There are two major factions when it comes to Norwegian names and recording genealogical data. There are those who maintain that Norwegians should never be recorded with any other surname than their patronymic surname and refuse to admit that any other surnames exist. Then There are others who acknowledge the rich history of Norwegian naming practices which has four types of surnames: patronymics, fixed patronymics, farm names, and family names. The vast majority of Norwegians in Norway who use My Heritage use the full, more complex, names for their ancestors that their ancestors used. Geni also acknowledges the full naming system and actually has official guidelines on how to enter Norwegian names which, I was pleased to see when I first read their guidelines, agree with how I have always entered Norwegian names. 

FamilySearch indexes have generally included only the first name of a child in birth records because that is generally all that is listed in the name column of those records. For the parents they have generally indexed just the parent’s first name and patronymic and ignored the family name that is also listed in the birth record or treated it just as the family residence instead of the true surname it is. The FamilySearch Wiki article on Norwegian names is biased towards the “patronymic name only” point of view and has a fair amount of erroneous information in it, but that is a discussion for another time. 

In keeping with checking records that I expect to stress the system in order to find problems I went to this record: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/KCVW-Q6V

His name is entered correctly according to common use among Norwegian genealogists, Geni’s guidelines, my personal preference, and the strongly held opinions of my wife (this is her 2nd cousin five times removed) and my Norwegian in-laws.

Eight of the nine “data inconsistent with tagged sources” issues are due to the indexes not including the person’s full name. Going in and editing every single source record is neither practical nor a productive use of time. However, having such a long list of inconsistencies looks bad and it seems to be an official declaration by FamilySearch that a Norwegian person’s full name is not to be used. I am very concerned that this will lead to the same situation as the map pins on place names which lead some users on a crusade to have a map pin no matter how much place name information they had to delete.

The ninth item, which is second on the list, is due to an incorrect transcription of the record. The image really does say “Hystad” not “Flystad.” I have not been too concerned with these types of errors in the index. Since the source is attached, other users, if they feel the need, can go to the image and see what is there. But having this listed as an inconsistency does raise the specter of someone “correcting” the profile page to match the incorrect index without actually checking the source image. It does add a bit of pressure to go and fix the index.

But what if the index is transcribed correctly and the source record has just been determined to be wrong? Does this mean that we should only tag sources that support our conclusion and not tag all the sources that are for the person but conflict with our conclusion? Do we just leave them hidden on the sources page or not attach them at all? Academically that would not be very honest. They should be tagged but have a clear note explaining why that source is viewed as being in error and why it will always appear on the inconsistency list and wreck the score. What are we to do? How can the Quality page be modified to prevent damage to a person’s profile? 

I'm struggling a little bit here. This person has only a christening record. No birth, death or burial. We know that she died only because she is not listed in her father's will.

Initially when I came to this page, the Person Data has Tagged Sources listed that there was no source tagged to her death information. So I attached the source of her father's will and tagged it to the death information. Now that error has gone away.

However, we still have errors because we have no birth information for her (the christening did not give her birth date) or burial information. That knocks us down to 1 star? But we get full marks for Tagged Sources because the two pieces of information that we have on her have sources attached? And then we get full marks again because two of the three sources attached to her are different extractions of her christening record and the information on the indexed records matches the data in her record exactly...but it doesn't even bring up the third source of her father's will, where she actually isn't mentioned.

It is quirky that the baby Vito Anthony Lo Forte where we actually have exact birth and death dates for him, yet because they are not indexed sources we get more error messages than on this Letitia whose death is only implied because she is not in the source.

I strongly believe the "assigned birth segment" determination is too broad. There is a HUGE difference between being born between 1871 and 1899 as compared to between 1800 and 1870.

I'm not searching for anomalies in my family. I had to visit Aunt Mary's profile this morning because someone gave her an extra husband and extra parents over the weekend.

What's wrong with not dying until you are 89?

(I have not included buttons to move Quality Check items back and forth between the Research Helps and the Dismissed Helps tabs.)

Not to harp on the other issue in this summary. As we've looked back in my wife's Norwegian relatives, even very far back, it was extremely common for a man to get married, have a few children, have his wife die in childbirth, get married again, have more children, have his second wife die in childbirth, get married again, and have even more children. You had to have a wife to run the household and take care of the kids. Usually each subsequent wife would be younger and younger than the husband because all the women his age were either married or dead. This man remarrying at age 48 to a 33 year old wife was not at all unusual and, of course, if you got married, you had more children.

Also, the large number of children was not unusual when so many of the wives and children died and they had to keep getting more.

as found at: https://www.familysearch.org/service/tree/tree-data/labs/person-scores/KWCK-6TF/summary ? Or do you know about all of these and are working through them?

I will leave this problem on the person's page so you can check it out if needed. Someone put a residence span taken from the not very reliable United States Public Records historical record collection and added it as Other Information even though he had died 17 years before the start of that date span.

This was a good catch of an error that I probably never would have noticed.

His christening record lists his name in one line, and editing shows that Kos is entered in the surname field.

Is the algorithm set to compare the person to the source as "first name, second name" or as "given name, surname"?

For example, a census could be tagged to name, sex, birth and residence. Right now most of the residences that are in the system do not have tags because that was only a recent change. (and it doesn't look like your Summary calculates for residences, only for birth, christening, death, burial and marriages). So, if a census is attached to an individual record, but not tagged to birth (some people choose to do it this way because it isn't a record of birth) would it be used in the calculations for this Quality Standards Summary?

Born in 1879; his death is only 'deceased' because we have not yet located his death information. Yet we know he has to be deceased because we know his birth date and he could not possibly be still alive. This 'deceased' mark is a critical indicator in who can see this record. (locked living, visible deceased)

Should a mark of 'deceased' that has no date or location be required to have a source tagged to it? Person Data Consistent with Tagged Sources seems to only check for tagged sources that have indexed information and receives full marks for consistency, even though unindexed records are not used for comparison. Regarding the 'deceased' mark, it seems to me that if it is marked as missing a date and place in Person data is complete, that it should not be also marked down in Person Data has Tagged Sources.

You can also see that a non existent burial date/place does not generate a tagged sources error.