|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 25, 2011 9:09:15 GMT -5
For those of you who are using FamilySearch I have a few words of advice! You don't really get much choice about using it really and unless you have a bookmarked link to IGI have to access it through FamilySearch. I have let it be known on numerous occasions what I think of IGI but have maintained that it is a useful tool so long as you check everything you find. Those in control are trying to make out that the new FamilySearch site is the 'bees knees' and far superior to IGI and went to all the trouble of hiding the link to IGI in very fine print at the bottom of the screen when they first brought it online. They eventually bowed to pressure and made the IGI link more visible which is about the only smart thing they have managed to do outside putting the Cornwall PRs back online again! I keep having to revert back to IGI to find things that just are not in FamilySearch and it is damned frustrating. Also frustrating is that the people at FamilySearch are not interested in hearing about problems or errors. They only seem to want to hear from you if you have something positive to say or if you have a suggestion they like for improving the site. Of course if you were to offer a suggestion that they could improve the site by fixing errors then they probably wouldn't like to hear from you! Well tonight I found something that needs fixing and, of course, there seems to be no way to let them know about it ................... because it is a problem and doesn't seem to come under 'Feedback'! I was checking to see what Burials FamilySearch had for the name Andrew Berryman or Andrew Berriman and the first two that caught my eye are the ones causing concern. Both items appear under the heading 'England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991' Andrew Berryman Burial Date 22 Mar 1771 Burial Place St Ives, Cornwall, England Father's Name Richard Berryman Mother's Name Elizabeth Berryman Indexing Project I04076-7 Source Film 1595570 Andrew Berryman Burial Date 11 Jun 1771 Burial Place St Ives, Cornwall, England Father's Name Mark Berryman Mother's Name Jane Berryman Indexing Project I04076-7 Source Film 1595570 Well guess what folks? - THESE EVENTS ARE ACTUALLY BOTH DAMNED BAPTISMS! So I would advise anyone using FamilySearch to treat it with even more caution than IGI! - The Phantom Raspberry Blower strikes again! ;D CT
|
|
|
Post by sue on Aug 25, 2011 18:06:38 GMT -5
Well, there's unsourced/made up IGI entries, transcription errors - but transposition of baptism/burial really just shouldn't happen I know it's a Big Project, but FamilySearch really should have a simple way to feed back errors for them to check, then get corrected. Sue
|
|
|
Post by donne on Aug 26, 2011 13:15:06 GMT -5
Well, I don't like familysearch any more than CT, and I always have to hand the link to the old IGI site. As CT advises, one should always check the information on IGI or familysearch from the sources. However, the fact is that there is new material appearing on familysearch which is additional to that on the IGI, notably censuses, burials and more extensive transcription of registers. You may very well turn up the clue you are looking for to progress your research further. The instance cited by CT is a glaring error though and it's a pity that familysearch does not have a way of handling corrections like FreeBMD does, for example.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 26, 2011 23:05:28 GMT -5
As far as the IGI goes, it is just an index. As others have said, use it as a guide to the primary record sources that you then will want to check in order to confirm a relationship or a pedigree.
Personally I prefer the fiche or the original IGI CD computer program over what came later. As far as I could see you could not do a 'parent search" on the later online version of the IGI, unless you had both the names of the father AND the mother, which I found very frustrating given that in many (usually older) instances only the father's name was given in the original christening record. The older CD version allowed you to search for children by the father's name only which in my view is absolutely necessary to be able to do. Not only that, but the search results in the online version were not ordered by date which was frustrating when dealing with names that were common not only in Cornwall but also elsewhere in the UK.
The fiche at least are arranged in county by county order and within each county listing they are in date order within alphabetical order by given name. In some situations I think using the fiche, if you have access to them, is probably the better choice.
On the point of patron submissions to the IGI, it should be pointed out that some of these can still be valuable as some are based on transcriptions from original records. You can write to Salt Lake to request the sources for particular patron entries. I have done this and was able to confirm in one instance that a particular submission came from a BT that was not otherwise included in the IGI, and I have since seen the original BT record for myself. In another instance I was given contact details for the submitter who I was then able to correspond with.
Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Aug 27, 2011 5:24:24 GMT -5
Thanks Trencrom for an informative post, especially on how to make contact with submitters Do you normally send an international reply coupon to Salt Lake City? The old fiche system worked well and i still retain copies (somewhere lol!) of the Angove listings from the 1970's I have a local Latter Day Saints church some 15 miles from me in Lincoln, and have used them in the past for ordering fiche in. Certainly less travelling than going to Truro, where the CFHS have some very good (if incomplete ) indexes that can save a lot of scrolling through the parish films. Best wishes Mike, in slightly damp St Just for just another 24 hours - Newlyn raft race tomorrow for a laugh before I go home.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 28, 2011 3:50:18 GMT -5
Good to see that people are taking some notice of this discussion. The message was initially a result of angry frustration but certainly important enough to reinforce the message that IGI and FamilySearch should be used only as guides. Unless viewing the images of original documents in FamilySearch then any information found should be used with caution. And the example I quoted of Baptisms being recorded as Burials is clear proof of this. I am certainly not advocating that people stop using either of these resources and I use them both everyday myself. But once I have found something that may be what I am looking for I then turn to other resources to further my search. Trencrom - with FamilySearch you can search with much wider parameters then IGI and in some ways it is a 'throw-back' to the early IGI setup. You can enter a first name or a last name and search for any entries with (for example) Prudence as the mother and this can be filtered to within specified time-frames. And you can also now search using Batch Numbers. With IGI you can also search using Surname only and with one or other or both parents names inserted. BUT this can only be done if you have the Batch Number. The problem I have found is that FamilySearch, for all its hype, does not have all the entries that can be found in IGI. By that I do not mean all the Ancestral File anomilies that clutter IGI. I am referring to actual legitimate extracted records from the Parish Registers. So if you cannot find something in FamilySearch that you know should be there then simply go to the 'Old Search' and use IGI to find it. CT
|
|
|
Post by sue on Aug 28, 2011 6:35:38 GMT -5
I've been doing some searching in the US these last few days, for which FamilySearch is invaluable to me, and was just trying to finalise something this morning..... US 1900 census collection now says Last Updated 28 Aug 2011. And I can no longer find the things I saw yesterday, and other people I know are there as I am testing it by reverse searching from images I hold. And the listings it does come up with are now skeletal on detail (yes, I am signed in.) Pretty Please this is a blip whilst the new update settles in......... Fingers Crossed tightly. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 28, 2011 12:15:41 GMT -5
Sounds like the old 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' in reverse! Someone apparently does not have enough work to do so what do you do in a case like this - it's obvious ............. you create something to do! Now, this seems to be working okay so how about I break it . I might upset a few people along the way but they don't matter so long as I've got something to do. Oops and Bugger! It's all broke now and I don't know how to fix it! - The Phantom Raspberry Blower strikes again!
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 31, 2011 4:24:28 GMT -5
Thanks Trencrom for an informative post, especially on how to make contact with submitters Do you normally send an international reply coupon to Salt Lake City? quote] I haven't written to them in a while but I think I probably did include one. They sent me printouts with the details of the submitter or the record source used. I still use the fiche from time to time, not just for IGI but also for the LDS county locality catalogue (which surprised some folk in the local LDS library that I go to). I just felt I found stuff more quickly that way. Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 31, 2011 5:06:03 GMT -5
Trencrom - with FamilySearch you can search with much wider parameters then IGI and in some ways it is a 'throw-back' to the early IGI setup. You can enter a first name or a last name and search for any entries with (for example) Prudence as the mother and this can be filtered to within specified time-frames. And you can also now search using Batch Numbers. With IGI you can also search using Surname only and with one or other or both parents names inserted. BUT this can only be done if you have the Batch Number. I just tried to do an online IGI search with father's name only and it wanted a child's given name (or a mother's given name) as well. I have the same problem in the past with the online IGI. That's where the CD version is much better. If the father/parents had children in more than one parish then you can just search under the father's/parents' names and without any batch numbers. Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Aug 31, 2011 5:28:12 GMT -5
I prefer using the old site to be honest. Through trial and error I have adopted the following approach. I only take notice of non-sourced material is an exact date is given. I'm working on the basis that people don't pull exact dates out of a hat. Even then I leave the question mark next to it so to speak. I prefer "sourced" records, especially with dodgy spelling and all.... Even if the record is sources I cross-check it with the OPC records, Philimore's and any other material I can find such as the Visitations. The problem I have is with some of the very early stuff as the dates are often estimations and wildly inaccurate or varied- so much so you can't really use them other than as a "suggestion" or "pointer". Another problem I have in general is with the dates- I always presume there is no conversion from old calendar to new calendar and they are transcribed as is- is that the case?
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 31, 2011 10:18:46 GMT -5
Trencrom - were you searching using a Batch Number? If you try the same search with a particular Batch Number it will work. If you don't know the Batch Numbers for given areas then this link will help:- freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers.htmIf you want to find chldren to the same parents across a number of Parishes then you will need to use the new FamilySearch site. You can also search on Batch Numbers there but it does allow the same search without them. Another 'new' thing I noticed earlier tonight with IGI. If you search on a Batch Number then the system now displays the results in the FamilySearch window! (Hit the Back Button and it takes you back to the IGI Search Page.) CT
|
|
|
Post by marychown on Sept 1, 2011 3:19:19 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I can't get the Hugh Wallis IGI Batch Numbers for Cornwall site to work. All I can get is 'The Web Page cannot be found - HTTP 404!
Mary
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 1, 2011 6:31:16 GMT -5
Mary - I have just tried it from the link supplied and it is working fine.
CT
|
|
|
Post by marychown on Sept 1, 2011 10:36:25 GMT -5
Thanks for getting back, CT, but I'm still having problems and getting the same error message when I try to access records on the site and I've no idea why that should be as I've always been able to access it before. I tried to access it through the link recently provided on this page - also no joy.
Mary
|
|