"A marriage place is missing"
Except, it's not missing, so can someone say what is going wrong here?
Ann Shield (1825–1890) ID: LY8H-TQY
의견
-
@FrankLittle thank you for the feedback. We will be looking at this.
0 -
"A marriage place is missing," came up because Joseph Little and Ann Shield had multiple marriages listed, one with only a date.
Once I deleted the extra marriage event, the warning went away:
Does that help?2 -
This is an example of one of the great things with the data quality checking. It catches things that can be quite hard to see at times like this duplicate marriage. The other type of hidden problem it can point out are place name standardization problems and date standardization problems.
1 -
AH, yes, I missed that, although I don't know why. I guess the learning for me is to go in and check everything.
For instance all these "A residence has no tagged sources", which seem to be auto-generated when a source is attached to the person but without the source link attached to the entry. [I should post this as a new point]
0 -
Currently when a residence is moved to a person's profile through the source linker, the residence is tagged with the source. But that is a rather new feature.
The ability to tag a residence with a source at all was only developed about a year ago.
So we have about twelve years of people adding residences to profiles that could not be tagged with a source to now go back and tag. Some people are going to view this as a useful endeavor, some are just going to ignore it and not care about the quality check rating.
Here is the current version of the source linker:
The residence is not auto-generated. It has to moved from the left to the right by the user. When it is moved over, then the choice to tag the source to that residence appears. The default is for the box to be checked. If the user for some reason does not want to tag the residence, the user has to go and uncheck that box. But, again, this is a very recently added new feature! No residence added between 2012 and last year sometime could be tagged. The feature didn't exist.
0 -
Ah, that explains why I thought it was auto-added. (Effectively, that is what happens, since it's the default.) But what I found odd is that these residence entries don't have the source which made them attached. (TBC I didn't add them by hand on Joseph's page.)
0 -
But for clarity I'll repost after some more checking as a separate items. The quality check as such works—it is indeed flagging a residence without source.
I'll finish off working on Joseph Little (my great-great grandfather), though perhaps there's enough data there now.
0 -
"But what I found odd is that these residence entries don't have the source which made them attached." Are these residences you added through the source linker within the past couple of months? Or residences that were added years ago?
0 -
There's a Residence for Joseph in 1851 which just says ", Durham, England" added (apparently) by me on 7 Feb 2019. It'll be a census-generated residence and indeed I added the 1851 census for him, his wife Ann and son Francis W as a source on that date. It currently is flagged as "Unfinished attachments" because their servant Jane Beckwith has not been attached. (I don't know which family she belongs to (yet) and decided not to guess it nor to add an extra entry for her to be merged later.)
Apparently, when adding that source and attaching the family an (incomplete) residence was generated for Joseph.
0 -
In 2019 there was no ability to tag a residence.
There must be millions of untagged residences that were added before residence source tagging was possible. I rank it something to take care of only as part of another project, not as something I'm going to specifically set out to do.
For example, I recently spent a few weeks going through my wife's seven generation fan chart and checking everything on all her direct ancestors on that chart and their children to see if other users had made any incorrect changes, to add dates to sources, to update place name standards (I was able to change a lot of three level standards to four level standards), and to fix all the items in the quality checker of which the vast majority were untagged data items, such as residences, and errors in indexes for which the flag just had to be dismissed.
0 -
And yet, the entry is from 2019, and added—it says-by me.
These Residence entries are generated from other actions and not entered by hand, in this case almost certainly from the census being added at that date (by me).
You can see it on ID: 9N41-Z6N.
Looking in Sources, there's the 1851 census added by me on that date. So it must have been generated by adding the census, I suppose.
And since this is data I added (and which I already know before coming to FamilySearch) I can be quite sure that I didn't add such incomplete data myself.
0 -
2019 was a long time ago so I really don't remember how the source linker worked then. It has been updated several times.
It may have been that the residence was put on the right side by default and the user had to move it back to the left if they did not want to include it and you didn't notice it got added.
Or it may have been one of times that if one moved the residence over to the right then made a correction to the place name such as completing it that after attaching the source the original place name, not the corrected version, showed up on the profile.
Or it may be that six years ago you moved the residence over, was intending to go back and fix the place name, and never got around to it.
All I know for certain is that you could not tag a residence in 2019.
0 -
I also cannot remember exactly how things worked back in 2019 or whenever, but what does strike me is that these old residence entries don't have a source attached. I can see from the dates that they were produced at the same time as adding a census as a source. (Or have been added retrospectively but with the original date?) They can of course be tagged with the relevant source. And if made anew the source does get tagged to the residence entry, so at least going forward it will improve.
0
