Can't get birth and marriage dates recognized by FS
Commenti
-
Couldn't get this in correct order,
0 -
I attempted to post both marriage and birth, but only birth was posted originally.
ted to post both the marriage and birth date, but the marriage date did not get on.
0 -
There is no "dismiss" for this error by FS
0 -
Can you post the URL for the profile on which you are seeing this so we can see what is really going on? Or post the ID number which you find in the top banner like this:
I suspect the wrong Mason, Virginia, is ending up on the profile. When entering the place name, you are given two choices:
The top one is in West Virginia and if that is the one you mean, there should be no error flag. If the bottom one was entered, which is in Kentucky as of 1792, the you would get the error flag.
Seeing the actual profile will allow people here to determine the cause of the trouble you are running into.
3 -
Unfortunately, people are given more than those two choices. I don't recall ever seeing Mason, Virgiia, 17890- 1792. Unless it was just changed today, one has to search or type in Mason, Virginia, United States, 1804-1863 to get it.
One usually gets Mason, West Virginia, etc. Or Mason, Mason, Virginia; or Mason, Sussex, Virginia, or Mason, Fairfax, Virginia. all of the last incorrect
0 -
Gordon, here is the UrL where I can't get the birth and marriage accepted. Birth 1805 appears; marriage 1824 appears.
0 -
@Mormor192 Unfortunately the URL didn't paste in. Also, if I do get a look at the profile, is it OK with you if I try some editing to make the place look the same, have the right timespan, and get the flag to go away? I can screen record as I do so and post the video here so you can see exactly what I do and what does or does not happen.
The Places database, just like the rest of FamilySearch is being updated all the time and I've been wondering if there has been some editing going on in it to help the quality checker work better and to make it easier for people to get the right time periods.
1 -
I don't know which of three posts you are referring to, so I would not want you to do an edit. I believe the URL I sent concerned the birth and marriage dates which the computer could not decipher correctly, i.e.1805 birth is before 1824 marriage. And please do not change places, etc as this was already one that was incorrectly merged and took multiple efforts to get separated.
If it is the last one, that does not have four places so don't see how you can change that legitimately. The person entering the Census made obvious errors, either the Census taker had sloppy handwriting or the transcriber misread it. When non-family enter census records they often misread names. I had one where the person misread the name to the extent that they changed a man into a woman, in spite of the M in the appropriate column. People or the computer often add Mason, Mason which is incorrect for 90% or more of the people of the County. Mason as a town was never the County Seat and did not exist before about 1856.
I don't remember now what the third one was. Please describe before you change anything. It was probably the use of United States versus British Colonial America which I consider irrelevant when I have to dig or enter from scratch to get a legitimate "Mason, Virginia, United States".
0 -
I looked up the ID for the Birth - Marriage problem. It is KD3K-DKR. There is nothing wrong with the places.
0 -
For the birth marriage problem, the marriage date is not standardized correctly. Click on the marriage info to open the Data View popup up and you will see:
All programming routines use only the standardized values for dates and places, not the displayed dates and places they are linked to. This marriage entry states that Cynthia was married March 24 which is 1,781 years before she was born. So the data error warning is correct.
To fix this problem edit the date by adding the year or by retyping the full date, and make sure it standardizes correctly. This problem tends to arise when a record has been indexed with just a month and day. There have been problems in the past with the source linker not letting you actually correct the standard when adding the event.
By the way, there is no need to add the marriage a second time as a custom event. The program, since it does not actually know what a custom event contains, ignores them for all routines such as finding hints, finding duplicates, or, as in the case here, checking it against birth dates and other information in the search for data errors.
2 -
And yes, you are right, this type of error is never dismissible and should not be because if there is a marriage date before a person's birth date, it is always an error.
If you are not familiar with the difference between Display Data and Standardized Data and why both are used even though though it occasionally causes confusing errors like this, let me know and I'd be happy to explain it. It is a very powerful and useful feature of Family Tree.
2 -
I have repeatedly retyped the correct date; erased and retyped; clicked on the calendar and retyped till I'm blue in the face. it makes no sense to me that it changes a correctly typed date into a 00date. How does one fix it?
No , I don't understand the reason for "display date" and "standardized date" especially when "standardized date becomes a 00date and it doesn't recognize what was typed in.
How many times does one have to edit and retype the marriage date to get it accepted? This problem is unacceptable/
0 -
To quote myself: "There is no need to add the marriage a second time as a custom event. The program, since it does not actually know what a custom event contains, ignores them for all routines such as finding hints, finding duplicates, or, as in the case here, checking it against birth dates and other information in the search for data errors."
Looking at the change log, you have never edited the marriage date.
Delete that custom event! It is not and never will be the marriage information the program will ever look at. so again, Delete the custom event and correct the marriage information as I pointed to in the second image above.
1 -
Regarding Display Dates and Places and Standardized Dates and Places, this powerful feature of Family Tree is what allows researchers to enter a full, complete date or place name when all the computer programing wants is a simplified version of the same.
For example, to give richness to a person's profile, I can enter a date such as:
Or when I have more information about a residence, say from a census, than the list of standards will ever contain, I can include it:
Or I can include additional information in a place name if the standardized version of that name by itself is ambiguous:
The Display data is the information you need other researchers to read and understand.
The Standardized data is the information the program needs to function properly for the various routines such as finding duplicate, finding hints, and finding errors.
Being able to have both gives the flexibility that we need as researchers to deal with the messiness of real history and the rigidity that computer programs require to do anything useful.
1 -
I had tried repeatedly to edit the marriage information. I don't understand how you could say I had never tried. Something is wrong with the logs. Also, I still don't understand why the computer program would enter a 00 date when a legitimate date is entered. How can that be a "standardized date"? As a former programmer that would be considered a bug.
0 -
Glad to see you found the right date and got it standardized to the date it should be. The change log showed multiple edits of the Custom Event but no changes to the Couple Event until today.
The word "standardize" has a unique meaning in Family Tree. To be standardized means that the displayed value is linked to a standard value. The displayed value and the standard value can be identical or different. If standardized very badly, as was that marriage date of 24 March 1824 being standardized as March 0024, strange things happen. But that is not a bug. It is a very powerful feature that is of great value when used properly. But as with many powerful things, it can cause trouble when not understood.
A while back I put together a presentation on standardization of dates in Family Tree. It's a bit outdated with all the recent updates and because it is now more difficult to incorrectly link the standard or to leave a date non-standardized. So some of the options I show for entering a date are no longer options. but if you are interested in viewing it, here it is:
I have a separate presentation about place names.
2 -
@Mormor192 Thinking through this whole series of posts again, I just feel badly that I've not been able to be clear about the cause of the problem those dates have been giving you and would like to apologize for any increased confusion I may have caused. So I'm going to start over and try to give the best explanation and demonstration that I can think of. Hope this finally clarifies the situation.
Are you familiar with beta.familysearch.org? It is a playground/sandbox that is created about every six months as a copy of portions of the FamilySearch website, mainly the Family Tree. In it people can experiment and try out features without changing anything in the real production copy of Family Tree. The BETA tree is erased and re-created from the latest version of Family Tree at about the every six month interval. It's fun to check it every once in a while because you can see new feature that are coming long before they appear in the production version of the site.
I decided to go into the beta version and find Cynthia by her ID number. In beta, her profile was as it was found in Family Tree several months ago before you struggled with trying to fix the data error. On that profile, I recorded the following video of how to quickly and easily correct the error on it.
Again, this was in the beta version and so had absolutely no effect in the real Family Tree. I hope you find it helpful in showing how errors in which an incorrect standard is linked to displayed data can look confusing but are easy to fix.
3 -
I tried to listen to your latest explanation but the sound as so poor that it wasn't much help. I was not the original person entering Cynthia. I did try repeatedly to add the full marriage date, in the couple, marriage relation, not as custom event. I did not see any notice to mouse over to see if it had entered correctly. I HAD the correct date. I clicked on the calendar to try to get it accepted and thought it had been. The only way I got it accepted a few days ago was to delete the marriage completely and then reenter it. I still don't understand why the computer would enter 00 instead of the full data that was entered. I had this happen once before and called up to get help with it and it took the person and me repeated attempts to get it accepted correctly. It seems to me to be a bad design to make it so difficult to get a correct date entered. You said this is "a very powerful tool". Would you explain why it is a good tool and for what purpose it is powerful ?
As for the quality scores, they are really irrelevant when, as I mentioned before, people can destroy valid data and sources to try to attach to a person who isn't their ancestor, thus damaging the lineage of hundreds of families. Or on the other hand, create non-existent people with no sources to try to change their ancestry and label spurious sources "do not delete".
0