Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.


Note field to help indexers explain reasoning to reviewers.
A small note field as part of each record could be helpful to arbitrators or others reviewing our work. We could, (but would not be required to), note our thought processes that lead to a solution. As an example I was indexing Alexander O. Redentz. None of the "R" names in the list were even close. The lawyer and/or the Clerk made an exaggerated flourishing letter "R" for the start of the last name. and separated the "O" with a period as an initial. All of the writers clearly showed the "tz" ending. The groom Signed the name by connecting the "O" and the "r". When I used the "O" as the first letter and the "tz" as the last letter only one name came up Overholtz. I could just hear the poor man trying to explain the name was Alexander ----- Orderholz not Alexander O. anything. A quick check of that counties records revealed many Overhauls, OverHaus, Overall, and similar names.
Promoted
Responses
-
I started this discussion quit a while back. The powers that be have stubbornly refused to seriously consider that they have inaccurate and misleading data in the data base now because they only accept the viewpoint of arbitrators. Arbitrators are arbitrary because they can be. There needs to be a check and balance to ensure accurate indexing. When all is said and done this will be a huge data base, but it will be an inaccurate data base. Those who rely on it will find out too late, just how inaccurate it is. I have stopped using it because I know that it cannot be trusted. I also know that many people are in the data base who will never be found because of an arbitrary decision to misspell the name. I quit indexing after having hard searched and accurate data rejected by people who are unwilling to question their own work.
-
We've all been exchanging ideas on this for 7 or 8 months now but still no change in sight from support. Our problem really isn't so much with the arbitrators now as with support for failing to take any solid action towards improving conditions. The good arbitrators continue to "take it on the chin" for the actions of those who are not following directions. The ones who are not following directions continue to do so because they still don't realize they are the ones we are talking about. They still make the same mistakes over and over because no one is telling them any different.
We can mark items for review until the cows come home, but if no one goes back and tells those particular arbitrators that it is their errors, they will continue to do it. While support may not have the time right now to create the extra "button" or whatever so that we can communicate with the arbitrator, then they ought to set up a special group or committee to check the reviews and send a note to the arbitrator in question and NOT release that batch to the public UNTIL it has been rechecked.
If a particular arbitrator receives too many returns from review (a number to be determined by the review committee), then that arbitrator should have their arbitrator privilege revoked until they can be re-tested and prove their ability to properly arbitrate.
In short, we can't sit around and wait for support to take action to improve the arbitration method and have the improperly arbitrated documents sent out to the public as is. -
There is a difference between making mistakes, not bothering to read directions, and just plain incompetence.
There will always be an occasional mistake because of interpretations of letters in a name. Or even from accidently submitting a batch before completion. I have on maybe 2 occasions done this.. KNOW if want to go back an re-look at a name because I am sure it is incorrect, or even realize later while arbitrating the batch that an earlier name or two needs to be corrected.. bu then hitting that last record, quality check starts, and I click through that and submit. Then as soon as I clicked submit, realizing that oops.. I forgot to go back and correct the name.
But, the fact is that there are arbitrators that have been given arbitrator rights that AT MOST should only be indexing.
There are some arbitrators that have no clue as to letters of old or poor handwriting... There are arbitrators that either cannot follow Instructions or don't bother reading Instructions.
There are arbitrators with Indexing Accuracies of 70% and below. That is utter nonsense. No one should be permitted to arbitrate with an Indexing Accurracy of less than 95%..
But, Familysearch as no requirements to qualify or to maintain Arbitrator status. The only requirement is that an indexer arbitrate 2,000 names.. That requirement should be a minimum of 1,000 batches AND 10,000 names, with an indexing accuracy of 95% and above. -
I'll add my vote for this -- in fact, I just entered essentially the same suggestion and then immediately saw this one after submitting ('twas ever thus!). There are times when the arbitrator is clearly in error (assuming a country of birth when there is no such entry on the document), others when the correct answer is debatable and I'd like to offer my side of the story (I've looked in detail at maps to determine the correct spelling/political subdivision/etc of a location). This will also help when there is inconsistency among the arbitrators (I've had "Russian Poland" changed to "Russia Poland," "Russia," and "Poland" by different arbitrators).
-
I only recently learned that this suggestion site was available and definitely feel we need this type option. Like so many others, I too am completely frustrated when I spend hours indexing and following instructions only to have many items incorrectly arbitrated. Then to have to spend as long as 1 1/2 to 2 hours marking items for review is ridiculous because we could spend that time indexing another project, especially if the arbitrator will not even know they made the error.
I definitely agree that if I make a major error, I want to know about it so I can correct it. I have had batches marked as being returned but have no idea why, especially since I have received very high scores on other batches in the same category. I don't know if I fouled up on a batch or if there was an error or just what happened.
I personally feel the drop down box would be the best way to do it with options listed and possibly one marked "other" where we could list anything not covered by the basic reasons. A similar drop down box could be used by arbitrators to let the indexers know what they are doing improperly and vice versa.
In short, both indexers and arbitrators need a way to communicate with each other. We don't need to know who we are communicating with; just a medium by which to do it.
I also feel support should make sure when they tell something to an indexer that the same information is made available to the arbitrators and vice versa. We are not always operating on the same page. As soon as a decision is made regarding how something should be indexed, it should be updated immediately and made available to all even if it means sending a message on the master page. -
Yes, please add some way to communicate. I get very frustrated when I see one of my batches returned and there is no way to find out why. If I made that huge of a mistake indexing or arbitrating, I want to know what I did wrong so I can correct it. As an arbitrator, I'd like to be able to at least tell the indexer they either did not follow instructions or they missed an entire page of names so they can learn to look at an image more carefully. As it is now, indexers are left completely in the dark and the best they can do is assume the arbitrator may have returned the wrong key by mistake.
I also want to be able to communicate back to an arbitrator when I feel they made a mistake. I wish that after arbitration, the indexers could provide feedback, then the arbitrator could take one more look with this new information in hand before the batch is published. -
I think that the drop down may be the best option and it can be as comprehensive as we require- goodness look how much information exists in the current dropdown options.
In addition we could have a short text option if no other selection covers.
I am certain that a few heads together can come up with a solution -
As both and indexer and arbitrator a "notes field" for the use of both would be great. The number of times I find myself apologising to the indexer because I have had to change an entry as they have not followed project instructions or wishing I could say to the arbitrator why I had entered specific information
It would lead to a much improved quality of indexing and greater understanding of the processes in place.
As an indexer, especially when the arbitrator has not followed the project instructions, it would be an immediate response and again improve the level of arbitration.
My concern with this however is that some people would be abusive of the system whether intentionally or not.
Perhaps the notes field would have a drop down system that allows only certain comments eg " basic instructions not followed" or "see project updates" or "field was blank" -
I would LOVE to be able to write a short note when requesting review! We indexers are to learn from the arbitration but it's really disheartening when you've followed the instructions to a T (so to speak) and the arbitrator hasnt, resulting in them changing a field through a whole batch (over 160 address fields in one batch today!) When you know you've done something right, it would be somewhat of a relief to be able to quote the instruction and where it was found, so that the arbitrator can also learn. To have a 90% result when it should be 100% is enough to put me off indexing, when such a long time has been spent reading instructions and updates, and then hours indexing. A place for a note to be written when requesting review, would be beneficial to all parties. Also would allow us to note just once when a field throughout a whole batch has been incorrectly arbitrated, instead of having to sit and click 'feedback' 160+ times for one batch. I did that once, but never again. Took me a LONG time, time I cant get back, time I'd rather spend indexing .....or sitting outside in my garden!
-
When I index, I will frequently go to other census/sources to see if I can find the same family with the name readable. When you know what it's supposed to be, it is much easier to make out the letters (I do index what's there, though.) It's discouraging to see it come back with some completely wrong name.
-
Not only would a note to indexers be helpful, but also when requesting arbitraton feedback an indexer could indicate why - such as 5th name in census missed, not what was to be indexed, check groom's full name at bottom of page. I would also like to see a reason why a batch was sent back to be reindexed - maybe then arbitrators wouldn't see the same indexing errors repeated.
-
I'd like to wholeheartedly support this proposal. There are times when I've taken a lot of time and effort either to decypher something that was unclear on the original document, or to check that an unusual word is in fact the correct one, and being able to briefly note why I've typed whatever it is I've entered would help to avoid the frustration of seeing that work needlessly discarded by an arbitrator who either simply marks the field "unreadable" or discards the correct but unusual word in favour of a vaguely similar but more familiar one which is, in fact, wrong.
I'd dearly like to see it taken one step further, with arbitrators being able to add brief notes to explain, where they feel it might help the indexers, why they've gone for one indexer's version rather than the other's. That will address two issues - first, the supposed purpose of being able to review the arbitration results is in order to learn, but if you don't know *why* an abitrator made a decision, there's little learning to be had; and second, in the many instances where each indexer has entered valid, but slightly differing, data, it would help to reduce the frustration felt by indexers if the arbitrator were able to note this, and explain briefly why they chose one version rather than the other during their arbitration.
next » « previous |
-
I have little hope that my two cents will even be read, but try I must. This string was started over four years ago and still the problems continue. There is nothing more that can or needs to be said except that indexers are being turned off because we cannot seem to get answers.
-
-
Even a field per image or batch would do, to point out something to the arbitrator, and for the arbitrator to point out something back to the indexer. I've often arbitrated several batches where one indexer - perhaps the same person - is making the same mistake with almost every entry and it would be nice if I could tell them what or why they're doing wrong rather than hoping they'll realise. Likewise, as indexer, for example, pointing out that a barely readable name appears again clearly on the next page.
-
-
-
-
I agree with all of the above. But why is it that this issue has been raised over 4 years ago but nothing has been done about it, and it leads to frustration on the part of indexers and I wonder how many have been put off so much that they have stopped indexing.
Another area that I would like to see is when a whole batch is ? a note to the indexer as to why. If I need to see the one or two errors I have made in indexing a record surely I need to be informed what I did wrong for them to query the whole batch.- view 1 more comment
-
-
Barbera, is it not nice that you get to explain your reasoning? The lowly indexers would like the privilege.
-
-
rgbarnes46, I don't understand your comment. I was just giving Olive possible reasons why an arbitrator would return a batch. Neither the indexers, of which I'm one also, or the arbitrators get to explain why an arbitrator marked something wrong or why a batch was returned.
-
-
-
-
Olive is correct on both counts. I am both an indexer and an arbitrator and am frustrated in both areas. When I index, I get just as angry and frustrated as everyone else when an arbitrator fails to follow instructions. I have no problem with an arbitrator disagreeing with me over handwriting because that's just a difference of opinion even though I may still feel I am correct.
By the same token, when I am arbitrating and see an indexer trying very hard to do things correctly, but making one or two errors over and over; if I could just send them a note telling them what they are missing in the instructions, I feel they would do the next batch correctly. Sometimes that is all they need and it might make the difference in whether they give up indexing or whether they will keep trying. Just a little extra bit of encouragement or a personal touch kind of thing may make all the difference.
I especially agree with Olive on the ? issue. How in the world does this solve anything if you don't know what it means. You don't know if it means the batch was returned because you did something wrong or if it was returned because you and the arbitrator agreed it was an NED. If you are doing a lot of indexing, how would you remember which batch it was? Support could at least change the color of the ? to distinguish it from an agreement. Would that be so difficult? -
-
After four years I am still angry that the powers that be have chosen to ignore the slave labor. No respect for indexers, the time they spend, and skills that they bring to the task. One ignorant arbitrator decides they are right and the indexer is wrong so they trash serious work without ever finding out the truth.
I have seen the results of these errors from the researcher side. Ancestors who were arbitrated wrongly are almost impossible to find. A good indexer who knows the types of errors that indexers and arbitrators make can wade through the garbage and uncover documents that when viewed illustrate how poorly the process was done. A sad state of affairs. -
-
Thanks to slotbuddy and Barbara for their comments re notes. I have just had a batch returned in which I had marked "Infant" as blank because it did not say how old, and it has been returned arbitrated as 0. If I could have had a note I could have told the arbitrator my interpretation is that it should be "blank".
However I understand that someone other than the arbitrator looks at the Please Reviews so maybe that's reason to hope.
But I agree that all this is very discouraging and from time to time say "why do I bother".-
A basic indexing guideline is to mark the age as Blank when only Infant is given, but many times the specific Project Instructions or Field Helps say that when "Infant" is the only indication of age, index the age as 0. So it really depends on the specific project. So if the instructions for this project don't say to mark Infant as 0, you were right to Blank it.
-
-
-
-
-
another thing that makes me cross is when indexing father's surname and mother's surname if you get it wrong that counts as two errors. Surely it is reasonable to suppose they are the same. So much so I've given up worrying about my % (even though I would be concerned if it dropped too low) as it would be higher if arbitrators did not make so many errors.
-
-
I've commented before to this topic - I think being able to comment is vital. I've indexed records that I have knowledge of the family or the town and when the name/street was unreadable, I knew what it was. The arbitrator 'corrected' it, but it was wrong and it bothers me that inaccuracy will go out in public and perhaps keep others from finding the record. PLEASE consider adding that field. I know I probably index less because of this issue - when I can't explain why I did what I did.
-
Just remember that some projects tell us to enter the place names as written on the document, so whether it's spelled wrong or illegibly, we enter what it looks like.
-
-
I keep harping on about this! See 2nd comment at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... I think the only way to deal with it is to always enter the spelling as seen and then have the facility to enter, perhaps in square brackets, what we think it should be. However much we know we could be wrong but the search engine would find it and researchers could ignore it. I live in hope!!
-
-
-
-
-
I know a few people who are already using the new program that we have been promised. It pretty much eliminates the use of arbitrators. However, it still has only been offered to a few chosen people and is not available to everyone. I haven't used it myself so I can't comment on it but have been told that it does make indexing faster once you get used to it. No one seems to know when it will become available for general use or why it hasn't become available to more indexers. It doesn't allow for the communication that we were seeking, but seems to work more or less like the obits where if the two indexers match, then it just goes straight to support to check before being published kind of thing. If the two indexers don't match, it goes to a 3rd indexer; no arbitrator involved.
The people who have used it are very experienced individuals who have been indexing and arbitrating for many, many years and while they do feel it will get the work out faster, they still don't think it is a good idea to abandon arbitration completely. Kind of feel it is like throwing the baby out with the bath water because we may be indexing faster but sacrificing accuracy. They still felt we should be testing and training our arbitrators better and using communication between indexers and arbitrators instead. But this is only their opinion and they aren't the top brass and have no say in the matter.-
I do the pilot program and there is no arbitration in it. There's only one person indexing the batch and a reviewer who checks the indexer's work. If the reviewer disagrees with what the indexer entered, he changes it. However, if a certain percentage of the fields disagree with the indexer, the batch is then sent to a second reviewer. There will be no Arbitration Results feature and no percentage to frustrate people. All values entered (indexer, reviewer, and second reviewer if necessary) will be saved (as opposed to the arbitrator's values only being saved) and will be searchable in Family Search. So, for example, if they each interpreted the name spelling differently, whatever the researcher put into Search in FS can match or come close to any of the spellings given for that image.
The new program will allow for quicker publication in Family Search of the records since they don't have to go to two indexers and then wait for an arbitrator to work on them. The program itself is quite different in looks and in some of the features, and there are only a couple of things I like about it compared with the old one. Those working on it have been giving feedback to Family Search about bugs and issues, and FS is working on those things.
Quite a number are using the web-based pilot program, but I think they have so many people now that they don't need more. They're still asking those of us working on it to continue doing more in the old program. -
-
-
-
next » « previous |