Search for content in message boards

A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 10:35PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 22 Mar 2013 12:13PM GMT
In some recent research, I began to notice a peculiar occurrence. At first I thought it was some type of anomaly, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

Rather than incorporating data as recorded by the enumerator in an original census document, the ACOM attachment/citation building process is now substituting index-generated alternate data in its place. This is a HORRIBLE development...and I don't know what to make of it.

Here's an example...

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1910USCenIndex...

The enumerator recorded "J. C. Daggs" as the name entry.

Try attaching that individual into one of your trees as a new entry and see what you get. I'm all ears here.

Updated to better link

Update (3/10 11 AM) - The problem is apparently being caused by the introduction of a new option in the new source attachment mechanism. You can now select, where provided, either the document content as recorded or alternate content (however submitted and designated) as the data to be imported into your tree.

This new ACOM sourcing/citation option is, IMHO, potentially disastrous for the integrity of ACOM data-based citations from this point forward.

At the least, where alternate data is cited, any resulting citation should CLEARLY be re-labeled as to its source.

Attachments:

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 10:47PM GMT
Classification: Query
I can't get a handle on what you're seeing, partly because the system thinks I'm trying to modify your tree. Could you explain?

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 10:56PM GMT
Classification: Query
I used the record to create a new person in my public tree.

It created John Craddock Daggs, born about 1877 in Kansas.

What are you seeing that is alarming? That the alternate info added by nancydrewfan in 2009 is reflected?

One of the complaints I've heard for years is that the alternate info we supply is never incorporated. I don't like the fact that there is no "control" - that is, I often see that someone with no family knowledge adds incorrect alternate info on my direct line - and it is impossible to get rid of, once it has been cast in ancestry stone.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 10:58PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 9 Mar 2013 1:07PM GMT
The link I supplied was from a "hint" to an as yet unincorporated source for a profile in my tree. I'm unclear why it just doesn't take you to the related index entry.

I've updated the link which will, hopefully, take you directly to the example index page.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 11:00PM GMT
Classification: Query
Well, that is just all wrong. I wonder what happens if you user submit the name back to J. C.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 11:01PM GMT
Classification: Query
It first took me to the last person I had viewed on my tree. I then logged out and switched browsers. Then viewed the census and used the "save to someone else" option and created a new person.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 11:01PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 8 Mar 2013 11:05PM GMT
"What are you seeing that is alarming?"

Oh my. The enumerator entered J C Daggs. That is what I expect to see when it is attached, not something that is external to the source itself. This is bordering on genealogical heresy....and I've never seen this happen before...until just recently.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 11:04PM GMT
Classification: Query
Don't get hostile - I was only trying to clarify what you meant.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 11:20PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 8 Mar 2013 11:28PM GMT
"I wonder what happens if you user submit the name back to J. C."

What's somewhat odd is that I'm having difficulty doing just that...utilizing the basic search function to produce a search return to that census index page.

Note also that the "household" list in the index now reflects something other than that which is contained in the source document. Has anyone ever seen this done before? Could it be just an anomaly restricted to this single database?

I've updated the original link which should link more directly to the sample page.

Re: A Disturbing Development Inre Source Document Data

Posted: 8 Mar 2013 11:35PM GMT
Classification: Query
There appears to be an underlying problem that I think is even worse. How did this new name (James Craddock) even appear in the purported record?

The note says: John Craddock rather than J C
Correction due to an error in transcription.

This is NOT an error in transcription. As you rightly say, one would expect to see J.C., which is what is written on the population schedule. However, Ancestry has allowed a change with no indication as to where the information came from or whether it is indeed reliable.

NancyDrewFan has been allowed to make a change with no legitimate claim to knowing the additional information and by putting an untrue reason for her change. That is more than disturbing!!! That is more than HORRIBLE!!!

It has been my understanding that Ancestry actually vetted alternate info for reasonableness (at least truth), but since they could not or would not verify it, it has always been an "alternate" rather than a correction.

This example appears to violate two of Ancestry's long standing practices:
- the additional information appears with an explanation that bears no resemblance to fact
- alternate information can replace actual information as it appears on the historical document.

Just for giggles, I saved this entry to my shoebox. It saves there as as J C Daggs. Just sayin'
per page

Find a board about a specific topic