search

FreeUKGen / MyopicVicar

MyopicVicar (short-sighted clergyman!) is an open-source genealogy record database and search engine. It powers the FreeREG database of parish registers, the FreeCEN database of census records, the next version of FreeBMD database of Civil Registration indexes and other Genealogical applications.
44 stars 15 forks source link

Adjust Report Data Error form for accessibility #1042

Closed AlOneill closed 7 years ago

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Not mentioned specifically in Shaw Report, but form shares similar issues with other public forms.

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Have a question about the preamble, which currently is:

"We are sorry that you feel the transcription may be in error. Please tell us why you believe we have misinterpreted the original record. We will adjust the record if, upon review of the original, we agree with your interpretation. Please be aware we do not adjust transcriptions based upon sources of information other than the original register."

@edickens @Captainkirkdawson @Sherlock21 : This seems to imply that we are not interested in correcting our typos in transcribing a transcript source. Is that the intention? (Perhaps "original register" does not mean what it seems to mean ...)

edickens commented 7 years ago 
We get emails saying that something is wrong but not providing any
evidence other than they have seen it on Ancestry or FamilySearch. 
So we do not accept any corrections without sight of an image of the
original register.  Even Bishops transcripts can be wrong.  E

  On 17/12/2016 16:48, AlOneill wrote:

  Have a question about the preamble, which currently is:
  "We are sorry that you feel the transcription may be in error.
    Please tell us why you believe we have misinterpreted the
    original record. We will adjust the record if, upon review of
    the original, we agree with your interpretation.
    Please be aware we do not adjust transcriptions based
      upon sources of information other than the original register."
  @edickens @Captainkirkdawson @Sherlock21 :
    This seems to imply that we are not interested in
    correcting our typos in transcribing a
    transcript source. Is that the intention? (Perhaps "original
    register" does not mean what it seems to mean ...)
Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

As usual you are correct. it likely should read, ..... original document we transcribed.

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 17 December 2016 at 10:24, Eric Dickens notifications@github.com wrote:

We get emails saying that something is wrong but not providing any evidence other than they have seen it on Ancestry or FamilySearch. So we do not accept any corrections without sight of an image of the original register. Even Bishops transcripts can be wrong. E

On 17/12/2016 16:48, AlOneill wrote:

Have a question about the preamble, which currently is: "We are sorry that you feel the transcription may be in error. Please tell us why you believe we have misinterpreted the original record. We will adjust the record if, upon review of the original, we agree with your interpretation. Please be aware we do not adjust transcriptions based upon sources of information other than the original register." @edickens @Captainkirkdawson @Sherlock21 : This seems to imply that we are not interested in correcting our typos in transcribing a transcript source. Is that the intention? (Perhaps "original register" does not mean what it seems to mean ...)

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/1042#issuecomment-267774997, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRlSNzMG6GQBS_HZo2RfGyjw93-X9ks5rJBrNgaJpZM4LOYis .

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Thanks, Kirk. Here is my suggestion:

"Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. If we agree with your interpretation of the original document we transcribed, we will change our record."

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

How about

Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. We will change our record If we agree with your interpretation of the original document.

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 19 December 2016 at 13:40, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks, Kirk. Here is my suggestion:

"Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. If we agree with your interpretation of the original document we transcribed, we will change our record."

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/1042#issuecomment-268072128, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRmAhdYCoPvFXbLjGof-mMlwY5cR-ks5rJuujgaJpZM4LOYis .

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Fair enough to put the if-clause second, but think we need to retain the notion of the source of that particular transcription. "Original" turns out to be ambiguous, again! So:

"Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. We will change our record if we agree with your interpretation of the source document we transcribed.

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

Good compromise

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 19 December 2016 at 15:43, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

Fair enough to put the if-clause second, but think we need to retain the notion of the source of that particular transcription. "Original" turns out to be ambiguous, again! So:

"Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. We will change our record if we agree with your interpretation of the source document we transcribed.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/1042#issuecomment-268100455, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRqaOEVP7mORl6vleiDOPVdTb7hCoks5rJwiGgaJpZM4LOYis .

edickens commented 7 years ago

The only thing about this now is that it does not allow for the researcher to send an images of the original registration. Sometimes (quite often) we no longer have access to the register image, but it the researcher has seen it (they may have visited the RO or Church) and sent us a copy, we will accept that. So that is not "the source document we transcribed". Also, if we have uploaded someone else's transcription, or a BT, then the researcher may be sending us more accurate information. We accept that. E

On 19/12/2016 23:13, Kirk Dawson wrote:

Good compromise

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 19 December 2016 at 15:43, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

Fair enough to put the if-clause second, but think we need to retain the notion of the source of that particular transcription. "Original" turns out to be ambiguous, again! So:

"Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. We will change our record if we agree with your interpretation of the source document we transcribed.

edickens commented 7 years ago

PS. The main point is that they need to provide evidence, and that evidence must be an original entry, not a transcription. E

On 20/12/2016 07:38, Eric Dickens-gmail wrote:

The only thing about this now is that it does not allow for the researcher to send an images of the original registration. Sometimes (quite often) we no longer have access to the register image, but it the researcher has seen it (they may have visited the RO or Church) and sent us a copy, we will accept that. So that is not "the source document we transcribed". Also, if we have uploaded someone else's transcription, or a BT, then the researcher may be sending us more accurate information. We accept that. E

On 19/12/2016 23:13, Kirk Dawson wrote:

Good compromise

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 19 December 2016 at 15:43, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

Fair enough to put the if-clause second, but think we need to retain the notion of the source of that particular transcription. "Original" turns out to be ambiguous, again! So:

"Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. We will change our record if we agree with your interpretation of the source document we transcribed.

Sherlock21 commented 7 years ago

I think any change in our Transcription must not be based on a researcher's family knowledge or on a different document to that which we used as our source.

So I agree with Kirk's suggested text 3 items above here.

PatReynolds commented 7 years ago

If we transcribe (correctly) the Bishop's Transcript (for example), but a researcher sends us an image of the PR, showing that an error crept into the BT, I think we should NOT ammend the BT transcription, but we should transcribe the PR, so that future researchers will be able to understand why others may include the 'wrong' data on their family tree. I think we have already decided that we will add notes if we don't have the image.

So the contact page should say something along the lines of: "Thank you for reporting a possible error in our transcription. We will change our record if we agree with your interpretation of the source document we transcribed. If you have access to a different document which has different evidence, please provide details so that we can attach a note to our transcription. We would be grateful if you could send us an image of the different document so that we may transcribe it.

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

@PatReynolds That seems eminently logical. How would it sit with the conditions described in http://www.freereg.org.uk/cms/information-for-transcribers/permission-to-transcribe

Those details are probably inappropriate for presenting to a Researcher -- but I would like to also update the Coord instructions for dealing with possible data errors so that everyone is clear what to do and how to respond in just such a situation.

PatReynolds commented 7 years ago

Hmm.. add for Researchers: " We would be grateful if you could send us an image of the different document so that we may transcribe it. Please note, some Record Offices and some websites allow you to make copies only for personal use - if you made a copy of a document under such restriction, we cannot use it."

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

Alison Will there be any css changes or other changes for this page. All I seem to have at this time is the test change

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Yes, there will be other changes: I have sorted out in html. Had a brief look at the erb file, but have not had a chance to do the work on it yet.

(Did not get notified of your prev comment. Have now restarted browser -- we shall see.)

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

When I submitted a Data Error Report with required fields not completed, I was surprised to get a Contact Us form returned.

Is this the expected behaviour??

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

Not sure I understand question.

The Data Error Report uses the Contact system in a specific manner with certain values preset

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 3 January 2017 at 09:46, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

When I submitted a Data Error Report with required fields not completed, I was surprised to get a Contact Us form returned.

Is this the expected behaviour??

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/1042#issuecomment-270160368, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRqXOhsNPJ6FkZbZ9JsfTkrmvvhySks5rOntPgaJpZM4LOYis .

AlOneill commented 7 years ago

Cannot repeat to double-check -- getting a 503 message when I click on link from Record Detail page. The error messages for the form were returned on a "Contact Us" page, rather than a "Data Problem Report" page, and a quick look at the hidden fields showed little evidence that I was attempting to report a possible transcription error.

Could this explain why some users appear to use the wrong form when reporting a possible transcription error?

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

I have colobus out of service at this point working on trying to resolve 1049.

Kirk Dawson 5220 Riverside Drive Fairmont Hot Springs, B.C. V0B 1L1

On 3 January 2017 at 10:12, AlOneill notifications@github.com wrote:

Cannot repeat to double-check -- getting a 503 message when I click on link from Record Detail page. The error messages for the form were returned on a "Contact Us" page, rather than a "Data Problem Report" page, and a quick look at the hidden fields showed little evidence that I was attempting to report a possible transcription error.

Could this explain why some users appear to use the wrong form when reporting a possible transcription error?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/FreeUKGen/MyopicVicar/issues/1042#issuecomment-270166893, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACvdRr9oneu_kWu_aljSLGIrhMWXaRj9ks5rOoFkgaJpZM4LOYis .

Captainkirkdawson commented 7 years ago

Deployed code changes from @AlOneill onto test3