Email From FS Suggesting A Review For A Spouse For A Child Who Died At 18 Months
I have received this email several times. Providing feedback that will hopefully teach the software and Artificial Intelligence to be smarter.
Subject is Isabella Nangreave, K2YR-3W1. Died in Walsall, Staffordshire.
Her burial record (as an 18 month y/o) includes an index for a spouse.
1-Why is she indexed with a spouse?
2-Why am I receiving emails suggesting a spouse has not been recorded, when the burial record includes an age of 18 month y/o?
Thanks for your help!
Respectfully, David N Craig
コメント
-
Firstly, I would suggest posting this in one of the categories of the "main" Community section (Family Tree, General Questions, or even under Suggest an Idea) - as this is not a problem that directly relates to the England Genealogy Research group.
That said, I just checked out the item that is leading to your getting these emails and found it is a record that contains a field that has been incorrectly indexed. The Spouse's Name field should have been left blank when indexed, but the input is providing a computer generated program with the suggestion the infant had a spouse, as you have found.
Unfortunately, there seems no way of addressing this, as the indexed record cannot be edited to remove this incorrect detail.
Personally, I find it best not to subscribe to receiving such emails. I'm sure their content can sometimes be of use, but I prefer to not put myself into the position of allowing a computer to work out what I need to do, as - well, these are computerised suggestions based on what is read instead of logical reasoning!
There have been other complaints amount similar, silly suggestions - so you just have to weigh-up whether you are willing to continue putting up with such annoying suggestions (as others just might be genuinely helpful) or decide to "unsubscribe" - which has been my choice.
0 -
TY
0 -
Interesting point! It does appear that Family Tree is presenting a "Data Problem" in a reverse kind of way.
If a FamilySearch user added a Marriage which included a person of child age, this would flag up a "Data Problem".
It seems to me the standard, default layout, of Family Tree is what we see in your enquiry, which does in instances such as this appear illogical. I am wondering if more intelligent coding and scripting in the FamilySearch site will eventually provide a presentation that appears more logical. I have no authority to genuinely comment on such status; I am just expressing a hope.
Cheerio for now!
1
