Unusual Problem
I have run into something very odd. I hope someone on the forum can help me understand what to do about it, if anything can be done.
My ancestor Daniel T. Reynolds MPV9-HTQ is listed in the 1870 census as HoH, with his family, as expected. But if you navigate to the record through his sources, the people listed as indexed include some other individuals interspersed. These people are not shown on the image. It is worse if you look at his son Walter LR63-Y8Y - hs is listed with a bunch of other people that are in the index, but not listed on the image, and he is listed with a different head of household.
This doesn't seem like something I can fix - I cannot even figure out the root cause. Is there somewhere that a systemic issue or bug like this can be reported for a fix? Thank you.
Risposte
-
@Teri Reynolds
.
Teri
.
As an aside ...
.
I am "Tagging" this 'Question' of yours, in the 'Group' being "FamilySearch Family Tree", in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum, to two (2) other specific 'Groups' being:
(1) "United States Genealogy Research"; and,
(2) "Southern States Family History Research" ... [ Including: Alabama ],
so that, the members of that group can answer/assist you.
.
Both those 'Groups' are "Public", which you can join, if you wish.
.
Brett
.
@United States Genealogy Research
@Southern States Family History Research
.
0 -
Brett, Thank you for your reply and the tagging. The thing is, this seems to be either a bug, or more likely, a datbase integrity issue. I do hope that some other researchers may know what to do. Thank you again for your prompt response.
0 -
@Teri Reynolds you can try using the “feedback” link at the bottom of the page. You’ll want to include as many details as possible... sometimes pages will have a tab labeled “errors?” That allows the user to report issues but I don’t see that anywhere for this one, but I’m using iPhone at the moment so I’m not sure if that shows up on mobile or not.
0 -
@X24mom X24mom Thank you. I was not able to find a "feedback" or an "error" link anywhere associated with the census record or the Family Tree. (I am on a regular computer using the Chrome browser.) I do see a "Feedback" link here in the Community Forums, and re-reading your post, that seems to be what you meant. But when I click on the link, it seems to be filled with random user questions not pertaining specifically to Feedback. Is there reason to believe that queries posted there will be reviewed by someone other than the user community; someone who can investigate a bug or anomaly?
0 -
I tried the "Feedback" linmk again, and noticed this after clicking through:
"Here you can give suggestions and discuss problems related to features, functionality, or design of community.familysearch.org. To give feedback about all other FamilySearch products, please visit https://community.familysearch.org/s/idea/Idea/Default"
They do not seem to have a category for Bug Fixes, but I will try that forum anyway. Thanks for @X24mom X24mom for pointing me in the right direction.
0 -
Teri,
The "Ideas" area is normally where you would report such flaws in the database if there was no ERROR button at the bottom of the page. If that button is there, you would normally use it as it was specifically set up for reporting database structural flaws directly to the group that supports those areas. But if it is not there, the Ideas area is that one that we have been told is monitored by FS employees so that DB flaws can be forwarded to the appropriate engineers.
When you go to create a report of a flaw or make a feature request/suggestion in one of FS's tools in the Ideas area, you are given the ability to assign a type of "tag" to it identifying whether it relates to the FSFT, the user interface, etc.
Please note that the Ideas area of the FS community is fairly new. The original location that was used for tools feedback was in a totally different website location at GetSatisfaction.com. That site was shut down when the company was bought by another company so FS had to scramble to get things moved to a temporary location while they finished working on the next generation of "Feedback" related tools.
Since FS has not completed this task yet, and because we have been told that the Ideas area in the FS community is only temporary (and only necessary due to the ownership and site changes for GetSatisfaction.com), it has some weaknesses and idiosyncrasies that are likely NOT going to be fixed.
Since the creation of the Ideas area a couple of months back, there has been a lot less traffic there, but again, FS has told us that the engineers are monitoring THAT forum for suggestions and bug reports.
In the old GetSatisfaction.com feedback forum, more often than not suggestions were rarely responded to or confirmed by FS employees. This is just as prevalent (if not more so) in the new Ideas area, so you will rarely get any kind of confirmation that FS has actually read your posting. However, we have been told that all postings are read, so you have to just accept that for what it is.
One last item. FS has used the some term "Feedback" in the forums and community and family tree in ambiguous ways. If you are somewhere in the FS community, the Feedback link will take you to a group specifically for feedback about the FS community (i.e., the Community.familysearch.org Feedback group). But if you use the Feedback link at the bottom of a page while in the FSFT, it will take you to a window where you can choose to either "Report a Problem" which basically sends it to the Help Desk, or "Community Discussion" which sends you NOT to a FS community group, but rather to the "Discussion Board" which is currently the Ideas area of the FS community.
This can be pretty confusing at first, but rest assured that tool bugs and feature improvements for the FSFT toolset will get the most visibility in the Ideas area.
However, inconsistencies and errors in the actual data entered into the FamilySearch FamilyTree itself is caused by patrons on the site and it is patrons (like ourselves) that will need to fix them. Questions on how you might go about doing this can be addressed in this FS community group, exactly as you have done.
0 -
Hello Teri,
I see the problem. It seems to be an indexing problem or a bug. Have you got any satisfaction from anywhere? I'm going to tag your question for @Indexing Chat on the off chance they can help. I would put it in Ideas also. https://community.familysearch.org/s/idea/Idea/Default Just copy and paste your problem.
Anitra
0 -
@Teri Reynolds As someone who helps compile the Ideas items and someone who helps patrons who report problems on the website, maybe I can add some clarification.
The Feedback/Ideas portion of Community is for Ideas--suggestions to improve the website. It is not intended as a way to report bugs. People do do that there, but it's not the best way.
The issue you have with the 1870 census is one we have been seeing and we'd love to be able to add your example to the report we have sent to engineers. The best way to report it is to email support@familysearch.org with full details to help the support agents replicate the problem. The way you described it in your post is really good from a support viewpoint. You told us who you searched for and in what census. And you provided the Family Tree ID so we can look at the person to be sure we found the right one. Once we have your report in a Support case, we can send it on as another example for the engineers to look at as they try to figure out what strange thing is happening with the index of the 1870 census.
0 -
"The Feedback/Ideas portion of Community…is not intended as a way to report bugs. People do do that there, but it's not the best way"
Respectfully, after using the GetSatisfaction.com both before and after its temporary move into the Ideas area (for over 5 years so far) we were constantly reminded by such folks as Ron Tanner and Joe Martel that that was where we should report errors in the system as well as suggestions since the Engineers monitored that forum. In fact, when the Help desk folks had problems with technically related problem reports, they would direct everyone to the Feedback link going to the GetSatisfaction.com forum.
If something is changing here, we really need to hear an "Official" statement on it. The feedback links throughout the FSFT still send you to the Ideas area if you don't want to write up a new case. Otherwise, everyone is still thinking the same way we have for the last 5 years 😊
Here's a couple of related discussions that occurred in Ideas last year including one with a comment made by Brian Jensen:
https://community.familysearch.org/s/idea/0874V000000sjePQAQ/detail
https://community.familysearch.org/s/idea/0874V000000sjNYQAY/detail
0 -
Dear Teri,
I believe I have an answer for you that will help you figure this out and put it straight.
First, look at the time periods you are dealing with. And the locations. You have a few clues already for you.
When I looked at the son's record and then the Mary Melton household, the thought came to my mind is that it appears that this Mary Melton person was running a house for war orphans. So I don't believe this to be a mistake. This area would have also have been devastated economically also. I would try to find out as much as you can about Mary Melton, but my gut feeling tells me this is what it is. And I think you will find this to work out. Alabama in 1870, think about it. The south would have been devastated at this time period. Boarders would be common, and some of them might be sent to live with other people because of impoverished parents.
Regarding Daniel T Reynolds, when I looked at it its slightly different. The boarder in this case is a young woman, with the last name marks along with a young son.
There must be an explanation for this. You could try to see if she's related to the wife's family in some way? Maybe came to stay with them? Or if there was a Marks family living in the area.
In the early parts of the 1900s and even in the 1800s, boarders were common for some things like farming, or if family landed into trouble somebody might be sent to go live with others. There are people with stories like this in their family history during certain rough time periods especially. Now with the Marks last name persons in the father's 1870 census this I haven't verified yet. You will have to scout it out and look this through. This part I'm unsure of.
But the other part about the house for war orphans, I had a good feeling about.
0 -
@N Tychonievich
.
Respectfully ...
.
I totally agree with 'Jeff' ...
.
I am sorry; but, your statements that, the "IDEAS' ('Feedback') Forum is:
(1) "... not intended as a way to report bugs ..."; and,
(2) "... not the best way ..."
are 'way off the mark'.
.
The CURRENT (New) "IDEAS' ('Feedback') Forum, which currently resides within the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; but, on a linked and separate platform, which is the Temporarily REPLACEMENT for the 'OLD' 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum, IS the INTENDED (and, the BEST way) to report, "Ideas"; "Suggestions"; "Enhancements"; "Bugs"; and, problems/issue of ANY nature, no matter what Part [eg. "Family Tree"; "Search" (Records); "Memories"; "Indexing"; "Temple" Work; etc] of 'FamilySearch', a User/Patrons is using.
.
"Support" Cases are NOT the "Best" way to report, "Ideas"; "Suggestions"; "Enhancements"; "Bugs"; and, problems/issue of ANY nature, not matter what Part [eg. "Family Tree"; "Search" (Records); "Memories"; "Indexing"; "Temple" Work; etc] of 'FamilySearch', a User/Patrons is using.
.
In fact, "Support" Cases more often than not, go nowhere, with that regard - unless, like me, you persist.
.
Believe me, take it from someone that knows ...
.
I used to extensively use "Support" Cases.
Some, took YEARS, to get past the "Lower" Levels of "Support", to the right people.
.
Unless necessary, I no longer submit "Support" Cases.
.
I have had more IMMEDIATE "Action" in the, 'OLD' 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum; now, the current (New) "IDEAS' ('Feedback') Forum, than I ever did have in/through "Support" Cases.
.
"Support" Cases are necessary in SOME (limited) situations/circumstances; but, certainly NOT with regard to reporting, "Ideas"; "Suggestions"; "Enhancements"; "Bugs"; and, problems/issue of ANY nature, no matter what Part [eg. "Family Tree"; "Search" (Records); "Memories"; "Indexing"; "Temple" Work; etc] of 'FamilySearch', a User/Patrons is using.
.
You can add, as much "Detail", as is necessary in the posts, in the (New) "IDEAS' ('Feedback') Forum.
.
I have had some recent "Ideas" in the (New) "IDEAS' ('Feedback') Forum actioned that day or the next (well, the easy ones, anyway).
.
Please do not dissuade Users/Patrons from using the current (New) "IDEAS' ('Feedback') Forum to report, "Ideas"; "Suggestions"; "Enhancements"; "Bugs"; and, problems/issue of ANY nature, not matter what Part [eg. "Family Tree"; "Search" (Records); "Memories"; "Indexing"; "Temple" Work; etc] of 'FamilySearch', a User/Patrons is using; as, it is literally, the best place to report suvh.
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
This FamilySearch Research Wiki Article might be of help.
There are some known issues with the United States Census of 1870:
I was particularly thinking this might relate to what you are seeing.
Question #3: Some family members are not listed with the family unit or household in the record detail page. In other cases, too many individuals are linked with a family. How can I find the correct family members?
Answer 3: Always view the original image to validate correct family relationships. To work around the problem, search by last name and residence or event place. On the record detail page, compare the Line Number and Family Number. To refine the search, include the Film Number. Families are grouped sequentially on the same image or an adjacent image. If a family unit begins on the bottom of a census page, and continues at the top of the next census page, the family members are generally not grouped together. In some cases, the enumerator recorded entries that are not in sequence. In other cases, the pages were out of order when filmed; or the census page was filmed twice, causing duplicate entries with different family relationships. View the images and watch for consecutive page numbers to ensure correct family connections.
0 -
@russellporter1 russellporter1 that is some very interesting and I believe very helpful info for those of us researching our family histories... however, I believe the issue that @Teri Reynolds is having, is not with the info on the record images but with the fact that the info on the indexed record page it shows names that don’t match the names she sees on the actual record
0 -
Thank you everyone so much! All of your posts have been very helpful. Although there is some difference of opinion as to whether the preferred path is to submit to the IDEAS forum or to the Support email, I am happy to do both. Kudos and thanks to everyone for taking the time to read, review, and discuss.
@JeffWiseman JeffWiseman , thank you for the history. I am very new to FS-FT and to this forum, so that was very helpful.
@Anitra Whittle , thank you for taking the time to read through the issue and for tagging my question.
@N Tychonievich , thank you for providing the support@familysearch.org email address.
@Melissa S Himes , thank you, it is very interesting to see that this is a Known Issue. In the future, should a similar situation arise (I hope not), I will know to look there first.
Jeff Wiseman, N Tychonievich, and @Brett . - an interesting discussion on the correct way to report a bug. Thanks!
0 -
@russellporter1 russellporter1 Thanks for taking a look. Those are great ideas; however, I do not think they fit this case. I will keep them in mind.
0
