Note field to help indexers explain reasoning to reviewers.

Edit Subject

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.