Talk:FamilySearch Indexing: New Zealand–Passenger Lists, 1871-1915, Project Updates

Help us improve the indexing and arbitration of this project. Click the Edit This Page button to make suggestions. Messages will be removed after careful review by support and any updates will be posted to the Project Updates page.

Many commonly asked questions, such as indexing crossed out information, have already been answered in the Basic indexing instructions.

Occupations
Many thanks for the clarification re abbreviations in the Occupation field - it's now clear what is wanted, and will help to achieve consistency in indexing and arbitration.

I'm unhappy, though, re the issue of a single entry for all passengers spanning the whole occupation column.

The rule "If more than one occupation is listed, index only the first one" applies without any problem where more than one occupation is listed for an individual passenger. For example, if the form lists a passenger's occupation as "Dressmaker and Milliner", both of these occupations are true for that passenger, so indexing that passenger as a dressmaker is still indexing accurate information about that passenger, even if it leaves out some information.

However, if you have a ship full of chimney sweeps and vicars, and the person who filled out the passenger list simply wrote one entry, vertically, across the whole Occupation column, summarising that shipload of passengers as "Chimney Sweeps and Vicars", indexing them all as chimney sweeps results in the wrong information being indexed for some passengers, since each passenger is EITHER a chimney sweep OR a vicar. It's not the same as saying that each of the passengers is both a chimney sweep AND a vicar.

I do understand the need to simplify, as much as possible, the work of transcribing and indexing these documents, and that it's not our job to correct what was written on the original documents if the original data is wrong in some way. But surely we shouldn't be allowing the need for simplicity to result in us knowingly and deliberately distorting the original information and indexing wrong data which doesn't actually reflect what was originally recorded? - Dms246 21:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ship Departure and Arrival Port
Having indexed a fair number of batches for this project, I'm seeing a lot of confusion about what should be entered in the "Arrival Port" and "Departure Port" fields, and when. I can't find any detailed guidance on this in the project instructions, field helps or project updates, and I haven't been able to find anything in the forums about these specific issues.

Some lists are clearly filed on the ship's departure from a specific port, listing the passengers who embarked at that port. Does that port count as "Departure Port"? Some arbitrators think it does, some don't. It isn't clear what is actually wanted in that field - perhaps it should only index the port that was the start point of the ship's voyage? E.g. a few forms do specifically refer to the ship's overall voyage as being from A to F, though it might calling at C, D and E along the way. Most forms don't give that information, so if that's the specific information wanted in the "Departure Port" field, then most of the time it should be left blank.

As for the "Arrival Port" field - some of the forms that are filed at the point when a ship is leaving a specific port specify the ship's destination in New Zealand - it's unclear if that should be indexed as "Arrival Port" despite the fact that, at the time that form was filed, the ship hadn't actually got there yet. Or should it only be indexed for forms which actually relate to the ships arrival? And what about the forms which were filed on the ship's arrival at a port outside of New Zealand, after sailing from a New Zealand port? Does that count as an "arrival port"?

As I said above, I'm seeing all sorts of different approaches to these issues in the arbitration results that are coming back on the batches I've indexed, so I think clarification on these questions would be immensely helpful. - Dms246 21:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

'''We will respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your comments.'''