Posts
For the past few years, FamilySearch.org has been digitizing its microfilm collections. The idea was to replace the physical circulation of microfilm rolls. The distribution of microfilm has now long since been terminated. Apparently, the effort to digitize all the records in the Granite Vault in Little Cottonwood Canyon outside of Salt Lake City, Utah is still ongoing. In addition, there are just over 300 digital cameras operating around the world digitizing millions of additional records.
Somehow, I got the idea that by digitizing the records, the images would be available on the FamilySearch.org website. It is true that millions upon millions of those images are now available and some of them are even indexed. Back when I was ordering microfilm, ultimately, I could order it online and have the film shipped to a nearby Family History Center where I could go and view the microfilm. Apparently, this system, in some cases, has just substituted the digital images for the microfilms and I still have to go to a Family History Center or even to Salt Lake City at the Family History Center to see the digital images.
For example, some time ago, I made a long list of all of the records I am searching in the state of Rhode Island. I recently went back through my list of microfilms and have found almost all, but not all of the microfilm rolls, have been digitized. However, with only the exception of the few Rhode Island records that have been indexed, every record I checked in the catalog has been restricted. Apparently, FamilySearch has been unable to obtain permission from the original record-holders to allow the now digitized microfilm records to be viewed on the FamilySearch.org website outside of a Family History Center or the Family History Library. This is especially true of the very old records going back into the 1600s. I might mention that the books that contain compiled records are more accessible but the books do not have copies of the original records.
I fully realize that I am in a vanishingly small minority of researchers who are searching unindexed records from the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. So I decided to look at the old records in Massachusetts in the event that the issue was only with Rhode Island records. There are exponentially more records in the Family History Library Catalog for Massachusetts than there are for Rhode Island. I found many of the older Massachusetts records freely available online from home. Too bad my ancestors lived in Rhode Island.
Maybe the problem is Rhode Island, but it does seem that we are still in the transitional period when many of the records are still being processed and some are only going to be available in Family History Centers or at the main Family History Library. It would be very helpful if the FamilySearch.org Catalog showed the availability of the images in the catalog listings. As it is, I have to click on each entry to find out if the records are available online or only in a Family History Center or Library.
Due to contractual agreements where the record holders have restricted their records some are available only at the main library. Others may also be available at family history centers also. Others are only available to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints through their accounts. We have already lost access to some records in Jamaica and a couple of other countries through abuse where members have allowed nonmembers to use their accounts in some family history centers so now no one has access. FamilySearch is serious about contractual agreements but is trying to renegotiate access to make records more accessible. Family History Centers who still have microfilm collections on site may have some of these records available on microfilm as we had at the New York NY FHC in Manhatten.
ReplyDeleteIn catalog listings restricted records show a key above the icon. Some are available only in Salt Lake City.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the additional information. I am aware of all of the possible causes for the restrictions, I am merely pointing out that the digitization of the records has not changed their availability from a practical standpoint.
ReplyDelete