Lack of Sources for first 45-50 years of persons life should decrease the score
I have a g-g-grandfather whom I have been trying to find documentation on for his first 45--50 years of life. Anything that actually proves who his parents are and actual place of birth. In the new Profile Score feature he is given a HIGH score which I think is wrong. He was born in 1808-1809 and died in 1891, yet his 'sources' only begin in 1860. None of the sources actually prove his parentage, how can this profile receive a HIGH score?
Benanuel Salisbury, 1809 – 1 April 1891, KJPB-9T9
의견
-
Agree with this [though I see what Gordon is getting at below]
0 -
The rating of low, medium, and high must be based on the number of stars and Benanuel has 27 out of a possible total of 30 stars. That's pretty good.
There has to be some kind of parameters for computer algorithm to work off of. I suspect that trying to get one to look at the type of sources tagged to see if they really match what they are tagged to is beyond the current algorithm's capabilities.
If you took the standpoint that the three census records were not actually quality sources for his birth and neither were the two death records and removed those tags, his score would drop.
Regarding parentage, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the current routine looks at relationships, just person facts.
Basically, we have to keep in mind that this current first attempt at scoring a profile bases the score only on the items it is designed to check for. Even if a profile has a perfect score, that does not mean that the profile is perfect and will never need more research.
1 -
I like the idea of scoring relationships based on attached sources. Thank you for the feedback!
0 -
I think it's really important to understand to what extent a profile's relationships are verified. Marriage tags are being checked for, which is good to see, but I am not clear whether the marriage event is currently being matched against the metadata on its tagged source.
0
