80162054 Data Question - Zero year after UCF? (Julie Harold (Essex Coordinator))

[FreeUKGenIssues]

Issue reported by Julie Harold (Essex Coordinator) at 2017-07-16 19:14:14 UTC Time: 2017-07-16T19:10:53+00:00 Session ID: 1beed1fc103b79e42924677c9ea658e8 Problem Page URL: []() Previous Page URL: https://www.freereg.org.uk/contacts/new Reported Issue: On the parish transcripts listing some places have a start date of 0 rather than a year. What is the reason for this and is it in the plan of work to rectify it ? I suspect it is a partial date eg 1724. It must be confusing for users. I presume it is possible to set it as the first fully formed date in the sequence.

Julie

[SteveBiggs]

A start date of 0 is shown when at least one record in the batch does not have a valid year. Currently UCF is not supported in the year, so for example "179_" would result in a 0 start date.

[Sherlock21]

I m not suer if the Help notes have yet been updated, but the rule is: IF there is no full 4 digit year, then:- to "estimate" a year as best the transcriber can, based on the evidence one sees in the record - like the questionably year record is in the middle of a page of records for 1795, then you need to PUT 1795 in the transcription, AND a comment in the user note to the effect that " The date in the source was illegible or missing, and the date shown here in FR, is the best the researcher can offer so that the record will be returned in a search. Otherwise, the record will never get returned. The Researcher then can follow up however they wish."

[AlOneill]

The guidance currently reads:

"If the year is missing or illegible, then enter the most likely year from the position in the register, in the form yyyy? or yyyy/(0)y? as appropriate. Do not use any other UCF (Uncertain Character Format) for the year — 09 Feb 1723/4?, 20 Jun 1786?, 1828? (In the last example, the whole date is missing or illegible.)"

I believe this to be up to date, but it is not the same as given by EricB — he has no '?' after the year.

Which is correct, please?

[Sherlock21]

I prefer the version that does not have the "?" but does have a note telling everyone why that data is there, when its not in the Original document. - remember TWYS. Both methods work.

[helhyde]

832 and #852 suggest that this discrepancy is not yet resolved

On 23 July 2017 at 22:04, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

The guidance currently reads:

"If the year is missing or illegible, then enter the most likely year from the position in the register, in the form yyyy? or yyyy/(0)y? as appropriate. Do not use any other UCF (Uncertain Character Format) for the year — 09 Feb 1723/4?, 20 Jun 1786?, 1828? (In the last example, the whole date is missing or illegible.)"

I believe this to be up to date, but it is not the same as given by EricB — he has no '?' after the year.

Which is correct, please?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/FreeUKRegProductIssues/issues/982#issuecomment-317282058, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANXTHXlBfcMx5YNjhltM-ij4_XDSrnrbks5sQ7VzgaJpZM4OacWX .

-- - -

Dr Pat Reynolds Executive Director Free UK Genealogy http://www.freeukgenealogy.org.uk/ A Charitable Incorporated Organisation registered in England and Wales, number 1167484 VAT registration: 233 0105 70

​+44 ​1723 362616 ​ +44 7943 145387 Westwood House,Westwood, Scarborough YO11 2JD, UK

[richpomfret]

@Captainkirkdawson to investigate all such issues and to merge into a single story (or two).

[Captainkirkdawson]

1259 replaces