Search for content in message boards

The FAILURE of ALTERNATES and BETA REVIEW FORM

The FAILURE of ALTERNATES and BETA REVIEW FORM

Posted: 16 Mar 2013 7:31PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 16 Mar 2013 7:32PM GMT
Riddle me this, Ancestry.

I reviewed some of the record transcriptions that I had previously submitted alternates for.

In the examples I've attached, the alternate I submitted in 2011 was to a member, not the head, of the household.

The alternate is clearly defined, it's green, hyperlinked and has the pencil to indicate it can be clicked for more info about the alternate. All is as it should be.

No other member of this household was "checked" to be included for the alternate submitted. I state this with 100% certainty.

Today's review revealed, all the other members NOW have the alternate surname in their individual records, but *notice* the alternate is black, no hyperlink, no pencil. These *alternates to nowhere* appeared within the last year. I'm concluding these are system created, a programming debacle.

But wait, the cherry on top is the exciting and improved beta review form gives the *option* to include a completely false and system generated alternate.

The continual degradation of this site is maddening.

It was aptly stated by ludlowbaylive on another thread,

"So .... the slop will continue to pile up, ad nauseum."
Attachments:

Re: The FAILURE of ALTERNATES and BETA REVIEW FORM

Posted: 17 Mar 2013 4:23AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 18 Mar 2013 6:11AM GMT
That is truly a flustercuck. It's really not hard to edit an entry to change your tree data to the alternate info after merging the originally indexed info. Alternate info should be a guide or suggestion, not an option to merge and not part of the index. Gah.

Re: The FAILURE of ALTERNATES and BETA REVIEW FORM

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 9:26AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 18 Mar 2013 9:32AM GMT
I don't even have a big problem with the alternate information being offered as a choice - but I have a huge problem with it being presented as the default, which the other thred indicates also is happening. I have seen many times when the suggestion is simply wrong - sometimes even changing an unlikely name or spelling that actually is correct.

And since when does alternate surname get automatically offered for all household members, even if the submitter has not checked the boxes to request that? This is just weird, since the system is now doing something that the submitter considered and rejected.

Re: The failure of alternates and beta review form

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 12:13PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 18 Mar 2013 1:24PM GMT
"I don't even have a big problem with the alternate information being offered as a choice..,."

But to what end? You certainly can't cite that "choice", at least by any definition of "cite" that I understand, with the original document as the source since "alternate data", as I believe it was conceived and implemented by ACOM, is purely a search/research enhancement...and it does that WELL, warts and all.

Fortunately, if I'm interpreting David Graham's comments correctly...

"We’ll look closer at what we could potentially do with alternate data submissions outside of transcription error corrections."

...further deployment of this patent abrogation of basic indexing/citation principles into other ACOM databases will cease and is headed back to the ACOM think tank for reconsideration.

That being said, 2 things still trouble me. The breadth of deployment that has already occured within existing ACOM databases and just how on earth this "genealogy" debacle ever got through whatever process is in place to insure the integrity of ACOM-generated citations.

Re: The FAILURE of ALTERNATES and BETA REVIEW FORM

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 12:47PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 18 Mar 2013 12:50PM GMT
I don't think the citation is going to look any different or take you anywhere different regardless of which version of a name you check when adding the record and its citation - I thnk that most likely, accepting the alternate only changes how the name reads in your tree. That is, I don't think it is accurate to say that accepting the alternative is "citing" something other than the record.

abstract no longer gives the reason for alternative?

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 2:41PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 18 Mar 2013 3:02PM GMT
Here is another change - I just happened to be looking at a record for the 1850 census with alternative information (complete with green link and pencil), and noticed that it no longer indicates the reason for the alternative (as selected from the menu - e.g., mistranscribed, alternate, incorrect in original, etc. - although it does show any explanatory comments), which I think it did in the past. This is going to cause even more confusion: http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1850usfedcenan...

Re: abstract no longer gives the reason for alternative?

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 6:57PM GMT
Classification: Query
>> it no longer indicates the reason for the alternative (as selected from the menu - e.g., mistranscribed, alternate, incorrect in original, etc. - <<

Another WHY? Why is the reason no longer showing?

A "reason" must be chosen to make an alternate, it is not an option to not chose one.

Another "improvement" no doubt.



Re: abstract no longer gives the reason for alternative?

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 9:46PM GMT
Classification: Query
I'm checking recent alternates I made, from the "Thank you for Contributing" email I received on 4 Mar 2013.

An alternate made in the 1850 US Census resulted in the same as I posted above.

An alternate submitted to an unrelated member of the household, resulted in all other members receiving the black "alternate to nowhere".

The "reason" for the alternate is not included. I'm concluding if you write in the field, that data cancels the selected "reason".

Attachments:

Re: abstract no longer gives the reason for alternative?

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 10:06PM GMT
Classification: Query
An alternate made on 3 Mar 2013, in the 1870 US Census.

Alternate was made to the head of household, all but the last two members of the household were checked to include the alternate surname. Those who were not checked don't have the "black" alternate to nowhere.

I didn't add specific "reason" data, I apparently selected "incorrect in image" from the reason pull down menu, which is now being written in sentence form. Comparing this to the example above in the 1850 Census, I think the system "reason" selected disappears if you include some specific data.



Attachments:

Re: abstract no longer gives the reason for alternative?

Posted: 18 Mar 2013 10:06PM GMT
Classification: Query
An alternate made on 3 Mar 2013, in the 1870 US Census.

Alternate was made to the head of household, all but the last two members of the household were checked to include the alternate surname. Those who were not checked don't have the "black" alternate to nowhere.

I didn't add specific "reason" data, I apparently selected "incorrect in image" from the reason pull down menu, which is now being written in sentence form. Comparing this to the example above in the 1850 Census, I think the system "reason" selected disappears if you include some specific data.



Attachments:
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | New Privacy | New Terms and Conditions