Kernkompetenz von Famliysearch / Batchnummern / Filmnummern / keine Treffer für Filmnummern / falsc

LegacyUser

Volker Wilmsen said: Liebe Familysearch-Community,

einen sehr langen Post konnte ich hier leider nicht einfügen. Daher füge ich lediglich den Link ein.

Es geht um die folgenden Stichwörter / Themen:
- Kernkompetenz von Famliysearch
- Batchnummern
- Filmnummern
- keine Treffer für Filmnummer
- keine Treffer
- falsche Ortsangaben
- DGS
- Umlaute
- *-Symbol

https://community.familysearch.org/s/...

Über Hinweise würde ich mich sehr freuen. Zur Diskussion oder bei Rückfragen stehe ich sehr gerne zur Verfügung.

Viele Grüße
Volker Wilmsen, vw25176@web.de

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The majority of users in this feedback public community forum speak English. A significant number of posts in Spanish go unanswered. It is probable that yours will, too.

Via Google Translate:

Die Mehrheit der Benutzer in diesem öffentlichen Feedback-Forum spricht Englisch. Eine beträchtliche Anzahl von Beiträgen auf Spanisch bleibt unbeantwortet. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass auch Sie es tun werden.

LegacyUser

Erika Campbell said: You can post your question through Google translate. It is not always exactly correct but the reader will get the gist.
Sie koennen Ihre Frage(n) durch Google translate uebersetzen und dann einschicken. Obwohl es nicht immer akkurate ist, man kann doch den Grund der Frage erkennen.
Erika

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: A number of these issues really need to be addressed by different teams. As such, you may want to start a new discussion for each issue.

I will attempt to address each issue. I may not fully understand what is going on, so an explanation (in English) will help.

The search with dialing characters like the *-symbol no longer seem to work. You expect more hits with an asterisk than if you don't set it. That's not the case. Using the asterisk shows fewer results. Can you confirm that or give me further explanations?

The first thing that we need to know is whether you are searching Historical Records or using the "Find" function to search the massive tree.

For instance, when searching historical records, I expect more hits with an asterisk than without when I am searching historical records.

But some testing revealed that is not the case. I don't know what is going on, but the results are not what I expected.

If that is where you were searching, then the search team will want to know the URL of the search results page with the asterisk and the URL of the search results page without the asterisk.

For instance, when I search using Tom* Huber as the name, I get 3611 results (https://www.familysearch.org/search/r...)

When I search using Tom Huber as the name, I get 167423 results. https://www.familysearch.org/search/r...

Someone from the search teams will need to let us know what is going on.

The results when using the Find function are similar and I believe that what happens is that the asterisk constrains the search results to the letter before the asterisk when anything after the last letter.

Searching on Tom* Huber, I get 243590 results found in the massive tree. Searching without the asterisk -- on Tom Huber, I get the same number of results, but the results order is different. Since Tom is a nickname for Thomas, the results display start with Thomas Huber, not Tom Huber.

Strange activity and something that FamilySearch needs to let us know what is happening.

The umlaut issue is equally strange. Search historical records searches the Indexed entry for the record, and not the record itself. The behavior suggests that having umlauts -- that is, Hüber instead of Huber would give different results.

Again, the results are the same, whether I use Hüber or Huber.

I think what happens is that the umlauts are stripped from the name for the search results.

The umlauts in my name change the pronunciation from Hew-burr (which I use) to Who-vber, which is anglicized as Hoover. No person with Hoover as a surname show up on the result pages that I searched.

Batch numbers had to do with indexing or extracting names from filmed records. Today, records are not filmed but captured with digital cameras. So there are no indexing "batch numbers" involved.

This addresses only some of your concerns. Each concern really needs to be addressed separately. Otherwise, some issues are going to be overlooked.

LegacyUser

Juli said: (Volker's German text is quite clear that he's talking about searching records. Like many long-time FS users, I don't think he uses the tree at all.)

LegacyUser

Volker Wilmsen said: 1) I can also put the different questions into this forum individually. I'm just happy that I have now found the right place to get rid of my questions and comments after three months.

2) Yes, I am only concerned with the search in the "Records" area. The areas of "Genealogies" and "Family Tree" are not my focus.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: The DGS number is the number given to a microfilm when it is digitised, and appears to be the number which is now used by Familysearch in documentation, although the microfilm number appears to get the same result when searching the historical records.

I can confirm that I got the same results for the parish of Münster Liebfrauen-Überwasser, examples a and b, above.

You could try using the Error? button at the bottom of the catalog page, and copying what you have written above, but you will not get any feedback https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

There seem to be more and more examples of catalog details showing different information to the films when you click through to them, but it is hard to know whether the fault is with the cataloging itself, or how the films are displaying, but it does seem to be a problem which has become more widespread over the past few months.

FamilySearch says it is the largest genealogy organization in the world, but I think its priorities are different to most genealogy organizations. As a non LDS church member, my impression is that FamilySearch puts most of is resources into Family Tree matters, and issues with Historical Records are down the list of priorities.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: There is a lot of truth in the way FamilySearch prioritizes its resources. I've often felt that a lot more of the limited resources are dedicated toward the tree and ecclesiastical needs, rather than the historical records.

I think that goes all the way back to the microfilms when once records were filmed, no further work was anticipated, even as time passed and any jurisdictional laws regarding public access changed, too.

I was very disappointed with the gap in Northern Irish birth and marriage filmed vital records, because FamilySeach did not stay with the original project as public access dates changed.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: There was a copy of all/most Northern Ireland vital records pre about 1922 kept in Dublin. They are now owned by the Republic of Ireland and include births up to 1919, the most recent accessible year, and are all free- both indexes and images of original certificates. See their website: https://www.irishgenealogy.ie/en/

PRONI, the Northern Ireland archives, charges for these records. I made the mistake once of ordering a certificate from PRONI that I could have had for free from the Republic of Ireland

LegacyUser

Volker Wilmsen said: via Google Translate

I can share several relevant findings on this matter.

I am currently taking part in the "Qualified Genealogist" seminar, which is led by Andreas Bellersen and Klaus-Dieter Fritzsch. We came up with the above error of missing indexes and discovered that both of them have access to these indexes, but I don't. They and I have a magnifying glass icon in the catalog, but I don't get the indexes ("No hits for film number").
Since both are Familysearch maintainers, they are most likely different from me.

Conclusion 1: So for the further test it is important that you check with easy access without special authorizations. With full authorization, however, you will not see the error at all.

I also have a strong guess as to when this issue occurs. I can give you two examples from the Münsterland in Germany. It is about Albachten (https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...) and Billerbeck (https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...).
I can see the indices of Albachten listed in the catalog in full.
For Billerbeck, however, I can NOT see almost all entries. The only exception is the weddings from 1826 to 1846.
The decisive difference within the entries for Billerbeck and compared to Albachten are the first two digits of the DGS number. If there is an "86", I can see the indices. I cannot see the indices for a DGS number that starts with 81.
I tested this theory on many other examples. It seems to fit perfectly.

Conclusion 2: The value of an index seems to depend on the first two digits of the DGS number. If it is 86, the index can be viewed, if it is 81, not. Of course, this only applies to simple users, cf. Conclusion 1.

For Albachten (https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...) there is another interesting effect, which I already described in my first email.
If you click on the magnifying glass symbol, you get entries of births and weddings for nightmares.
In the case of births, the event location is "Albachten, Münster, Westphalia, Prussia, Germany". That is absolutely correct.
If the entries are restricted to weddings, "Albaxen, Höxter, Westphalia, Prussia, Germany" is given as the location. Albaxen does exist and sounds similar, but is located east of Paderborn and is unfortunately completely wrong.

Conclusion 3: The location information of the indices has changed and can differ between births / baptisms and weddings and be completely wrong.

I would be very happy to receive your feedback on this information.