Geni consistency & plausibility checker

Started by Private User on Saturday, April 29, 2017
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 301-330 of 503 posts

I'd argue that Byzantine Emperor is not a name element and should not be in the suffix. It should be in the Title or Display Name only.

i agree Private User but he isnt adding it to the display name hes just going through the medieval tree and wiping out all the suffixes

I see - it needs to append to suffix if a suffix already exists or perhaps if there is already a suffix, don't warn.

I'll add code that ignores the warning if a suffix already exists.

Jason Scott Wills
That is an outrageous suggestion! Please withdraw it.

Jason, I have been very patient with you, responding politely to your brusk demands over the past few years.

The reality of this incident is that it was you that placed the IV suffix into the first name field and it was you that put the title Byzantine Emperor into the suffix field.

All I am 'guilty' of is responding to the Consistency Check which broke your incorrectly placed inputs.

I think an apology is due.

Regards

Will

Private User
Jeff

I agree with the first part of your solution but not the second 'I'll add code that ignores the warning if a suffix already exists'. As in the case of Jason, even experienced Curators put key information in the wrong place and I'm inclined to feel the default assumption should be that whatever is entered could be valuable and it is a safer option to combine the two in the suffix field (something which could be edited later. What happened in the issue I reported was that one item of key data overwrote the other so I didn't have an opportunity to correct it. As I explained at length to Jason in separate correspondence, I have a special affinity with the Byzantine Empire and there is no way that I would have removed the title (or not replaced it) if I had known it was there.

Cheers

Will

Could add a new check for when a suffix exceeds a certain length.

Jeff,
I tried your suggestion in https://www.geni.com/discussions/167766?msg=1175289 and it does seem to help a bit. but it does not seem to fix things like "van Der Velden"
(which should be "van der Velden")

For a single page, this could mean some 40 the same corrections.

"van der" is not one of the prefixes it recognizes. I'll have to add it. It does support "van", which is what you're seeing.

Jeff, thanks.
How many could you support?
I must have a list somewhere with a few dozens of entries, the ones I gave earlier are the most common and those would help a lot.

Private User

Jeff

Here is another example where 'fixing' the inconsistency in the first name field would wipe out the 'title' in the suffix field.

Alexander III, King of the Scots

I've also noticed a number of profiles that contain a suffix in parentheses e.g.
(IV) that appear not to be being picked up as an inconsistency. I'll send you a link to the next one I find.

Jeff,
just to put this out there, the double-quotes character also causes problems for the consistency checker. For example, the profiles around here, Private, "contains incorrect use of uppercase/lowercase" in the names. What is interesting is that these profiles do NOT have anything in the English fields. If you press the "fix it" link, SOME of the Hebrew data gets copied into the English fields.

The consistency checker should probably not be doing much checking of non-English text, but I suspect it's the bleed-through that's contributing to the issue here.

Jeff,

You may have some problems with a non-default data format in Geni.
I get a warning Death date of Barbara Claesdr van Hillenaer (javascript:openEditCard("6000000028295687500");%20void%200) is after her burial date.
date format: (dd/mm/yyyy)
death:11/3/1699
burial: 14/3/1669

Check the year :)

Jeff, sorry it getting time for bed. :)

v. 4.3.8 Odd consistency check:

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America

Declares birth before marriage, when there is no marriage date (as it is with a 'partner', not a spouse).

Oddly, it does give a date and location. If you change it from partner to spouse, those values exist. The date in there is 1795.

Ah... I have seen that before where the UI "hides" fields not deemed relevant.

A similar thing happens when you have a death date, then set the profile to Living; the death date is still in it's field, just no longer shown.

An idea just occurred to me that might be an easy time saving fix for the inconsistency that doesn't recognise, England, Scotland and Wales as bonafide countries. I say time-saving because if you take a look at https://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000000112134028#60000000... you will see how frequently one can be faced with this issue.
My suggestion is to have a click-fix that will insert 'UK' as the country when the inconsistency is precipitated by a 'region' named England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI).

Will Chapman (Vol. Curator) -- that takes us into the issue of what the criteria are for place names in the older profiles.

Though Wales and Scotland and Ireland got subsumed earlier, nobody was actually born into the United Kingdom until 1801, when that title became official..

So the problem is, do we enter the place where people were born, or do we enter the place where you would go now, if you wanted to see it?

Anne - so much revolves around being able to prove / substantiate our information, isn't the most likely place for information is where it is maintained / stored? Would that then not necessitate calling a place by its current name? If the original name had any consequence then it could be noted in the about section.

Previously U.K. curators begged us not to use United Kingdom before it existed.

For the United States I feel strongly the same way. It is jarring to see it in the country field before it existed.

(I believe it is entirely different for Europe with its shifting borders and figuring out where the archive might be now an important problem to solve.)

Erica - not aware of the "C"s previous requests. It was just a thought ...

I agree with Erica re using a place name before it existed.

I would much prefer to see Van Diemans Land (now Tasmania, Australia)

Leanne - I hear you - and I consider myself fairly geographically knowledgeable, BUT on the other hand I would have to look up Van Diemans Land and NOT Tasmania.

Rick, that's why I like the whole name - helps with looking up records with both names

Van Diemans Land (now Tasmania, Australia)
or
Bombay (now Mumbai, India)

I like the added Now This Is Where You Look info, in parenthesis. Very clear and helpful.

We had tried that in Colonial America and gotten other curator objections. :(

I use it in the “place” field.

For example

Place: Newtown, now
City: Cambridge
County: Middlesex County
State: Massachusetts Bay Colony*
County: Colonial America

* this is anachronistic as it wasn’t a state yet ...

For Australia Private User you may not have the same difficulties reaching a consensus

Showing 301-330 of 503 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion