Managing reference checking

[jorghes]

Although this seems like a simple solution, I can see a couple of potential flaws for someone who has just uploaded a large number of entries in one go:
1) Reference checking only needs to be done for one member of each household, but when sorting by Date of entry household groupings disappear
2) It will quite likely not be possible to do all the subsequent reference checking in one go, so some additional way of knowing which households haven't yet been checked is still necessary

I tend to copy and find the census reference when I'm looking for separate members of the same household (CTRL + F) on the LostCousins page and that way it will tell me immediately how many I have to check (but it can take some movement!)

Yes, that's right. Entries uploaded using FTA are (in my experience and that of jorghes - see post #16) often not uploaded in strict household order - fairly close, but separated enough that you may lose track of where you are up to in checking.

Not even that close - I have had members of the same household separated by almost 50 other entries, and I have instances where one member failed the first time and was then added later, or a member was completely left out and I added them manually.

 

[peter]

I've made some changes to the date order sort. Instead of sorting by date and time, it now sorts by date only (ie ignoring the time), then sorts the entries on that date by census, and finally by household.

I think you will find it more convenient - households will only be split if members were entered on more than one day.

(If you want you can still see the precise date and time of entry by clicking Show more detail.)

 

[pjd]

I have just installed the FTAnalyzer Mac version 1.2.0 & am very impressed
So useful not just for uploading to LC but for checking errors, omissions etc
Many thanks to all of you who have developed & tested the programme

 

[peter]

I have just installed the FTAnalyzer Mac version 1.2.0 & am very impressed
So useful not just for uploading to LC but for checking errors, omissions etc
Many thanks to all of you who have developed & tested the programme

The programming is all down to Alexander, but I'm sure he would be the first to agree how useful it has been to have a small army of willing and enthusiastic testers!

 

[OnceAGeordie]

At present there is NO WAY to see what has been checked and what hasn't. Since the entire validity of the database depends on whether the records are accurate and Peter is so adamant that users should be checking how does anyone know whether they have checked their records or not.

Okay, so for my first post(!) I thought I'd show what I do for checking. I have used FTAnalyser to successfully upload somewhere in the region of 5-6,000 records, and am slowly working my way through checking them, one by one for accuracy. I don't believe that just checking the first or head entry is enough, as probably 50% of my records are incorrect and need editing. This is not necessarily FTAs fault but actually mine, as I have successfully expanded and proven the full names of my records by checking various censuses, BMD register entries, certificates etc. etc. so I have a lot of middle names to go with my christian names. In the 1881 census it is mainly christian names plus an occasional Initial for middle name. FTA will submit my full christian and middle name and the entry will be incorrect as far as LostCousins is concerned. SO I have to check each record.

I have two windows open - Ancestry on the left, showing my tree and LostCousins on the right showing MyAncestors:



On my Ancestry tree I search for the oldest person in the family group shown on the right e.g. Thomas Eggleston. I then view the census entry for the 1881 census. This then shows all the members of the household and their ages.

If you look at the list of MyAncestors on the LostCousins screen, you will see a logo alongside each name that has been entered by FTA. Initially I thought this was an FTA logo added by FTA, but have recently realised it just shows that there are notes on the record. Up until now I have done the Following:

Click on the first name that needs checking (cos it's got the logo). Then on the edit screen amend the record so it shows the correct info from the census record on the left screen. At the bottom of the edit screen is a notes section. In this notes section it says "Added_By_FTAnalyzer". I delete this text and click the SAVE button to save the record. After a little while MyAncestors comes back to the point I was at previously and the logo alongside the name has gone. This is how I know that I have checked, edited and saved the record. Anything that has the logo still needs checking. I then check the next record in the household etc.

The only thing I was not happy about doing it this way was removing any reference to Alex's brilliant program! So here's my new idea, instead of deleting "Added_By_FTAnalyzer" I position the cursor at the beginning of the text and press WINDOWS-KEY + . - This brings up (on Windows 10) the Emoji panel. I select the Thumbs Up and paste it in to the notes section before the existing text. Now click save. When MyAncestors refreshes the list will look the same. HOWEVER, if you move the cursor over the logo, you will now see the following:


This shows that the record was uploaded by FTAnalyzer (yay!) AND that it has been checked, edited and saved.
So in future, all I have to do is move the cursor over the logos to find the next item to check.

I have never used the "Arrow Key" to check the entries on FMP as I find it a lot easier to use Ancestry. This also ensures that I am using the correct transcription. Any possible solution involving the "Arrow Key" would I'm afraid be useless to me. By utilising my approach I can show that a record has been checked and it doesn't involve any re-programming on the MyAncestors page.

Alexander, I don't honestly think that you can make things much easier for checking, the more accurate a persons GEDCOM is the more likely a record will have to be edited. I know I'm going to have to check individually every record that FTA has uploaded and I am happy to do that. It's just going to take forever!

I am open to any suggestions that may help to fine-tune this.

Dale

 

[Bryman]

I have used FTAnalyser to successfully upload somewhere in the region of 5-6,000 records, and am slowly working my way through checking them, one by one for accuracy. I don't believe that just checking the first or head entry is enough, as probably 50% of my records are incorrect and need editing.

Well done! Firstly, for loading so many references. That should get you a lot of new contacts. Secondly, for being prepared to check so many entries. Thirdly, for finding a simple way to indicate that records have/not been checked and for not requiring any changes to the LC system. I am sure that Peter will be most appreciative.

Just one question though. Why do you need to keep an indication that the reference was added to LC by FTA? I am sure that Alexander would not mind you removing the note. I have done just that after I have checked that a reference has been added correctly. Once verified, I see no need to keep the FTA notification as the entry in LC is then the same as would have been manually entered. Or have I missed something important (** see later)?

However, this does nothing to lessen the amount of checking required. Checking 5-6,000 entries is an enormous task and I wish you well with that. Good luck. Unfortunately, I know of several other members who would not want to tackle such a large number of checks and would question whether the fast automated load by FTA is still worth doing in that case.

Previously, I have suggested that the number of updates performed by FTA in one run could be limited so that there would not be so many checks needed immediately. Alexander, am I right in believing that FTA looks at the contents of the census before adding a new reference? If that is correct then could there be an option within FTA for additions only to be to made to LC if the contents 'match' the GEDCOM values, thus making a subsequent manual check less important, or even unnecessary? Perhaps in such cases FTA would then not insert the note leading to the paper clip identification and hence there would be one less record to be checked by the user (subject to ** above).

 

[Pauline]

I don't believe that just checking the first or head entry is enough

Yes, my comment on this only applies if you are using the reference checking arrow for it’s original purpose - that is, checking the reference!

 

[CathyR]

[QUOTE=" HOWEVER, if you move the cursor over the logo, you will now see the following:
View attachment 1541
Dale[/QUOTE]

Wow! What a tree! I had absolutely no idea that mousing over the note paperclip would show the content of the note - that really does make it SO easy to see which ones have been checked! Thank you very much!

 

[peter]

I have never used the "Arrow Key" to check the entries on FMP as I find it a lot easier to use Ancestry. This also ensures that I am using the correct transcription. Any possible solution involving the "Arrow Key" would I'm afraid be useless to me.

What, even if the arrow linked to Ancestry for the England & Wales 1881 census (as it already does for the Scotland census)?

 

[peter]

I had absolutely no idea that mousing over the note paperclip would show the content of the note

It's not just the paperclip that gives you information when you mouse over it - most of the links on the My Ancestors page do this. And it's the same at many other sites - one reason why using a tablet or smartphone to research your family tree isn't ideal.

 

[Helen7]

It's not just the paperclip that gives you information when you mouse over it - most of the links on the My Ancestors page do this.

Yes, and I notice that mousing over the birth year shows you the age - useful for the mathematically challenged (like me) when comparing with the Ancestry transcript showing age rather than birth year.

 

[Bryman]

What, even if the arrow linked to Ancestry for the England & Wales 1881 census (as it already does for the Scotland census)?

I have recently discovered several 4th cousins in Canada and USA, as the result of Peter's persistence in trying to get responses (thank you Peter), so have been entering references from the Canadian 1881 census and was surprised to find the check arrow alongside those. When clicked, a link was made to the Family Search transcription, so not all links are to FMP.

 

[Helen7]

I have never used the "Arrow Key" to check the entries on FMP as I find it a lot easier to use Ancestry.

I generally find the arrow key useful for 1841 and 1911 censuses. For 1881 I use Ancestry as the definitive transcription (and I have found quite a few small discrepancies with the FMP one).

However, recently I had a '0 matches' return on the FMP link for a family on the 1841 census which I had entered manually from the Ancestry record (and taken care to correct the incorrect folio number!). On searching for this census on FMP by location and by reference, I found this particular hamlet (Thornhill in Derbyshire, piece: 186, book: 18, 6 pages) only has the final page transcribed on FMP, the other 5 pages appear to be missing (well, you can navigate to the images from the final page, but they are illegible). It got me wondering how common such omissions might be on FMP?

 

[peter]

Yes, and I notice that mousing over the birth year shows you the age - useful for the mathematically challenged (like me) when comparing with the Ancestry transcript showing age rather than birth year.

Good point - that's another reason why I stuck with Findmypast when the arrow began to be used for more than just reference checking. The near match algorithm doesn't allow for differences in age, but it does allow for differences in names (which account for most of the relevant corrections at Findmypast).

I went to school in the days when the only calculators were slide rules, log tables, comptometers, and other mechanical devices with handles (my uncle and aunt who ran a shop had an Olivetti adding machine). But 'she who must be obeyed', who is younger than me, can't do mental arithmetic for toffee.

 

[peter]

have been entering references from the Canadian 1881 census and was surprised to find the check arrow alongside those. When clicked, a link was made to the Family Search transcription

Please note that the arrow doesn't check the census references - this isn't possible at FamilySearch, unfortunately.

 

[trebor]

Tim, I haven't just added this feature - it has been in place since 2014. It's likely that most of the members who are ever going to check their entries have already done it.

The main exception will be the members who are using FTA to input new entries, and it's because FTA has only offered this option since December that I suggested that they could sort their My Ancestors page by date.

Sorry Peter but I disagree. I added most of my entries before the button was added and none of those have been checked primarily for all of the reasons Alexander has highlighted. I stopped adding new records for some time and for various reasons not excluding laziness. When I used FTA to upload the missing records it was a real pain to keep track of which ones I had checked but I persisted after getting a match after making a correction. There is a very strong likelihood that after checking my older entries more matches may appear but I don't relish the prospect of managing the checking process.
Alexander's suggestions would make the task much easier and therefore encourage me to do it. I am sure that I am not the only one in this situation.

 

[peter]

Sorry Peter but I disagree

Precisely what is it that stops you sorting your My Ancestors page by date and working through in date order (starting with the oldest entries, of course). It would work for me - so why wouldn't it work for you?

 

[trebor]

Precisely what is it that stops you sorting your My Ancestors page by date and working through in date order (starting with the oldest entries, of course). It would work for me - so why wouldn't it work for you?

When sorted by date the records are all over the place (as already mentioned) so you keep going back to the same data time again. Sorted by family simplifies the task but it is not easy to remember who has been checked especially if new records are entered. A simple mark to indicate that an entry has been checked would make the whole process easier - I could drop in and out to check entries as and when I have time without having to keep a log of what has been done.

 

[peter]

When sorted by date the records are all over the place (as already mentioned)

And in response to this I changed the sort a week ago (as already mentioned).

 

[CathyR]

When sorted by date the records are all over the place (as already mentioned) so you keep going back to the same data time again. Sorted by family simplifies the task but it is not easy to remember who has been checked especially if new records are entered. A simple mark to indicate that an entry has been checked would make the whole process easier - I could drop in and out to check entries as and when I have time without having to keep a log of what has been done.

Trebor, why don't you do as was suggested some posts back & which works beautifully, in my opinion, and write yourself a note in the Note space to say you've checked it. Then mouse over the paperclip symbol to see what it says in the Ancestors List & you'd know immediately if you'd checked that one or not.

I don't know how to paste my screen shot into this so I hope you understand what I mean from the words.