A red exclamation mark

[peter]

Unfortunately, there is no quick way to locate either red ticks or red exclamation marks when the list of entries starts to get large.

If you've already checked all your entries (ie using the arrows) there's no great urgency to locate the ones with red exclamation marks - since the chances are you haven't made a mistake.

But if you haven't checked your entries the ones that are flagged are just the tip of the iceberg - for each error you've made that is flagged with an exclamation mark there are likely to be 15 to 50 errors that aren't flagged.

 

[Helen7]

Had you just entered some new census households, or was this a routine Search? I think I have only once found a new match from a routine Search, and have generally only had new matches after I've added more entries in myself.

I had just entered one census household, and then pressed Search. However, the new matches were NOT with this new household, but were in a completely different part of my tree.

As long as you have at least one match with the other member then your best way forward is probably to communicate with them and identify what you have each entered for the near matches and why. Hopefully, you will be able to resolve the differences easily and quickly.

Yes, I'm hoping so. I've pressed the 'Make Contact' button on the My Cousins page and am awaiting a reply. Hopefully they will respond.

I record matches and who they are with in my tree so that I can easily see when another member is working in that vicinity.

That's a good idea.

 

[peter]

I record matches and who they are with in my tree so that I can easily see when another member is working in that vicinity.

I include cousins in my tree and colour their icons so that I can see at a glance which ones are DNA matches and which ones I'm in correspondence with. But it may not be possible to do this in all tree programs.

 

[canadianbeth]

I received red marks for the last family I entered the other day. The grey arrow only lists the first five in FMP but if I click on the arrow for the four others it does come up with that same page. The spelling of the family is incorrect; it should be Moss, but was transcribed as Mors for half the family and Mose for the others. That is the way I entered them and put a note with the first one that it should be Moss. Only the Mors are on the FMP page. However, I also have a match for one of the Mose names so hopefully contacting that person will clear up any questions, since it is the Moss name that has me tearing at my hair regarding the contradictory DNA matches.

 

[peter]

I received red marks for the last family I entered the other day. The grey arrow only lists the first five in FMP but if I click on the arrow for the four others it does come up with that same page. The spelling of the family is incorrect; it should be Moss, but was transcribed as Mors for half the family and Mose for the others. That is the way I entered them and put a note with the first one that it should be Moss. Only the Mors are on the FMP page. However, I also have a match for one of the Mose names so hopefully contacting that person will clear up any questions, since it is the Moss name that has me tearing at my hair regarding the contradictory DNA matches.

When a household is split across two census pages a census reference search will only show the relatives on the first page; click the Household transcript icon to see the entire household (free when it's the 1881 Census).

 

[webwiz]

It would be convenient, if it's possible, to see the details of the other entry with which there is a close match. Otherwise if I have checked that my entry is correct and if the other party takes no action the only alternative that I can see is to play around with likely errors (s)he might have made - a lot of work with no guarantee of success. By the way if I get rid of the red ! does it also stop it appearing on the other party's list? If so it would seem better to leave it showing in the hope that the other party will check their entry.

 

[peter]

It would be convenient, if it's possible, to see the details of the other entry with which there is a close match. Otherwise if I have checked that my entry is correct and if the other party takes no action the only alternative that I can see is to play around with likely errors (s)he might have made - a lot of work with no guarantee of success.

All you need to do is check your entry very carefully, making sure that you follow the advice on the Edit ancestor form, then either alter it or confirm that it is correct. Entering incorrect data is counter-productive.

By the way if I get rid of the red ! does it also stop it appearing on the other party's list?

That depends whether you have corrected your entry or not. If you've confirmed that the information you had already entered was correct then there will still be an exclamation mark on the other member's page (assuming there is another member - there may not be).

 

[webwiz]

All you need to do is check your entry very carefully, making sure that you follow the advice on the Edit ancestor form, then either alter it or confirm that it is correct. Entering incorrect data is counter-productive.

Naturally I would correct it back again before exiting. That does not solve the problem that there appears to be a match with someone who has entered slightly different details (different sites have varying transcriptions, or they may have mistyped) but who looks like they could be a lost cousin, and I cannot communicate with them.

That depends whether you have corrected your entry or not. If you've confirmed that the information you had already entered was correct then there will still be an exclamation mark on the other member's page (assuming there is another member - there may not be).

What would cause that?

 

[Pauline]

What would cause that?

See this discussion - and #8 in particular.

 

[webwiz]

Thanks Pauline, I had not read that thread (at least I don't remember it). My latest red ! was an entry of a soldier in a barracks containing nearly 2000 men so a near match was quite likely.