I’m undecided

Please allow us to make corrections to the records

Is it possible to make corrections to documents?
854 people like
this idea
+1
This topic is no longer open for comments or replies.
next » « previous
  • 4
    I appreciate that the developers are studying the complex issue of incorrect data in family search records. Currently, it's recommended to contact the contributor and begin a conversation so items can be corrected. Here are problems that need to be considered with the "conversation" approach. 1. The contributor is dead. 2. The contributor has no contact link. 3. The contributor's contact link no longer works. 4. A contributor submitted a huge tree that was not checked for accuracy or duplicates before downloading and thus invalidates your own family tree that you worked for months to clean up. This latter case is so discouraging as to make people want to never use family search again. 5. The contributor is an extraction program that happened to find common named people (John Smith) which are seen by novices who then put these into the wrong families. You can't contact them to fix the problem. 6. The contributor cannot be included in a conversation because it is a proxy ordinance record based on incorrect genealogy and done years ago.
    Possible solution would be to allow only people with working contact links (e-mail or address) to "correct" family trees by moving the inaccurate information into a secondary position that only shows as an icon (*) but is not displayed unless clicked on. The icon could stand for alternate family members or data. The person allowed to do the correcting would be required to submit sources and state reasons for that data before the program would move the incorrect person out of the primary place and replace it with the accurate data. Providing a primary display and a secondary display would keep all viable options but allow those with documentation to create accurate family trees.
    I long for something to be done. A friend of my grandmother went to granny's birth county, found as many people as possible with same surname and threw them all into one big family, long ago sealed together. Cousins and non-relatives from several families landing in this one family. Records were not as easily accessible back in those days. This is not a matter of spelling errors. This is a huge tangle of people who shouldn't be in the family at all.
    • view 19 more comments
    • Cindy, this was really hard to find in a thread that has 300+replies. You may want to start a new thread.
      Since you are living the current version of the software does not support a changehistory for the living so there is no log of who severed the relationship. Also since you are living only you and your close lds member family members can see that relationship at all - no one else can see it, so I would start with your family members as the one that changed this.
    • I know this is so frustrating!!! I see so much miss information & there is nothing that I can do to correct it. It was also easier to work before. What Happened!!!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m Angry!
    3
    What part of "allow editing" those who are responsibles for this data do not understand?
    Why do they prefer incomplete and erroneos data?
    I am permited to submit corrections and comments to Wikipedia, which are reasonably verified by them prior to publication. Wikipedia is certainly a more complicated data base.
    A lifetime close relationship is hardly an unreliable or questionable source. Even oficial documents are sometimes incorrect.
    Enough delays and excuses!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 5
    Well, if anyone IS watching this thread from LDS, just to let you know I will be calling the Headquarters tomorrow regarding several issues that have been mentioned here. I am articulate, intelligent, logical, tenacious, assertive, demanding and I sound like a complete witch on the phone. So be warned. These are the problems I see from this list:
    1. The brevity or lack of a response by an empowered 'Official' who has the authority to make decisions, solve problems, or make changes to policy.
    2. The scattered information for projects that makes it difficult for indexers or arbitrators to be sure they are inputting correctly. I counted 4 links that took me to four links, etc. for the info I needed, and I still didn't find it.
    3. I have found that I made decisions based on handwriting analysis as an arbitrator and changed logical results to illogical results because that's the way it was written. For instance, two indexers input Dorthy, when the handwriting clearly showed Darthy. So I changed it to Darthy. I felt I was wrong only because It was probably the way that person pronounced their name in the South, and that's what the census taker wrote down. I understand I can't guess what it probably is, I have to write what I see, and let the researchers decide if that is their ancestor or not. I agree with that. But maybe there is a little subversive correction going on by indexers or arbitrators who think being helpful by correcting the misspelling of Darthy despite what the instructions say. As posted by an indexer, when I review my indexing and find that an arbitrator changed my correct imo answer, it makes me upset as well. I know the difference between one letter or two shouldn't be a problem for researchers, but it is based on my search experience. It also reinforces a mindset when someone looks at a name and decides it can't be Darthy, it must be Dorthy because they can't think outside the box that there might be a name that's a derivative of another culture that is pronounced and spelled Darthy.
    4. I'm finding that when I input two different spellings of a name because it could be either 'Vann or Varn' because of the way the person writes, the arbitrators are removing one of the names. I understood from the lessons that this was an allowable input, so why is it being changed?
    5. I'm finding that frequently indexers are not using * or ? to indicate missing letters or letter. They enter "unreadable" despite the fact there are several legible letters.
    6. I'm finding that arbitrators are changing my input in a field to "unreadable" because THEY can't make out what is written. However, I have 10/10 eyesight and a very high definition monitor that enables me to read almost everything on images with faded inks, shadows or stains. This is supposed to be for the researcher to be able to find even a scrap of information. If I'm wrong, someone still looked at it because it came up in a search. "unreadable" doesn't show up in searches.
    7. I just recently saw that when an arbitrator returns a batch due to an indexer missing a page or making too many mistakes, the stake director gets that information on that indexer's returned batch so they can reteach as needed. I don't think much reteaching is going on, and that is a perfect system for addressing the mistakes we find that many of us have been advocating for. I know that the program can be easily be modified to allow anyone to flag a field or document so that a report can be generated for someone to review the information, AND to keep track of mistakes so that indexers/arbitrators who are generating a high number of errors can be identified and a solution instituted. (To me, a fair solution would be for those indexers/arbitrators to be temporarily prevented from indexing/arbitration until they have reviewed and corrected a sufficient number of 'identified mistake' documents to ensure they've learned.)
    I'm sure I'll think of more, but this is just so you have a heads up. Bwwwaahhhaahhaa! lol
    • view 2 more comments
    • I agree with being able to change the name of a person listed incorrectly. I'm not talking about changing a Wilsen to Wilson. I'm talking about changing a Jarkin to a Larkin. First names were hard enough to find but even worse when the name is spelled incorrectly by the person entering the name. Capitol letters written in cursive letters. Census takers in those days writing with a quill pen, wanted to show how great their handwriting was, made a lot of flourishing mistakes by someone trying to enter a persons name when they have never seen writing like that before. Ls, Js and Ss were hard to read if you don't know cursive.
    • My great grandmother is listed as married name Frid. She's the widow on the death certificate of my great grandfather. In 1911, women didn't have different last names, The transcriber couldn't read H-E-I-D because of the cursive.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Exactly WHEN in the indexing program does information get incorporated into the database? When a batch is identified as having no errors, and when a batch is arbitrated? Is the actual moment of the incorporation when I, as an arbitrator, push the enter button to submit the arbitrated document? Or is there a specific updating program that is done on a regular basis to do this?
    i just read this new document.
    https://help.familysearch.org/publish...
    It says that no changes can be made to the information already in the system, which is the problem we want solved. I have identified a part of the program that is already in place that can be used for identifying errors by modifying it a bit. A response from Robert Kehrer that he has evaluated that suggestion and what his decision is, with explanation of course.

    Would reindexing and submitting a slightly modified but 'identically identified duplicate batch' cause a change to the already integrated batch? By identically identified I mean that to the computer, it recognizes it as a specific batch already in it's system. Forcing the computer to accept data that it's already accepted does work in many programs even if the information is slightly changed.
    How does the computer recognize and accept a reindexed batch that had been sent back by an arbitrator, as different from the previously submitted batch? Why won't that work for corrections, if the computer can recognize it's a reindexed batch?
    If reindexing solves the correction problem, then there's no need to change any programming. People can identify errors by reporting them to a specific website, probably in the Family Search Research Wiki already in place. They can fill out a form with the information that's wrong, the correct information, a copy of the supporting document if not already a part of the Family Search archives, and the batch number (as some documents have listed or linked to) if known, to speed the process.

    If the only issue is the amount of labor needed, I'm sure that can be addressed. Recruit skilled but not very active indexers and arbitrators by asking them to pledge to reindex x# of batches for error correction.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m thrilled
    1
    Of course, now that I opened my big mouth, I find that management has written several articles regarding the problem that just about address everything. Click on the following
    https://www.familysearch.org/blog/tag...

    or enter FamilySearch Arbitration in the search box!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 3
    Keep control on changes. There are some out here which will make changes to change someone's whole family history to what they THINK it should be. Although it my be based on what they think is good evidence- the changes should be made only with official documents.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m disappointed
    3
    Seeing as the ability to make corrections to the records has been under consideration for over 2 years, it seems like it is time to either, (a) admit defeat, (b) acknowledge that it isn't a high priority, so don't hold your breath, or (c) update the community as to the progress being made - with results expected sometime in the reasonable future. It has been under consideration much too long with no evidence of any progress, only platitudes
    • How about letting people upload a family tree via gedcom and not allow other people to alter the facts. Like maybe what is on Rootsweb. I set the parameters and don't allow other people to download a gedcom. They can see and read it but they cannot alter it. Being a non church member but volunteer at a FHC I see church member research their families with a total disregard for proper source and citations. I have had ordinances done against my family without my permission and I can't see the ordinances and who performed them All because people can go in and make alterations without my being able to stop them. I can't even delete the ordinances. This is not a system that exudes confidence.
    • This is fine EXCEPT--data I put up many years ago at RootsWeb which included guesses--and which I have since corrected!--has been copied whole and incorporated into their World Family Tree. I found a number of the same mistakes here--and I am immensely grateful that I could delete the non-existent people and place those who were cousins (but not siblings) into their correct birth families. It has taken me 15 years and a lot of obscure research (with help!) to untangle this--so I am happy to be able to straighten it out. HOWever...I do hope that if someone "knows" that I am wrong--I would like to have some input so that my corrections are not over-written.
      I'm not rigid about this--in a different family I notice that you had a previous wife for one of my gxgparents--and have set one person I had believed was a sibling to my line as a son of a half-sibling. I figure I'll leave the family the way you had it and adjust what I have--because I don't believe the original source I found included the mother's name.
      One other thing--when I do a merge because I know two people are the same--I do hope the merge copies some of the records over as alternate data. At present, all I can do is replace or reject. But if a census record has been accurately transcribed--and the recorder made an error--I'd like to be able to save the source information for the record when I do the merge. Example: I had a cousin named Ormy. The recorder was French, and recorded what he thought he heard: "Henri". Which got transcribed as "Henry". I'd like for the "Henri" record to still be attached to Ormy.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 3
    I do not think that we should be allowed to make the changes to someone else's submittal; however, I do feel that we should be able to make comments. I am at a FHC all the time hearing the horror stories of changes being made by people on their parents, grandparents, etc., and showing no source or anything. It may be that the change is correct, but how would the original submitter know. How would anyone know? Will you research and source each change and note the source you used. (See below.)

    Along these same lines, I do wonder if I am misinterpreting the notation that a submitter may lay claim to the submittal of a person. I submit my tree, not just individuals for temple use. My tree is well sourced, where the trees previously submitted for temple work are not necessarily so. My question is, why shouldn't all trees be seen? Or am I simply not understanding. Why should anyone's tree take priority??? I see that Family search has "added information" on some of my individuals without sourcing the correction. I don't mean to say I don't think you are not sourcing them, I just want the source YOU used, just like I want to see anyone's source. "Family Search" is not a source for reference without the research source YOU used. Besides, when I see that you've added info because I didn't, I look at my own work as put on a ged com and see that it not only was submitted, but was resourced. Hmmm???
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m a little frustrated
    3
    I have an issue related to merging individuals. I have noticed that many of my direct ancestors have duplications of children etc... since we have multiple submitters. I guess I am happy to have people working on the same branch of ancestors as I - but I would love for there to be a simple review system to be able to collaborate on whether an individual is duplicated and needs to be merged. I found that when I tried to merge my input with someone elses... suddenly the line gets all broken etc.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 2
    Haven't you guys gone on to the site to see the new information about familysearch's new program, "Family Tree", that they are going to be releasing? As I understand it, it is still in testing right now, but eventually "FamilyTree" will replace new.familysearch.org.

    Here's the site where you can see all about it: https://familysearch.org/tree-training I thought some of these how-to videos were very helpful.

    I can't wait to use Family Tree, since it fixes the major problems with new.familyserch -- makes it so you can correct incorrect information, list sources, and more easily collaborate with other researchers. This is really exciting, I think!
    • view 2 more comments
    • Until there is a way to integrate in patron submitted correction into indexed records you can communicate this information in two ways in Family Tree.
      1. Create a Source to the indexed record, and in the Notes field call out the correct Gender.
      2. Do the above and in the Attach Reason, call out the Gender in the text there as well. I use the Attach Reason to qualify how good the Source is to the individual like:
      "This source is for this person because..."
      "This source is for this person because ... but the information is flawed..."
      "This source does not belong to this person because..."
      "Need to research more and see if this source belongs to this person"
      This way other users can understand why a Source is attached to this person.
    • Please do this for merges. Often the source is correct, but has some kind of mistake. Misspelled names being the most common. Yet the record still belongs with the person.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m hopeful and watchful!
    2
    The theory of Tree is AMAZING! I have been with the project since near the beginning and even cried when I heard about the concepts and motivations of Tree.because we either work together or fail together as families. However, far too many contributors still don't have contact information. That prohibits collaboration. And, I would love to see a REQUEST for sources--along with an example of a primary source citation--whenever an addition or correction is made as well as required contact information--even if it's a pseudonym. I have seen as much animosity over family history as over ancestors' most prized possessions. We must work together and share primary sources, reasons, varied expertise in order for Tree to fulfill its purpose
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 3
    Regarding contact information: When you sign in to Family Tree, hover the mouse over your name and click on Settings. Fill out your contact information like email, phone, address, and full name, and then click to make these public as you wish. Make yourself visible first, and then tell everyone you know who is using and correcting on Family Tree to do the same! Let's all become visible so we can truly collaborate.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m hopeful
    I just checked my contact information, and it's in there, just as I hoped it would be. Agreed. If we all work together, we can make weak things become strong and good!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    General public. Look for a future announcement when you will have access to new.familysearch.org.

    Today's info when I tried to log in.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    3
    I am against making a correction to my family tree directly on the internet. I don't want other people have direct access and changing the information I have posted. I have sources and citations for all my data but currently I have not posted it all. I am waiting to see what is going to come of all these changes. All I know is the continuing problem with the majority of information in family tree has not been sources. No documentation. I follow Evidence Explained and most of the people I come in contact with don't even want to see the book. They know what the Church wants of them but they refuse to do it. They just hap hazardously link to people they think are their family members and changed dates without even researching the fact. I like the system that Rootsweb has in place. Do your work at home and post your family tree with a GEDCOM. It overwrites your tree with all the sources and citations plus corrections. And nobody can change the data. You set your own parameters and that is it. You can allow them to download a gedcom or not.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m gravely disappointed
    4
    Not to beat a dead horse here, but the greatest tool ever invented for the clerical workers in the field (you remember them, the ones who "created" these records in the first place!) is the CROSS-REFERENCE. Don't mean to shout here. We all find ourselves in the position of being after-the-fact clerical workers on these ancient records. How many times have I seen my own surname misspelled, even in modern days? (Lots.) The ability to add a cross-reference to a name does not detract from what the original record says. It merely helps others to find it. And if, after diligent searching for umpteen-berzillion years we have found it, why not be able to help others find it? I am making a hundred corrections a day to the 1940 census indexes at Ancestry. I would make corrections at FamilySearch if they were allowed. Three years down the line on this thread, and still no resolution. Hmmpf.
    • 3 years is long time and way overdue! Few days ago I found errors and no way to get corrections in for others to find the records with corrected names. Clilson? Good grief! It's Wilson. This is just one of examples. Took us years looking for them. Found them by reading page by page instead of relying on the incorrect indexed names.
    • You are so right! Why are these data entry submitters in such a hurry they can't take the time to look at something that seems a little odd. It's a volunteer job for heaven's sake! There are no rewards for most entries!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 2
    A "note" link to make corrections would be great! Transcribers and census takers make mistakes. For instance, on the 1900 census for William Hisington in OK, almost every name is misspelled in the transcription. William's family should be:

    Wife: Mary Alice MC INTIRE, b. 21 Jan 1864, , Kosciusko, IN , d. 30 May 1944, Cottage Grove, Polk, OR

    Children:
    1. Etta Almira HOISINGTON, b. 4 Aug 1880, , , KS , d. 24 Jan 1972, Woodburn, , OR
    > 2. Louis Benjamin HOISINGTON, b. 8 Jul 1883, , Sumner, KS , d. 21 Jul 1970, Norman, Cleveland, OK
    3. Arthur Earl HOISINGTON, b. 17 Mar 1886, , , KS , d. 22 Dec 1965, , Delta, CO
    4. Alda Mabel HOISINGTON, b. 30 Dec 1887, Scott, , KS , d. 6 Feb 1977, Dallas, , OR
    5. Clyde L. HOISINGTON, b. 21 Aug 1890, , , KS , d. 26 Sep 1895, nr Cherokee, Alfalfa, OK
    6. Jessie M. HOISINGTON, b. 4 Oct 1891, nr Cherokee, Alfalfa, OK , d. 11 Apr 1896, nr Cherokee, Alfalfa, OK
    7. Claude William HOISINGTON, b. 16 Aug 1892, Crissfield (Otego), Harper, KS , d. 10 Sep 1966, , Polk, OR
    8. Bessie Susan HOISINGTON, b. 4 Oct 1894, , Alfalfa, OK
    9. Ernest Daniel HOISINGTON, b. 18 Feb 1897, , , OK (OT) , d. 2 May 1979, Dallas, Polk, OR
    > 10. Nora Fay HOISINGTON, b. 17 Sep 1899, , , OK (OT)
    > 11. Dora May HOISINGTON, b. 17 Sep 1899, , , OK (OT)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    I would also like to be able to make corrections. It should be a requirement to include evidence for making the correction. Another site allows corrections, but the input sometimes appears to be a wild guess.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 3
    We need to be able to make corrections by providing proof of our claim.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 2
    When was nFS dreamed up? Some of you will remember October 2005 LDS General Conference when a certain someone said: “To avoid such duplication, the solution lies in complex computer technology.”

    That was a lovely day. I think I was using the first versions of that system as early as 2008. The current SCOE code-named system was put out in 2010 to a very small group I think and then more in 2011. I first noticed it in March 2011 when it was still hidden, but online to those who had access. From 2011 until 2013 we finally have a link to it on the main site. Crazy huh? About 8 years since general conference remark to having a link on the website.

    This thread has only been up for 3 years. I did not hear anything about indexing corrections technology or new website features for indexing/corrections at RootsTech this year even though they have promised it on the official blog at least as recently as August 2012.

    The way I figure, we who care about this work will always be anxious for the next step. I am very anxious, why else would I spend my time reading these posts?

    I would love to hear more about this from FamilySearch.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Friends, I have a blast with Family Search. A lot of good, useful information has been gleened from this site.
    On the issue of changing what someone has published - sometimes the source of the information gets a bit confusing.
    I searched for many years for birth information on my father. He did not have the correct information on where he was born. I,using the old trackers system of circling the area until I found tracks, finally located a child born to his parents on his birthday But this certificate listed the child as Dollie instead of Doyle and had the child as female. Looking, I found that the Doctor who had delivered the baby in March had finally filed a birth certificate in October. And probably could not read his own hand writing.
    I have it on good information from my mother that Doyle was male and am here to prove it.
    The older census takers, courthouse clerks, etc were often negligent in their duties, not to mention doctors.
    I learned long ago that I should not try to change the information, just justify my own changes in the paper that I produce.
    Darell (Tex) Wright
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Most of my research involves Quebec records and families from Quebec that immigrated to New England. I have discovered many dozen of indexed records that have the names, especially the surnames, incorrectly spelled by the indexer. When I look at the original images of the records, I can clearly see the writer correctly wrote the name but the handwriting is such that a person without additional knowledge of the family name could easily come to a different conclusion. Obviously, those of us researching the same family lines over and over again have significant knowledge of the names and the variations in the names to make corrections that achieve better search results.

    We need a process to correct the indexed records. I recognize that a different process is required when the original source record is incorrect.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    2
    You have the WRONG parents for my James Gallagher. Where are the sources for familysearch.org?, so I can verifiy that it is wrong, and let me change it. I haven't spent all these years, time, and money so FS can add random facts to my very well sourced tree.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • This reply was removed on 2013-06-15.
    see the change log
  • This reply was removed on 2013-06-15.
    see the change log
  • 2
    There are in the box thinking and out of the box thinking. We are needing spiritual thinking when doing this work. Case in point. I was looking for someone and could not find them in the indexed list. So I felt that just clicking on other links could not hurt. (a push in the right direction) I found the person and part of the family I did not have. Other place were a census had put uncles wives in the wrong families. (The area they lived, houses were far enough away that if a person needed help the other family member would stay at the other house. The numerator had to have had been there at that kind of event. Asking who is here today and getting the wives in the opposite house each time. The ranch has been around for over 125 years. At that time even one of the relatives was an enumerator for the area. All in all the mistakes are going to be there. Work off line in a program that won't crash. Put it on a personal web page for collaboration then in the future when you feel the system has calmed down add it to the system. I wish I could do like Roots and do one family name and everyone could input the information on that name and like "Find a Grave have a person to over see the site. One of the people that is not LDS does this for the Putnam name and looks for information on this name. I would go for the Prunty (old world equivalent Bronte), name because it has north and south lines that don't even know of the other. Sad. But the people that have written books, the next generation have not done any more of keeping up with it. I have worked with others that have done over 50 years of research of these histories and are worried that their family will just through them away! My be there could be a dedicated unit like the ones used on How do you think you are that could start looking at only names with the main documents and as in Evidence Explained book, explains that only the documents that continue to show the path to finding this real document can be put in to the site. The new site for examples could show the format to others to use to input needed information. It will be like all other tasks and get addictive and competitive to say they have the most correct identifiers to their work. This is some time not the spirit of the work but using the human condition to get the better results can help if either a drop down list of ways to write the -Citation- to the -Source- (not the same thing). Back to the Evidence Explained book, I have only started reading this book that I bought because I want to have the added knowledge for people to have. I said why not do it the wright way at the start of putting the information in the web site. I did not get the education form the California education system in English or Math that was to be given so that is why this is not well written and for 6 to 7 generation the spelling gene was not giving my mom's side of the family so, sorry. I don't look down on this in my family in fact it really helps in genealogy because the spelling is never an issue for me I look up things and find it because I spell them in my way I do and find them. My people always say that there is only one way to spell it and them I go home and look it up and find it spelt a different ways. All this is why I keep going. I look up information for people that don't have a computer and at the Family History Center I volunteer at. Use that spirit of Elijah and If we keep working on the puzzle pieces we are given, we will in do time prove this work. Then watch the flood gates open. Thanks to all that are not seen in this work and do not work faster than your health allows you to go. I sometimes stay up for 3 days when I find a site that is free and don't want to miss getting the information before it will be charged for. This is not all ways good. Pace yourselves and it will come to pass. I love spell check on here. Thanks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • On Ancestery.com you and make suggested corrections to indexed names on the census and your suggestion then also becomes searchable. As I trace a family census by census, it would be nice for me to share my results, when I finally tract down the same family with a different spelling. I'd like to be able to share my hard work with the next person. Thanks
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Being able to attach a source to Family Tree directly from source page is one way to correct a name that has been indexed wrong.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Good Afternoon

    Might I add that correcting is only half the battle, it’s clear from many of the records I’ve seen that the Transcription isn’t correct and therefore it would be a great help if we could link to the Original record in order to study it and see if we agree with the Transcript before seeking to correct it.

    Regards

    John
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • So is any progress being made? I find Parmelee indexed as "Panuelu" in the New York State Census. (Found the family by searching for only the given name.) It would be very nice to be able to make corrections as we can on Ancestry.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    I'm looking at the family tree where the post includes questions about certain individuals. I can answer those question but have no way to do that. Why ask questions if you can get the answers? Is LDS afraid of the true?
    • can you give us a few more details. The truth is what we are after. However Im not sure where you may be seeing "questions". If you give the PID of a person in the tree then we might have a better frame of reference for how to help.

      If you are finding you cannot contribute information/comments etc it may be that you are not logged into the system. Some areas are not accessible to non-LDS but those are few by comparison to the over all records.

      The system is "new" for the vast majority of users. Data quality issues abound because of the records used to build the database often lacked sources.
      Add to that the fact that there seems to be little effort in educating these new users on how the system is to be used and you are sure to get some frustrated people.

      Anyway if there is a part of the program you are having great difficulty with please lt us know..
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    YES! Some mechanism needs to be in place to make corrections. I have found many a record on Ancestry because of that exact feature.

    Below is an example from FamilySearch. Thank goodness at least one member of the family was indexed correctly. Why "Groth" is even there is a complete mystery, since there were ditto marks for the rest of the family (Sarah, William H., Mary E, and Susan F) under the Booth name. No where is the name "Groth" on the page!

    1870 Census Eel, Cass, Indiana
    Isaac Booth M 30 Virginia
    Sarah Groth F 32 Kentucky
    William H Groth M 7 Indiana
    Mary E Groth F 3 Indiana
    Susan F Groth F 1 Indiana
    https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    If not corrections, at least comments about the transcription. I have seen transcriptions for my family that I know are incorrect, but that weren't poor interpretations of what was written, given the quality of the film. A mechanism to comment on the transcription would at least allow someone, who may have additional knowledge or other information, to provide an alternative transcription that may be more accurate than what is there now.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m Frustrated-Mad
    Something needs to be done!!! Ancestry.com has you fill out a form with the corrections and then they follow through, putting the corrections in parentheses.
    My great grandfather's first name was Stanislaus. LDS has it as Stonesaw! How crazy is that?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 2
    I just found an error in the pedigree for my family, where one of my great-uncles is reported as having been married 2 years before he was born. Birth date is off by 2 months as well (have birth certificate). It's funny but sad at the same time, because it's obviously wrong and it calls into question the accuracy of other info posted by the same contributor. Surely there's a way to either contact the original poster or to correct the error. Thanks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Kathleen,
    If the record is in Family Tree you can edit and make correct. If the pedigree is in Genealogies - those are individuals submissions of their trees and there may be mistakes. No one can edit the individual submissions, they belong to the submitters and are just available for consideration of others. There is no presumption that these records are all correct. At least there should not be.

    Family Tree on the other had is a shared tree and there are no owners. For the majority of deceased individuals you can edit and correct erroneous information. You will be asked for the reason for making the change and you can add sources so others will appreciate the correctness of you change.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    I agree with those that suggest a post-it comment. However in order to make it searchable, when one initiates a post-it comment there should be a required input field for the correct surname so it could be included when a search is performed. On the search results page, the hits that came from a post-it would be so indicated. That way, one could see that there are suggestions for alternative information. Otherwise, if corrections are allowed, there is a potential for a hundred people making changes to the same thing over and over.

    I was hoping that the implementation of this new website would have far more accuracy than the old LDS site but it seems that the people who enter the data are just careless, which is unfortunate because this site is becoming just as unreliable and riddled with errors as the old site due to the carelessness of the submitters. The problems seem to be increasingly more regular but I fear that allowing people to make corrections will only exacerbate the problem because of disagreements as to which is correct. Thus rendering the post-it comments being the better option.

    Perhaps when someone volunteers to input data, they should be required to take some kind of aptitude test or something. I don't know whether that would work or not, but something should be done and someone should take more responsibility for accuracy - perhaps the arbitrators(?).

    Incidentally, perhaps this goes without saying but I think people who perform data entry should have a bit of family research under their belt so they have some kind of familiarity with the various documents and realize the importance of accuracy to those of us who depend on it.

    Example: top of page, image 99 of 148 in the 1850 census for Bath, Steuben, New York.
    Head: Samuel Wilber. Wife and 4 children are listed however, the last child, even though the image clearly shows a "do." for "ditto", for some reason, the submitter changed the surname to Miller. That's bad enough but in the next household, the head of household is Hoxie Wilber, who I happen to know is a son of the above-mentioned Samuel. But when performing a search for Hoxie Wilber - you will find nothing in the 1850 census. However, perform a search for Hoxie "Miller" and there he is in 1850, image 99 of 149 -- Hoxie Wilber! Agreed, the handwriting might be a bit difficult, but it is consistent and clearly in the instructions for data entry volunteers, there is a rule about comparing letters to other letters to get an idea of the scrivener’s handwriting. When comparing the first instance of Wilber to what they thought was Miller – it is quite obvious they both say the same thing! Additionally, comparing the first letter to another capital M in the document, it’s obvious the two are very different.

    What happened to the entry system here? I thought the data was entered by two different people and then an arbitrator checks both for any discrepancies. Did two separate people make the same mistake here? I think not. Where are the arbitrators? Surely someone should have caught this had they looked at it. Wouldn't a household full of Wilbers with one 12 year old Miller in the same family throw a red flag to take a look at that one? This is just a typical example of some of the careless mistakes in data entry.

    Anyway, my original point here was to strongly suggest the use post-it comments and make them searchable. This eliminates corrections to original data and conflicts of opinions.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m unsure that this would be beneficial.
    2
    NOT a good idea! Researchers need to "plead their case" in order to get a record changed. I understand there are transcription errors due to the "Frilly" and sometimes poor handwritting of some of the census recorders. You must do the work in this case. If a digital image of the record in question is available, compare the handwritting and come to a conclusion using your logic.
    I found several records where I had to do this. The first name of "Sily" Day. The recorder made his upper case "L" remarkably close to his upper case "S". Close study revealed the transcription error. Another instance of misinformation was in various census reports. The surname was recorded as "xxx A. Ray". The surname should have been recorded as "ARAY". In another instance I found a record where "xxx A. Ray" was not related to my family and his middle initial was "A." with a last name of Ray. I was searching for the name "Drock" and ran into a dead end. After looking for two years for a living relative, and I finally found her, the name was suddenly changed to De Roque. This was done to conceal the fact that some of the ancestors of the family was Mulatto, or part Negro, Black, African, Colored, or what ever term you choose to use.
    Should I be allowed to change that name back to "Drock"? That would create a lot of confusion.
    The complexities of genealogy research causes us to think about the facts we have and search for the facts that we do not have.
    Instead of changing the records, Let's ammend the Soundex codes and update them to our needs. This way the search engine can be programmed to find those annoying little anomalies. Another situation that pops up seldomly is the fact that somebody either flat out lied, which gives us false information. Or they may have been an adopted child without knowledge of who their parents were/are. Someone else may have the proper information and be able to find the child and place them in the proper perspective within their tree. In this case maybe we can be allowed ot enter in notes and clues about some of the disputed facts or misinformation. We can then use the knowledge of others to make intelligent decisions. I do not use Ancestry.com because of all the people that think they are related to you which causes you to research in areas which may or may not be within your family. Use suggestions as possibilities to be researched.
    Les.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m sad
    5
    My sister-in-law's name was Betty Ruth Wheeler. Imagine how I feel finding her name typed as Belly and not being able to correct the spelling. I hope LDS can come up with a way that contributors can fix an incorrect spelling of a name.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • This thread has become to difficult to manage. Please start a new thread. The community will be better able to respond if the new thread provides specifics about questions or problems. Include the product as well - Search, FamilyTree, Indexing. THanks
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

next » « previous