place and time never had burial records. Of course the program would have to be adjusted for each particular set of circumstances which would not be practical. Stars: 3

Person data tagged

• This statement really doesn't make sense. Stars: 2

Person Data is Consistent with tagged...

• There are no indexed sources.... Yes there are. Of the four sources on the record, two of them are indexed sources. All four sources are tagged to both the Name and Death. Stars: 0

Person Data Conflict Free

No issues identified. But if there are no recognized indexed sources there is nothing to compare! If no comparison is possible does that really mean there are no conflicts? Stars: 1

Overall usefulness score: 2.5 stars.

Adding the farm name to the residence and tagging all the sources to all the information resulted in the following:

This did raise the overall score to 0.93. It can't ever be any higher due to the fact the child does not have a name and does not have a burial.

I find it a bit strange that adding a second indexed record tag cleared the flag that there were none.

My main concern here is that people will get annoyed by not being able to get a "perfect" score or by repeatedly seeing people with non-existent problems but low scores. Would it be possible to add a note field for users to explain why a flagged problem is not a problem and should be left alone?

Another conflict in information that needed resolving and perhaps should have brought the Quality Score down from "high" is the need to merge. One person was listed in the same family twice, once as Charles Preston with all the data complete and once as Charles P without any data at all. (Without a birth year, Charles P didn't have a Quality Score.)

While the available information did seem to indicate a high Quality Score, these people had important information missing and a recommendation to work on someone else might prevent things being done that should be done or things added to a record that should be added. Is there another way to word this to keep people from spending unnecessary time on an individual without discouraging them from finding valuable missing puzzle pieces?

In the experiment, she is tagged as High Quality, whereas what is now in the tree is utter rubbish. It is an amalgam of completely different people.

I now have to contact the person who has changed it and work out how to undo what they have destroyed.

My first thought was that this was a straight coding error, not calculating 1883 - 1842 correctly (i.e. 44 instead of 41). However, I found another mother who had two messages of a different kind for what seems like a similar scenario. An example is "If Frank Raymond was born 28 April 1871, this person would have been 41, which is normally after child bearing years.". This identifies which event is causing the issue.

This leads me to think that a user has created a private profile for another child of Elizabeth, born about 1886, a few years after Thomas. Muggles can't be told any details or even the existence of a private profile they didn't create; hence the uninformative nature of Elizabeth's message.

If I am correct, I would suggest that private profiles of people related to the subject should be ignored by the PQS process unless they are visible to the viewing user.