The Record Hints automatically supplied by the FamilySearch.org Family Tree and other websites are of marvelous assistance to our research process. But I am seeing that in many instances a "source" has been added to an individual in the Family Tree and the basic information about the individual in the "Vitals" section and elsewhere have not been updated. A recent example was that I found a source for an 1850 Federal Census record attached to a family where the information contained on the census schedule was different than the information recorded. Granted, sometimes the information in the source is incomplete or wrong but when the source is attached and has information that is missing in Vitals Section, then the information needs to be added. Another example that I find is that there is a birth date listed but an attached birth record has a different date. I could go on and on with examples.
The real issue is that there is a disconnect between the sources and the information entered in the Family Tree (and other family trees also). I remember one time when I was helping someone with entering information into the Family Tree and when I entered a marriage date, the person watching me began arguing with me over the date I had added. She insisted that the date was wrong because she "knew" the date from memory and what I was entering was not what she knew to be correct. She stopped questioning me when I clicked over and showed her a copy of the marriage record that had already been attached as a source.
Why is this important? First and foremost, the Record Hint program relies on the information already in the Vitals entries on which to base the searches for additional information. Secondly, seeing the date on the Vitals information will keep the researcher from using the correct information for research. Of course, when I am helping someone with their research, I have to be diplomatic about the way I help them see the need to keep the information displayed accurate and consistent.
There is not a lot more to say about this subject. Look at the sources and make sure the reliable information in the sources is reflected in the entries in the Vitals section.
There is a bit more to say, because the program could detect more differences than it does now, and offer to correct vitals according to relevant source data. When it does not, like I often see, and the program offers other hints for the same person, I often move to that other hint, and forget to copy paste the correct date, which is quite tedious compared to the highly automated matching process. That's how my mind works.
ReplyDeleteThat is part of the reason for reminding people to copy the information into the Vitals section. Thanks for your comment.
DeleteIf the census indicates a year and month of birth, ie 1900 census, and the information is wrong... perhaps the month is right, but the year is wrong, are we to change the year to balance the source information? And if I have a bible record that gives the date of birth for that person, what do I do with it? Are they both considered "alternate"?
ReplyDeleteBoth the census and the Bible record are sources. We evaluate the dates in both and decide if the information is correct or not. We record the birth information from the earliest record available and use that until we find a more accurate or earlier record.
DeleteThe very, very important thing here is a more accurate record. Earlier records are more likely to be more accurate because they were produced nearer to the event, and thus less likely to be victims of faulty memory. However it must also be remembered that sometimes the very earliest records (registering of birth) can deliberately be lies. For example a date of birth might be lied about to avoid a fine for late registration of the birth.
Delete