Under: Person data is complete - ??completeness_year_not_specified_residence_en??

Under: Person Data is Conflict Free - Unknown issue. COHERENCE: OLD_MARRIAGE conclusionId=c2548be5-44c9-49c5-ae5a-d0a959a813e6 conclusionType=MARRIAGE actualAge=44 profileAge=40

Under: Person Data is Conflict Free - Unknown issue. COHERENCE: OLD_MARRIAGE conclusionId=27913e02-f2f7-4653-9bc3-9a13a0896872 conclusionType=MARRIAGE actualAge=56 profileAge=40

One of the issues listed was "burial does not have an associated date."

My father was cremated in 2006. His ashes were held until the death of his wife in 2010. The 2 sets of ashes were interred sometime after that, but I don't have an exact date.

To remove the "no burial date" error message, I added "after 2010" with an explanation. Now I have an error message of "COHERENCE: DELAYED_BURIAL"

I'm curious what else I could do with the burial. There's an error message either way. And, what more is expected for "Person Data is Complete" to reach 5 stars?

I then visited my mother's profile. The two items that are highlighted as problematic are not. Two locations are listed as not having a city. In both cases, she was not living in a city or town, but in rural locations. When something like this is rolled out to the general public, I wouldn't want someone adding a town/city just to remove the message. There needs to be a way to dismiss an error that is not really an error.

Thanks.

gives:

What is the difference between these two? There is no burial date or location for this individual. Why does it have two burial notations when the baby that died only shows one burial notation but has no burial date or place listed?

baby: 29QJ-424

I've stared at this for a couple of days now and just can't shake my unease. Could this "Full Marks!" statement just be removed?

For example, if someone has tagged a 1920 census record to a 1955 death conclusion, could this trigger a quality check comment of "tagged source contains no information which supports the data, consider detaching this tag."

This would apply, of course, just to tags of indexed records.

On a totally unrelated note, will we ever be able to extract information from our user created sources and enter it as part of the source so it shows in tags just like indexed information?

Thereby giving user created sources equal weight in this view as indexed sources?

First off: Please consider adding a prominent, strongly worded disclaimer in bold or colored type at the top of the page. Something like this:

"Family Tree should contain the best possible conclusions of your research based on the distillation of all available sources. Due to the fact that you will always be dealing with:

• Missing or incomplete source records.
• Conflicting source records.
• Incorrect transcriptions of source records.

it will be rarely, if ever, possible to achieve an Overall Person Quality Score of 1.00. Doing so should never be your goal in Family Tree. Your goal should be to have the most accurate information possible within the constraints of imperfect historical information."

Please do not lead users to think that a "Quality Score" is more important than accuracy, that a high quality score confirms accurate information, and please do not feed into some users' compulsion to fill in every blank space in a profile even when a blank space should remain blank.

1) Date is not displaying properly.

2) The routine is looking at the linked standard, not the real entry. This place name was entered when the Places database lacked an entry for Fana as a borough and so the full name was linked to the next level up which was the municipality of Bergen. Fana has since been added so I could improve this but there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of places missing in the Places database that need to be entered as Fana was here. The way this place name is entered is neither incomplete nor incorrect and such structure should be accounted for and given proper credit. Maybe instead of looking just at the linked standard, the routine could count commas in the user entered complete place name.

3) This phrase needs work. The /etc. structure looks clumsy. Also, I had an English teacher once insist to our class that etc. should never be used because all it means is "there should be something more here but I can't think of what it should be." Since there is a wide variety of what the 4th level place designation should be, maybe you should just say the data "is missing a 4th level in the place name in the linked standard."

4) For almost 800 years of it's history, Bergen was an independent city directly under the county of Hordaland and not included in any of the municipalities in Hordaland. I do need to improve the place name for this particular entry, but if the event had been between 1070 and 1837, then this place name would have been correct and no 4th level needed unless one wanted to add a street address or something. There needs to be an allowance for such place names.

5) There are no indexes for this area for 1937 and onward. And privacy laws are such that there will never be until at least 2037 if that is the end of that volume of birth records. If that volume of records actually starts with 1937 and covers the next fifty years, then the record may not be available for FamilySearch to even start negotiations to film until 2087. Then it would have to be filmed, then indexed. So her great-grandkids might be able to attach an indexed record around 2100. Until then she can't get any stars?

6) Display problem.

7) It looks like the "error" being flagged is that she was not buried until 15 days after her death and 8 days is set as the upper limit. This is another incorrect conflict. The data is correct. After her passing, the funeral had to be scheduled so that one of her sons and my wife and I who live in the US could make arrangements to be away from work, get plane tickets, and spend a couple of days traveling to be able to attend. Fifteen days was the quickest all this could happen. Would it be possible to mark such non-conflicts as "Not A Conflict" and dismissed?

You can see that he has no birth location listed at all:

But nothing is said about that on the summary:

Might I suggest another check here? That of great difference in age of husband and wife?

In this instance:

These are correct dates, however, I would LOVE to see a check that alerts us if we see something of this sort.