Are there checks made to minimise "duplicate" sources being created?
I just opened up Record Hints for a person I am following and found there are four hints relating to the same record (see https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/research-help/KF2M-69R). Apart from causing clutter in the Sources section, there is a concern about how these sources are being created. It appears this is probably due to multiple indexing projects, or multiple filming, of the same material. I wonder if checks are made or logs kept that, in general, prevent this situation arising. Otherwise, this issue does seem to create an extra strain on FamilySearch's limited resources - by taking up valuable time that could be used to get completely new indexed sources online.
Risposte
-
@Paul W It is a good question, and I am going to move this conversation to the FamilySearch Family Tree group so they can provide some more feedback for you. The Indexing Chat is for those that are indexing the records before they are published. I do know that sometimes records come not only from the work that FamilySearch does, but also from our partners, and that can sometimes create duplication. I wish you well.
0 -
@Paul W
.
Paul
.
In answer to your question, personally, ... I hope NOT.
.
Obviously, I take a different 'tack' ...
.
Each to there own ...
.
I certainly DO NOT have a problem/issue or concern that there are DUPLICATE or SIMILAR "Sources" for the SAME Record.
.
Many are NOT, in fact, DUPLICATE "Sources"'; but, in fact, other or additional "Indexing" of the SAME Record.
.
These other or additional "Indexing" of the SAME Record happens a lot. There are many reason for such. They include; but, are not limited to (ie. just some), (1) as you have indicated, multiple "Indexing"; as, the first (or previous) "Indexing" may have been flawed or lacking; or, (2) the various "Indexings" may have been for different aspects of the Record; but, included parts of the previous/other "Indexing"; or, (3) as you have indicated, multiple "Filming" of the SAME record by the same or different organisations (the latter "Filming" often being of a better quality); or, (4) the various "Indexings" may have been done by different organisations (ie. "FamilySearch"; "FindMyPast.co.uk"; "Ancestry.com"; "MyHetigate.com"; and, so forth); or, (4) the like, so forth.
.
I certainly DO NOT agree that such DUPLICATE or SIMILAR "Sources" cause "clutter" in the "Sources" Section of an individual/person; or, that of a "Couple".
.
Such "clutter' ONLY occurs if the "Sources" are NOT put/placed in some semblance of order - whatever ever that may be; as, some Users/Patrons, like, "Chronological" ('Date') order; whereas, some like, "Groupings" (ie. 'Events') - the choice is up to the User/Patron.
.
One of the reasons that I do not have a problem/issue or concern that there are DUPLICATE or SIMILAR "Sources" for the SAME Record is that I take the 'tack' ... 'the more, the merrier' ... just more 'supporting' evidence that an individual/person really did exist.
.
And, I DO NOT believe that adding such DUPLICATE or SIMILAR "Sources" is a impost of us (ie. the Users/Patrons).
.
Plus, I suggest that such DUPLICATE or SIMILAR "Sources" DO NOT put/place an undue drain on the limited resources available to "FamilySearch" - they are already there - in fact, the drain on the limited resources available to "FamilySearch" is when "FamilySearch" REMOVES such.
.
Personally, I HATE it when "FamilySearch" REMOVES what "FamilySearch" considers DUPLICATE or SIMILAR "Sources"; as, "FamilySearch" did with the "1851 and 1881, Census' of England and Wales", luckily MANY of those have been REINSTATED - after much consternation on the part of many Users/Patrons, like myself.
.
I am sorry that I personally take a different 'tack' than you do - such is life.
.
We are all different ...
.
Each to their own ...
.
Brett
.
ps: I watch many individuals/persons some with 40+; 50+; and, 70+ "Sources" - where, I take the time to order/organise those "Sources".
.
0 -
Please note that sources which may appear at first glance to be duplicates are actually distinct sources, even if they are for the same event. There are often multiple images for the same event, and those images can provide helpful details, even when the indexed information is similar or perhaps exactly the same.
Unfortunately In the example you gave, the images can only be viewed at a Family History Center, so I can't determine if that is the case right now.
I gave a detailed explanation of this possibility over on GetSatisfaction:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/repetitive-sources#reply_20427606
0
