Dismissed Conflict Issues Reflect No Change to Score
Hello, I hope this will make sense. I am very aware of, and extremely grateful for how hard FS works to put in place these many amazing opportunities for all of us. I have some genuine questions and concerns though which I hope do not detract from from that. With 19 sources attached to LTC5-6B9, some of which are appropriately tagged, the score is still considered medium.
One tip says "This person has some documentation and could be improved if wanted." The 'some documentation' here are 19, original sources, some of which were translated directly from the FS catalog (un-indexed).
Another says "This person has no indexed sources." That is true to the extent that it has no indexed sources from FS. It has very valid sources from the FS catalog for Italy, and from the Scottish government's website including indexed and digitized original documents.
One data conflict was regarding the family having 13 children. All are accurate and documented. All other issues were due to place names. I understand that all are known issues. In addition, when I addressed the issues as directed, by dismissing them and adding the reason statements, there's no change to the score.
I was under the impression FS had lightened the stance on what is considered standardized. The program does allow us to select a secondary option that it appears to accept as I no longer see the red exclamation marks by what I've added. That has been so thrilling for me. Thank you to anyone who helped that come into play on the site. The Profile Quality Score also states its intent is just to summarize the genealogical quality of the data for a person, but that rating seems more set on what FS considers standard or not standard, which can be confusing and in direct opposition to what's recorded on even an original document. I agree with another group member who says this option only works with indexed records by FS, not with original documentation.
My three main issues regarding place names are as follows: 1) If UK has to be added to Scotland. 2) How to list early Atina (pre-1861), as it has no standardized option. 3) If we have to list Agnone as Villa Latina before it was Villa Latina, which is also the only option available. Please note that Agnone is not a concern for LTC5-6B9, listed above, but it is for LTC5-H58, and will be for many others in addition.
I feel there's a penalty here for using the standardized format as offered when it did not appear incorrect, and there's a penalty for not using the official standardized format when it is incorrect. it seems we're being caught on both ends. Even when it is the only option provided, and pops up as though it wants to be selected, it is still incorrect.
I have known for many years that by entering eg. Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Scotland, FS did not like that, but as of now, both options are selectable. When I add Italian records I am not required to further add Europe. Italy alone is accepted. Why, when I add people from Scotland should I need to add UK especially when a standardized option without it is now offered? I'm aware I can be opinionated about place names in Scotland because I was born and raised there, but having never been to Italy I have simply relied solely on FS, the records, and/or the internet for accuracy.
Asking on behalf of the ordinary person who simply wants to represent her ancestry well, what do I add for them to appear as though they've been given fair effort, attention, and representation? When I've tried to seek out the best available records, paying attention to what's on them and FS, how can the information still be wrong? We can't all find our records indexed on FS so what can be done for us in an option like this? Can some things be a little less restrictive or do people need to know that nothing has changed with place names? It seems we have to select not just standardized places, but the right standardized places, even when they're not available to select, because we can't add anything contrary and have it be accepted. I get that these are hard things to work with, and I appreciate the effort that goes into working with more complex records, particularly when not sourced from FS-indexed collections. That's just all some people have to work with.
의견
-
Hi -
Wow, I can tell you have been very thorough in researching your genealogy.
I have forwarded this post to PlaceFeedback@familysearch.org to hopefully help with some of the place discrepancies.
Sorry that we don't currently have a good solution for non-indexed records.
Thank you for all the feedback.
1 -
@hgwill60 said
"… When I add Italian records I am not required to further add Europe. Italy alone is accepted. Why, when I add people from Scotland should I need to add UK especially when a standardized option without it is now offered? … "
Yes, long running saga on this one. There are those of us on the eastern side of The Pond, who have commented at length on how the majority (great majority?) of British genealogists terminate our placenames with England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland, so why can't FamilySearch do likewise? I doubt we'll get anywhere…
As I understand it, the justification for adding "United Kingdom", but not "Europe", is that the sovereign state is "United Kingdom", Scotland isn't (currently) a sovereign state, Italy is a sovereign state and Europe is just a geographical expression. Personally, I consider England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland to all be countries (albeit Northern Ireland is a country-equivalent), but a "country" doesn't appear to be the usual terminator for FamilySearch.
The "Scotland" without "United Kingdom" refers, of course, to the sovereign state of Scotland before 1707. With "UK" it refers to post-1801.
Maybe one day we'll get 1707-1801 sorted. It's taken a number of years to get Germany right (or on the way to being right) and kudos to the FS team for finally tackling this…
1 -
I will try to address some of your concerns with the Places portion of FamilySearch. First I would like to make you aware of some resources and links that should help in the future. If you are already aware of these, my apologies.
FamilySearch Places: Mission and Purpose: https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/familysearch-places-mission-and-purpose This explains how and why we do Places. Please note there are additional links inside this site.
Others: How request a new place: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-request-a-new-place-in-the-database-of-standardized-places
How to request corrections or changes to a Place: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-correct-or-edit-a-place-in-familysearch-places
Now for your specific place questions.
Reference why the United Kingdom has been added to Scotland: In the Mission and Purpose URL, there is a section on Country-Specific Guidelines, under Europe: https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/fs-places-familysearch-places-country-specific-guidelines#europe
Answers:
1) If UK has to be added to Scotland. Answer: From the above Country Specific Guidline:
Scotland is described independently until 1801 and from that point forward as "Scotland, United Kingdom". This has been done to help people who may search for "Glasgow, United Kingdom".
2) How to list early Atina (pre-1861), as it has no standardized option. Answer: I suspect you are referring to this place set: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?focusedId=7060032&text=11076649
As you noted the earliest Historical Period is place ID is: 11076649AtinaTerra di Lavoro, Italy, Municipality, 1861 – 1882. Indeed, it does not have a earlier historic period. Looking at the Wikipedia article, we do indeed see it has been around much earlier. For Italy and many other countries, Places are not yet set up yet for earlier years. Often this involves significant resources and volunteers. In a situation where you do need to have a standardized place for the earlier historic period, I would suggest you use the link above to correct or edit a place. When you do this, It helps to use the current place ID, a resource, on-line preferred, that shows and justifies this addition. In this case the Wikipedia article notes it was part of the Kingdom of Naples until 1860. For this instance, we added additional historical Periods. Please see: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?text=12619942
3: If we have to list Agnone as Villa Latina before it was Villa Latina, which is also the only option available. Answer:Just as 2 above, I went ahead and added two historical periods with the name Agnone. This is supported by the Wikipedia article. These can be seen at: https://www.familysearch.org/research/places/?text=12620215
In summary, in the future, for Places that need to be created, corrected, or added to, please use the links provided. Thank you for using FamilySearch.3
