Deb, With respect, may I ask you to read the etiquette link at the end of every post, where you will find that posts in HTML are not allowed and must be in Plain Test.
In particular I suffer from slight colour blindness with blue/greens and as a consequence can hardly read your posts. I would, therefore, be grateful if you would change this. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ From: Deb Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:55 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Slight OT: [LegacyUG] It's official - Legacy 7.5 is now available Gene & others. The IGI can not be edited. It is an index of individuals (real or not) for whom an ordinance was performed at a specified Temple on a specified date. The information given in the index which is claimed to be wrong merely identifies the individual/individuals (existing or not) for whom these ordinances were performed. Yes there are persons identified who never existed. (John Doe married Jane Smith on 12 januvember 1429 ss 12 Jun 1993 Atlan.) On Jun 12 1993, someone requested and had performed a spousal sealing of a John Doe and Jane Smith who were married on the 12th of Januvember 1429).. If there never was a john doe and Jane Smith who were married, or if the date or place of a factual marriage was different, then the ordinance was not for them.... Our family has been blessed to have an uncle who wrote a letter about his family and their whereabouts in 1895. He goes back to some ancient history (1790-1820), and makes an innocent comment about "his uncle John Weaver", and because of that one comment, there have been about 20 people misidentified in the family. Many of these show up in the IGI. There are an additional 7 of his nieces misnamed and given incorrect spouses.. I have found many similar errors in Census Indices, marriage transcriptions, cemetery records etc. Regardless of the source, or the informant, all data should be carefully evaluated. The IGI is merely a "pointing" tool to help you identify a place or person to who you might look further. Stepping off my soapbox now.. Deb -------Original Message------- From: Gene Adams Date: 1/18/2011 7:31:50 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] It's official - Legacy 7.5 is now available The problem is that there is a repetitive mistake in records that have no capability of being changed. I have asked at the desk in Salt Lake how to correct massive errors on an entire family that is listed in the IGI. Not possible. So anyone tracing the family will be looking for records in "MD" [Maryland], when it should be MO [Missouri], or worse yet repeating the bad information. Stubby fingers entering data should be correctable...as well as the middle name of my grandmother. Gene A From: Eliz Hanebury <elizhg...@gmail.com> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 3:11:32 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] It's official - Legacy 7.5 is now available They do each record twice and then it goes to an arbitrator. I have family where the year changed by 3 seemingly at random. Eliz On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jennifer Crockett <jcrock...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Well it doesn't give me much faith that any of the records can be taken at > face value. Instead of a mad rush to index everything, surely cross > checking, or having at least one other person verify correct recording > should have taken place. If the image was available it wouldn't matter so > much. > > Regards, > > Jennifer > http://colston-wenck.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliz Hanebury [mailto:elizhg...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 19 January 2011 9:47 AM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] It's official - Legacy 7.5 is now available > > I have to say, the errors are often of the people giving and taking > down information. There is currently no way to correct errors, they > [Support at familysearch] say some day there will be, but they are > concentrating on making a site that will work. > > > Eliz > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Jennifer Crockett > <jcrock...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> I am not LDS. I have accessed one of the new collections recently and >> found errors. What can one do about this? See below. The bride's date of >> birth should be 6 July 1837 not 6 Dec 1837. The place of marriage was not >> Karby, but Redsted. I know this from the online Danish Archives which >> show original images. I verified the correct details with the image of >> the marriage record and the death record for Else Anderson. >> >> Denmark Marriages, 1635-1916 >> >> Groom's Name: Peter Villadsen >> Groom's Age: 24 >> Bride's Name: Else Andersen >> Bride's Birth Date: 06 Dec 1837 >> Bride's Age: 29 >> Marriage Date: 12 Oct 1866 >> Marriage Place: Karby, Thisted, Denmark >> >> Indexing Project (Batch) Number: M01212-8 >> System Origin: Denmark-EASy >> Source Film Number: 410117 >> Reference Number: 5-185-6 >> >> There was no image associated with this LDS record. I just want to warn >> people that not all these types of records are error free. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jennifer > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
