Potential issue involving private or confidential profiles
One of my ancestors, Elizabeth Chappel (L19F-CQD), has a birth date of "about 1842" in South Kelsey, was christened there on 25 September 1842 and has a high profile quality score. Her youngest child, Thomas, was born on 9 February 1883. There are sources for all this. Under the "Data Is Conflict Free" section of the PQS, there is the rather vague statement "If this person was born about 1842, Elizabeth would have been 44, which is normally after child bearing years.". When I deleted the birth information, the same message occurred but with the christening date inserted. This message doesn't indicate when Elizabeth was supposed to be 44 or which event triggered the message.
My first thought was that this was a straight coding error, not calculating 1883 - 1842 correctly (i.e. 44 instead of 41). However, I found another mother who had two messages of a different kind for what seems like a similar scenario. An example is "If Frank Raymond was born 28 April 1871, this person would have been 41, which is normally after child bearing years.". This identifies which event is causing the issue.
This leads me to think that a user has created a private profile for another child of Elizabeth, born about 1886, a few years after Thomas. Muggles can't be told any details or even the existence of a private profile they didn't create; hence the uninformative nature of Elizabeth's message.
If I am correct, I would suggest that private profiles of people related to the subject should be ignored by the PQS process unless they are visible to the viewing user.
Comentários
-
I was incorrect. I misinterpreted the naming of "Elizabeth" in the message as referring to the target profile Elizabeth Chappel. In fact, it refers to her mother who happens to also be named Elizabeth (Wilkinson).
As you were!
0 -
Update: the maternal age threshold has been changed from 40-45.
Living/private profiles are not included in PQS
1
