Posts
FamiliySearch.org has been digitizing genealogically important records for many years now. The most accessible collection of records on the website is in the Historical Record Collections. These records can be viewed for free and new records are added regularly from both the digitization of existing microfilm records and from newly acquired digitized records. There were 2115 collections of records containing billions of individuals records. Presently, most of these records are unindexed and it is necessary to search these records the same way you would search any unindexed record whether on microfilm or on paper.
I have seen a tendency to ignore unindexed records because of the additional effort it may take to find relevant information, but this is a mistake. In many cases an index contains only a selection of the information in the original record and examination of the original record will provide additional information. Indexes make the original and complete records more accessible but they do not replace the originals.
In the Historical Record Collections have icons and conventions that indicate the status of the records. The small camera image indicates that the collection has images of the original records
The larger camera icons indicate that the records have images on another website.
If there is no camera icon, it means that the record is an index with no digital images. Whether or not the collection has images, the name of the collection is followed by a number indicating the number of entries that have been indexed and if the collection is not yet indexed, there is a link that says "Browse Images." Here is a screenshot showing the variations:
The date is the date the collection was added to the Historical Record Collections or the date of the last upgrade. You can sort the Historical Record Collections chronologically by clicking on the column heading that says "Last Updated."
It is important to understand that the number in the "Records" column is not necessarily the total number of records but usually represents the number of indexed records in the collection. In some cases the number of records is a lot larger than the number actually indexed and it is important to search the records manually rather than rely completely on an index search.
To read the first post in this series see:
http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2016/08/viewing-digital-record-images-on.html
Maybe you are going to cover this in part three, but there is a frequently overlooked quirk with the indexes and digital images..
ReplyDeleteYou state “In the Historical Record Collections have icons and conventions that indicate the status of the records. The small camera image indicates that the collection has images of the original records. The larger camera icons indicate that the records have images on another website. If there is no camera icon, it means that the record is an index with no digital images.”
I have run into many people who see the lack of a camera next to the collection name and assume there is no way to see the images for those records. But they are giving up too soon.
One example of this type is the Michigan Civil Marriages, 1834-1974 that you have in your illustration. There is no camera, but one still has a good change of seeing the original images.
Go to that collection and do a search on a random name, such as John Smith. Pick the first one, a John Smith married to a Mary Cornfield. The record clearly states “No Image Available.” But there is a film number, 868479.
Search the catalog on that film number. In the catalog, there is a camera! This will be the case for any of the older indexes that were not indexed off digital images but whose source films have since been digitized. Then number of films for which this is the case is getting larger all the time.
Thanks for that example, I knew this situation existed, but I hadn't found a direct example. Yes, many of the images are being made available online directly from the Catalog. There is a time lag in getting the Historical Record Collections updated to show the images.
DeleteIs Family Search really going back to all the indexing projects from the 70s and 80s and attaching images to the old indexes as those films are digitized? I have assumed that that would basically mean re-indexing all those films. It would be wonderfully convenient but there is so much new indexing to do, it seems like it would be a waste of limited resources since it is not that much work to find the image through the catalog. I do wish they would change the notice on the indexes from "No Image Available" to "Image available if film has been digitized, check the Catalog."
DeleteIt works the other way, too. If you look at the Michigan film and check the tab at the bottom of the page that refers to the index, you will see "No Index Available" even though the catalog entry shows the magnifying glass that takes you to the index.
As you have stressed in other posts, the catalog is a great resource that gets overlooked.
I don't think they are duplicating any of the indexing already done, but they are adding images to the Catalog database much faster than they can update the Historical Record Collections.
DeleteIn the Danish parish records I have found that a significant percentage haven't been indexed on Family Search, so I ignored the indexes for a while and read the records page by page. It's a bit more work, but usually not as time-consuming as you would think, especially if you already know an approximate date and place. I've found missing children this way. However, I realized recently that it's still a good idea to see if a record has been indexed because often there are duplicate people tagged with the source. So it can be a helpful way to find duplicates. For some reason I also seem to get more record hints when I attach the indexes as sources.
ReplyDelete