Dates should be added to Custom Event items when carried across from source
Currently, when a census source is attached to an ID only the main Residence field has the date (of the census) carried across. We can also carry across items like Marital Status, Occupation, and even a second Residence field, to the Other Information section. However, when viewed from the Profile page, these items can be virtually meaningless.
For example, if I move a marital status of "Single", "Married" or "Widowed" across it does not connect to the source, so all we have (under the Other Information / Events section) on the page is the fact that at some stage in the individual's life they were either single, married or widowed!
Likewise for a "secondary" residence of "High Street". Once moved across, there is no connect with the "High Street" (one Residence field) and the "Colchester" shown in other Residence field. So, all we read is that the individual lived in a High Street at one point in their life and at Colchester at the same, or possibly another, time.
Of course, I know I might be given the advice to add the dates myself, but - regardless of the time that would take when adding several undated pieces of data from several census sources (very common work for me, on a daily basis) - what about the work already carried out by other users on the profiles in which I have a shared interest? I then have go take lots of time examining the different sources before being able to add dates to those items, too.
I just cannot see that it is impossible for different FamilySearch teams to work together on issues like this, to ensure that once the date gets to the Other Information / Events section of a profile, it is already dated - in the same way that the location of the main residence shows the census year once it arrives on the Profile page. Surely the required coding / programming would not be impossible to be applied? The source linker process would then turn data that can be currently meaningless once it hits the Profile page into detail that is immediately of great help to the user / researcher.
コメント
-
I don't think this is a multi-departmental problem. It's just Source Linker being much too literal-minded, and treating the finding aid as absolute Gospel.
My problem is the other way 'round from yours: if the index has the event as the registration rather than the birth or death, then Source Linker refuses to allow the entry of a place of birth or death. This results in profiles with full dates for everything, but not even a continent to be seen anywhere.
Let's face it: the chances are approximately nil for my coming back to all of the siblings I just added to fix all of the things that Source Linker forced me to leave out. This is especially true when the index is faulty or incomplete, requiring a look at the image to find out the actual event place. It'd be Very Easy to look these things up while in Source Linker, since it offers a handy link to the old viewer, rather than the clunky-and-jumpy new one that I avoid whenever I can — but unfortunately, it doesn't do any good, because if it's not in the index, Source Linker doesn't think it exists, and it doesn't consider users to be smart enough to override the index.
3 -
Mod note: A post was edited to remove code violations. Please see the Community Code of Conduct if you have questions.
0 -
My recent experience is that Custom Events are not being created at all for Birth or Death registration sources.
0 -
Just tried to replicate, but Birth Registration source added as Custom Event without problem. See https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L582-9Y5. The reason Death Registration events are no longer being added as such is due to their now being carried across straight to the Death field under Vitals.
The reason for this difference in behaviour has been queried in another thread, but no response from a FamilySearch representative as yet. In contrast to the feelings of many of my fellow users, I would prefer Birth Registrations to remain as a Custom Event, as - in common with Death Registrations - the actual event often took place in the preceding year (to registration) and even in another county, as registration districts often cross county boundaries. For example, a birth registered at Stockton, County Durham Register Office in 1845 could well have represented a birth in a parish in north Yorkshire in 1844. An inexperienced user would not realise this problem, but is currently able to add incorrect information directly to the Vitals section.
As always, my personal preference is for as little as possible data to be carried over while linking the source (the detail is invariably incorrect when it is a census source) and to input the more detailed / accurate data once back on the Details page. Census and registration data does not contain the reliable facts that qualify to be added (straight) to the Vitals fields.
0 -
I have, with some trepidation, taken up Source Linker's offers of transferring baptisms and death registrations, and have been mostly pleasantly surprised: the baptisms were put under Christening, with which they are perfectly synonymous, and the death registrations resulted in correctly-dated death events rather than segregated and useless custom events. One nitpick is that the death registrations should have been simply labeled as deaths, since that was the date they were taking from the index, not the actual registration date. (Unlike Paul's experience, most of the death registrations I work with occurred within a day or two of the death. I seem to recall an allowance of up to three months for reporting births, but I think you weren't/aren't allowed to proceed with a burial without reporting the death first.)
The process is far from perfect, of course. Transferred data very often doesn't allow access to the other half of the conclusion; existing birth conclusions are hidden when transferring a baptism; and the only tags available are the ones that Source Linker deems to be relevant. And sources randomly show up in the couple relationship section, with zero visibility or control in Source Linker.
It would be very nice if, instead of programming yet another decision point into Source Linker, the process gave the control to the user. We really are much better at complex decisions than any computer.
1 -
I agree our experiences are going to vary, according to which country (or even part thereof) in which we are finding these registration records. For England and Wales, jurisdictions and time periods can very quite considerably from what is recorded (say in a marriage licence or birth / death registration) compared to where (and when) the event actually took place. I provided the example of events that were registered in Durham actually relating to Yorkshire. In the case of marriage licences this is also the case: the jurisdiction of Durham covering both Durham and Northumberland counties and that of York covering marriages that eventually took place in Yorkshire and parts of Nottinghamshire, Cumberland and Lancashire.
Where we are 100% in agreement is in our happiness that FamilySearch appears to have finally acknowledged that Baptism = Christening!
2 -
@Paul W @Julia Szent-Györgyi Thanks for your explanations. I'll try to watch what actually happens rather than what doesn't happen that previously did.
0
