FamilySearch is allowing the editing of some index entries in their online indexes to record images. It’s a great way to correct indexing errors that can easily be made. That’s a good thing. It makes it easier for users to find their person in the database index.
According to a blog post on the FamilySearch site index editing can be done when the original is wrong.
Nope. Correcting an index entry to reflect what is written in the actual record is one thing. “Fixing” the original record is not.
Just nope.
Teresa says:
I agree with you – yes, correct the incorrect index if the indexer made a mistake interpreting what they saw, but NEVER make a change to “correct” the record. That will just muddy things even further. Consistent spelling is relatively new – we can’t change historical documents based on our modern ideas, or even if it’s a case of an enumerator hearing the name, but misspelling it. That’s what he wrote, and that’s how it should be indexed.
EDWARD FITTS says:
That can be a double edged sword. Someone could edit a “change” to be hurtful such as a disgruntled family member or someone who believes something he/she found and “correct” the index. I think that before an index is changed supporting proof must be submitted.
Kathryn Schultz says:
Shouldn’t there be a way to add correct information in a note without “correcting” the original record? I agree the original recird can never be tampered with. It says what it says, right or wrong.
mjnrootdig says:
I would suggest making a comment if the record has been linked to a person in their “one tree.”
Dana says:
This is some of the best news I’ve heard in years. The death certificate for my great-grandmother was indexed as “Ro…”. Admittedly the writing is difficult to read, but I knew it should have been Rahm, my family name. When I wrote to Family Search, I was told that since it was indexed (by someone for Family Search) it could not be changed even though two letters out of four had not been transcribed at all. This is not a case where the name was misspelled; it was just difficult for the indexer to figure it out. I was surprised that Ancestry accepted my suggestion as an alternative.