tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post8807030979525770397..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: FSI My AccuracyThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-72485462985139738242011-10-06T17:32:15.947-06:002011-10-06T17:32:15.947-06:00A bit late in adding to this theme - but whilst th...A bit late in adding to this theme - but whilst the 2 indexers/arbitration scheme sound good . . . in practice the arbitration is AWFUL! <br /><br />I live in England and am eager to help with the ongoing 1871 census project . . . was interesting to see an entry for he town I live in (Newent, Gloucestershire). . . was a little difficult to read but being familiar with these place names was definitely "Newent" and I entered it as such . . . bearing in mind the instructions to indexers . . . "If the town or city was misspelled, spell it correctly."<br />Needless to say, the arbitrator has changed this to "Newertt" - of course thee is no such place. I find on any 1871 batch the arbitrator invariably changes some my entered place names to a totally nonsense interpretation of the place name . . . and must be happening on the majority of 1871 batches. The end result if not reformed, will be a joke - or laughing stock full of totally incomprehensible nonsense place names.<br /> <br />When entering any difficult to decipher place name I always check it against a British Isles Gazetteer . . . why cannot arbitrators be instructed that if they change an indexers entry that the arbitrators version should be checked against a Gazetteer of British place names? I use and would recommend . . . <br />http://www.gazetteer.co.uk<br />===StewartStewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07139140711469156312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-28981760230684806622011-08-31T13:00:45.070-06:002011-08-31T13:00:45.070-06:00I have complained forcefully to FamilySearch Index...I have complained forcefully to FamilySearch Indexing about not being able to give reasons for disagreeing with the arbitrator. It seems silly to not allow this. Perhaps you could use your contacts to encourage them to provide for this in the future, hopefully the near future.<br /><br />I also wondered to them whether anyone really looks at the instances where the Please Review box is checked. Here is the relevant part of their reply: "Thank you for contacting FamilySearch. We appreciate your feedback on My Accuracy. We are pleased that you are finding the feature useful. We know that it is frustrating when the arbitrators do not follow the field helps and project instructions and updates. We ask that you continue to send feedback when you disagree with their findings. These are reviewed by the My Accuracy project team and taken seriously. At this time there is no way to see the final results or to interact directly with the arbitrators." So it appears they actually do have a "My Accuracy project team" that reviews our disagreements with arbitrators. I wonder what the members of that team would say to having comments explaining the reason for disagreement. I bet a very high percentage of them would want that kind of feedback.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00448728584336207199noreply@blogger.com