When film 1392647 was digitized, why were many pages not digitized.
DFN 008197497 is listed as parts 5 and 6. However, it begins with page 298. I have a records from pages 146. 147, 180, & 181 that I found on the film several years ago. I want to look for a record that would be on a page before 298. Have those records been lost to current researchers?
Best Answers
-
Hello @karenannjohnson2,
I understand that the records from these churches are mislabeled, correct? Thank you for reporting this. I have seen the same thing in other records.
I am moving your conversation to the "Search" area where you may be able to get help from that team.
0 -
A similar issue was raised by Elizabeth Jacobsz at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/376585#Comment_376585. Again, the records she was looking for were on the film, but towards the end.
It appears to be a common misconception that clicking on the camera link will take the user to the exact point on the film where the specific records they are looking for will be found. As explained, the link provided always takes you to the beginning of the film - regardless of how many (often totally unrelated) items it contains.
1
Answers
-
@karenannjohnson2 Without an index for these records you will need to browse to find these records. If parts 5 and 6 is where you found them before - yes they are there but will take some browsing. I was able to see several divisions/film headings where the page numbering came back down. Unfortunately I'm on a phone so was unable to locate the exact pages.
I hope this helps!
0 -
Here's a page 146, on image 152: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS7W-391X-R?i=51&cat=577137 Though not in Items 5 and 6, it is still a Lutheran record from Milwaukee.
0 -
To A van Helsdingen:
This may be a Lutheran record from Milwaukee but it is not from film 1392647. Film 1392647 is for St. Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran Church. Page 146 on 1392647 is baptisms from 1886. I have that image but I need to browse the film for the year 1899.
The film you linked to is labeled Evangelisch Lutherische Jerusalem Gemeinde but is actually the records from Cross Lutheran Church.
The records labeled St. Matthew's are for Jeruselem Gemeinde. Those labeled Jeruselem Gemeinde are for Epiphany and Cross.
The film labeled Salem contains records for Jerusalem, Salem, Lake Park and St. Matthew's.
This should not be a scavenger hunt. This needs to be relabeled. If this were my first attempt at searching church records, I would have given up. When I worked in libraries, they would say that a book out of place is temporarily lost. In this case I would say that a film mislabeled is indefinitely lost.
There should be some way to call this to the attention of the the Family History Library but they seem to be sweeping all problems under the rug.
For me the problem is solved but I doubt that anyone with the same problem will ever find my solution
0 -
@karenannjohnson2 It's just an education process - we need to teach the researcher that if the images are not indexed they need to 1. try to understand the 'format' and 'organization' of the records they are searching 2. once they have that understanding it kind of makes the research process more like it was years ago when records indexed were only in a book published by a later researcher, etc.
They will need to browse and locate pertinent information - year, place etc. - however the records are organized...
I hope this helps!
1 -
I understand all of this. If you read my second comment, you could have seen that I did a lot of searching. I sorted out the Gideon knot but this should not have been necessary and the ERROR NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. I regret that you do not respect me as a competent researcher and are lecturing me about things that I understand.
The problem her is that the record is not on the source given by the catalog. In the old days, it was on the film listed in the catalog.
The only solution for this problem is the correction of the listings in the catalog links.
END OF CONVERSATION!!!!!!!
0 -
@karenannjohnson2 Karen, woah - calm down. I was pointing out the general solution - not making comment about you as a researcher. I think if you read carefully what I posted - you will see that to be the case. From what you have stated I think you are VERY competent. I'm sorry you felt I was stating otherwise. You are right I don't know this collection and I am therefore a little at loss of understanding what needs correcting. From what it sounds like you are doing a very important step in helping researchers of this collection who follow! Along with you I hope a correction would stay that way and not get out of order again. But I don't really understand how it got out of order to begin with - does FS not keep a Catalog film collection published/'locked' in order? It sounds like the Catalog is getting out of order because it is being 'reworked'? This will generate a lot of confusion and queries from researchers active in various collections. Any ideas/release on why the Catalog is being 'reworked'?
Here is the answer from Search: https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-request-a-correction-to-the-familysearch-catalog
For Karen and Search: It appears that in addition - I did misunderstand your second post - that the collection is 'mislabeled' and that is what you were stating was needing correction. Yes, that's my mistake - I apologize. This would be a step in educating me how I could respond better to the question/concern. I was operating on the assumption that film would be kept in order when published.
How can it be determined if there is a legitimate need for a 'label', DFN, RN or any other record/collection 'label' being miscategorized and needing correction - especially if there are 'collection experts' submitting such queries - where FS can work with them to resolve the issue? I don't know nor claim to be the expert here. It appears I commented in error but as Karen mentions - if the collection is published wrong/out of order - that should be corrected. How would it be published out of order to begin with? Why is/would the catalog 'rework' getting things 'out of order'?
Would it be not advisable to keep the Catalog reference to the film in 'film order'. And any other digital collection reference a more specific - subpart of the film? I think this is what @karenannjohnson2 is stating - but I am still confused as to what is out of order on this specific question - but it seems like there should be a solution.
0 -
Film 1392647 (digital image group number 8197497) contains images from four different Lutheran churches in Milwaukee (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/results?count=100&query=%2Bfilm_number%3A1392647).
- Items 1 and 2 are from the "Evangelisch Lutherische Jerusalem Gemeinde".
- Item 3 is from the Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church.
- Item 4 is from the Lake Park Lutheran Church.
- Items 5 and 6 are from St. Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran Church.
The starting bookmark for item 5 is image 472 of 761. Image 475 contains pages numbered 2 and 3, containing baptisms from 1865 and 1866.
Doing the math and going to image 549, I see pages numbered 146 and 147, and labeled 1886 at the top left. Is this one of the pages you're looking for? https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSL2-HSWX-5?i=548&cat=577590
0 -
That is fine if you have film 1392647 but the link to St. Matthews Church in the catalog is a section beginning with page 298 and does not contain section 5 and 6. You have to look under the link to Salem Church to find that.
I finally found St. Matthew's Church and the information I was searching for but the catalog listing is a mess.
Here are the errors in the listing.
The records labeled Evangelisch Lutherische Jerusalem Gemeinde are the records from Cross Lutheran Church.
The records labeled St. Matthew's are for Jeruselem Gemeinde.
Those labeled Jeruselem Gemeinde are for Epiphany and Cross.
The film labeled Salem contains records for Jerusalem, Salem, Lake Park and St. Matthew's.
This question can be closed because I found my answer.
1 -
I think maybe you're getting confused due to multi-part films.
When using the Catalog, before you click the camera, you have to pay close attention to what that line says about item numbers. Clicking the camera icon will always put you at the beginning of the film, not at whichever part you need.
On the Catalog page for Evangelisch Lutherische Jerusalem Gemeinde, there are two entries: item 8 on film 7857913, and items 1 and 2 on film 8197497. The first of those films starts off with a few pages from Epiphany Ev. Lutheran, then several hundred pages from Cross Lutheran, then a bunch of stuff from Plymouth UCC, before finally getting to item 8, Jerusalem Ev. Lutheran, on image 609.
A similar explanation applies to all of the listings that you perceived as erroneous. The catalog listings are all perfectly correct, pointing to various sections of multi-part films.
0 -
If you cannot understand that this listing points to the wrong parts I cannot help you. You are not helping me by refusing to see the facts.
0 -
@karenannjohnson2, I'm sorry that I'm not successfully communicating to you. I will try again, starting a few steps further back.
The records we are currently discussing have all been digitized and put online based on microfilms.
Microfilms are reels of photographic film that have been filled with photographs of pages of documents. When they were made, the technicians would do their best not to waste any film: if they finished photographing one book but still had empty film on the reel, they'd grab the next book from the shelf, create and add a new bookmark page identifying the book, and then start photographing the pages of this book. Lather, rinse, repeat until they ran out of film. Each reel of film had a unique number assigned to it, and the careful notes kept by the technicians about the contents of each film were entered into the Catalog.
When microfilms are scanned to create digital versions of them, they get a new unique number assigned, designating the digital image collection. Nothing else is changed: the digital collections are grouped and sorted exactly the same as the microfilms they're based on.
The Catalog collects the information about microfilms and their digitized versions. If you look at an individual catalog page (such as https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/577137), you will see a line for every item in the Catalog that has that particular author entity (usually a church or registry office, in this case Jerusalem Ev. Luth.) as one of its attributes. If you search by film number (either physical or digital, e.g. 1392647/8197497), you'll see a listing of every entity that's associated with that film. Neither relationship is even remotely one-to-one: many entities are associated with more than one film, and many films have material from multiple entities.
It's that last bit that's most important to correctly interpreting what you're seeing.
St. Matthew's only has one line in the catalog: items 5 and 6 on film 1392647 (digital number 8197497). Said film, on the other hand, has four entities associated with it (Jerusalem, Salem, Lake Park, and St. Matthew), and the first of those (Jerusalem) is associated with two different films (1392646/78579 and 131392647/8197497). The first of those two films is again associated with multiple churches (Epiphany, Cross, Plymouth, Jerusalem). And so on and so forth: you can't judge what's on a film by just looking at the beginning. (Or the middle. Or the end.)
When you go to the catalog page for St. Matthew's and click the camera icon, you're taken to the beginning of the film. That's Jerusalem; the first non-bookmark page is indeed numbered 298, but that's not relevant to you. You need to scroll forward to item 5 to see St. Matthew's.
If you go to Jerusalem's catalog page and click the camera on the first item, you'll be at the beginning of a film that's mostly from Cross. The records the catalog page is talking about are item 8, at the very end of the film.
So, again: none of the catalog entries contain any errors. The only error is in your interpretation of them. You need to pay attention to the item numbers.
3 -
The key to your explanation is the comment that all the links take you to the beginning of the film.
If you had said this in the first place, I would have understood. However, you lectured me as if I knew nothing about liking at records. You told me so many things that I already knew.
However, the way the links are writing, it appears that they should go to the beginning of the church that is referenced. This would help new researchers. If I who have searched record for over twenty years, on microfilm, familysearch, and other sites and at archives and have done research in several states and at least five other countries found this so difficult why can't it be simplified.
1 -
@karenannjohnson2 I like your idea about making things simpler for those that follow! But please understand - this is the way it is currently - so our responses have nothing to do with 'lecturing' you or 'telling you things you already know'. This is a Community where we are all just trying to help. Not 'win' status as a researcher or any other agenda - although it would CERTAINLY be appreciated to know that ideas are/will be seen and responded to. I am sorry if you felt I was questioning your competence.
Education learned by me: All Catalog references point to the beginning of the film even though the catalog references for a 'subpart' may 'appear' to indicate that they will start at that 'subpart' starting point. As I mentioned earlier my education prior was basically that I had to browse when viewing the film. This helps me understand that if someone asks a question about a specific 'subpart' to just respond with:
All Catalog references point to the beginning of the film even though the catalog references for a 'subpart' may 'appear' to indicate that they will start at that 'subpart' starting point.
0 -
It would help if the comment "All Catalog references point to the beginning of the film." was posted on the page with the listings. As a person who used micro films, I am used to it there but the was this film is listed, it is far from obvious. I learned to look for item numbers many years ago but did not expect to have that necessary the way the link was given.
If the answers I received had stated the facts rather than telling me that I had to understand how it worked, I would not have found them insulting.
0 -
"Clicking the camera icon will always put you at the beginning of the film, not at whichever part you need."
That's in the comment that you said refused to see the facts.
---
Again, I'm sorry that we've had such trouble communicating about this. It took me a while to figure out your reference to "page 298" in your original question, and even then, I wasn't sure what part of the process you were misinterpreting. That's why I went back so far and tried to explain every single step. I know that there are parts of this that are dead-obvious to me but not to other people, because we all have different experiences, and different subconscious assumptions based on those experiences.
Unfortunately, I think it's highly unlikely that FS will change the behavior of the camera icon. For collections like these that do not have a waypointed version/interface, the image numbers associated with the various parts are simply not in any of their databases. That is, the computer does not know where Lake Park ends and St. Matthew begins. All it knows is that Lake Park comes before St. Matthew on the film.
1 -
0
-
Each Item of the film is usually labelled fairly clearly. So in this instance, Image 3 of 671 is very clear that this is the start of Item 1.
Of course it would be better if the Items were split up. FamilySearch has previously said that they plan to do this at some point within the next several years.
As for the issue of incorrectly labelled parish names, there used to be a button at the bottom of each page in the Catalog where you could report errors. However this has been removed due to an IT upgrade of the catalog. Until this is complete- which may not be until 2022- it is not possible for any changes or corrections to be made to the Catalog.
1 -
Of course it would be better if the Items were split up.
In fact this film is one of the limited number which is also available under Images where it has been split up
1 -
@MaureenE123 Interesting!
What I learned: Search> Images may have the film split into various parts making it easier for the researcher. For questions asking why the reference in the Catalog is not pointing to starting points for the film subparts - see if the Search> Images already has them separated. Otherwise the Catalog references to the film images will all start at the beginning of the film and the researcher needs to browse to find the correct subpart.
So it appears FamilySearch has already done what we wished could be done for all film in the catalog - split up the different sources/books. At least for this film it is done and the digital version is separate if you Search> Images! How I wish I could have found that initially and avoided an unfortunate conversation. So yes, I would think the Catalog would be updated to reflect the split parts of film being available - but I understand this won't be done for a while because they are updating the system(s) the Catalog is on (unfortunate it can't be updated now or even referenced on the different pages in the Catalog).
0 -
I didn't know that splitting up films has already began. But does anyone know that if different Items have different access restrictions then each has it's correct restriction applied? Currently, the strictest restriction has to apply to the entire film, and this is the reason why I'm interested in the issue of splitting up films. It will avoid absurd situations such as Catholic church records only being accessible to Latter Day Saints because of a contract with a Lutheran church (whose records are on the same film as the Catholic records).
1 -
@A van Helsdingen A short note for clarity:
Records are not only accessible to members of The Church of Jesus Christ - because anyone can access them through:
- a local Family History Center (for those images restricted to this type access)
- a Virtual Genealogy Consultation (this consultation MAY be able to deliver an image copy - again dependant on restrictions)
I hope this helps people realize FamilySearch is doing everything it can to make records more available. Thank you FamilySearch!
0 -
genthusiast, finding an FHC that's actually open, at a time that fits one's schedule, in a place that one can get to, is highly non-trivial and cannot in any way be equated to accessing a film from one's home, like an LDS member can. And good luck finding a genealogy consultant who can read the German records that A is talking about. They haven't taught that handwriting in schools in very nearly a century now.
We all appreciate that FS is doing whatever it can to increase access, and we especially appreciate that even with the restrictions, the amount of material available on FS is incredibly vast. But to say that the workarounds mean that non-LDS can get to things "just as easily" as LDS is to state a falsehood.
OK, next: Search - Records is for indexed records. That's a different species than the images we're talking about. Some things that one finds using Search - Catalog have index entries associated with them; that's what the magnifying-glass icon indicates. Clicking said magnifying glass will take you to Search - Records, with the search restricted to index entries associated with that film number, but that's completely orthogonal to the question of multi-part films.
What Maureen is talking about is yet a third thing, Search - Images, which is among FS's newest offerings, and in my not-so-humble opinion was nowhere near ready for prime time when it was rolled out. I haven't looked at it in quite a while, so I have no idea what progress may have been made in correcting its faults.
A, a moderator replied to a question in the Hungarian group indicating that the breakup of films by item would not result in piece-by-piece application of access restrictions. This was contrary to my understanding, so I asked specifically, and the statement was repeated. It's possible that the moderator was misinformed, or misinterpreting our questions, but it's also possible that the efforts in Images will have no bearing on the all-or-nothing approach that's currently applied to access restrictions.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi I appreciate your clarification. You are right I should not state 'just as easily' (I have edited that out). Although I don't have data that many of the same collections non-members of The Church of Jesus Christ don't have access to members of The Church of Jesus Christ also don't have access to at home or through a nearby FHC. Member or non-member are alike in not having access to some records at home and have the same access options in those situations. As you have indicated my point is that FamilySearch is doing everything it can...
As far as contracts to re-negotiate split collections - I wonder how that's going... busy, busy, busy?
Also, thank you for pointing out that the records mentioned by @MaureenE123 are from Search> Images not Search> Records - I learned something else and have corrected that in my above post.
0 -
@genthusiast 1 , the message:
Images Available
To view these images do one of the following:
- You may be able to view this image by visiting one of our partners' sites or the legal record custodian (fees may apply).
Is an euphemism that means only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can view the film. Until late 2019, the message that appeared explicitly said this. But then the message was changed. At that time, a FS staff member confirmed to me that the above message was FS's new way of communicating that fact. Those with an LDS account rarely if ever see this message.
The film I spoke about is 1896777. For further context, the Catholic Church in Rheinberg gave permission for their films to be viewable at Family History Centers and Affiliate Libraries (try film 909700). But the Lutheran church whose records are on the same page only gave permission for Latter Day Saints. So the stricter rule applies to both sets of records. So only Latter Day Saints can view those Catholic rules, and Catholics like myself cannot.
I have used the virtual lookup service, and they kindly looked up some names/dates. They did not find anything, but I suspect that if they had they would not have provided me with the image, solely because of my non-membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
0 -
@A van Helsdingen It would be frustrating to not have the access as you describe. Perhaps it would have been better for me to have not made the comment understanding now your frustration.
However, I cannot officially state whether your and @Julia Szent-Györgyi general implication that members of The Church of Jesus Christ have more access to FS vast Records collections beyond contractual agreement is true or not. Nor do I believe either of you can either - but I do appreciate your points of view.
I can state that what you are implying about more access is false IF the contract does not allow explicit access - again something I do not have data to provide further clarification. BUT I can state that as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ I run into access restrictions the same as you do and have the same options as you for access in those situations. If at at some point you have access restricted and want to see whether my access in the United States is also restricted I would gladly check (just private message me here in the Community).
You are also correct that I cannot speak for various access restrictions on a country-by-country basis - I have only travelled outside the United States thrice in my life. I do not know whether access may be restricted by laws in various countries - though I think there has been some news on that front over recent years (sad when sharing of records is not a goal).
The textual alert about access restricted through a FamilySearch partner or the original record custodian - to my knowledge expressly means that no one - member or non-member has more access than another. This may be the result of an 'exclusive' contract with a particular FamilySearch partner and the original record custodian.
The access to the Index is another matter and may be the negotiated part for shared access. Again this helps researchers know where to look for records and give them the best options for access.
As far as FHC access - I do not know that FHC staffing cannot have non-member staffing options if that would help in hours of operation. Perhaps someone knowledgeable can comment.
I can tell you with relative certainty that if you asked and the Virtual Consultant was able to grant an image copy - they would do so - again whether member or non-member.
0 -
I am certainly not saying that Latter Day Saints can access everything from their home computer. But there are plenty of records where they enjoy huge privileges versus FS users of other religions. For example, images of the United Kingdom 1841-1901 censuses can be viewed by Latter Day Saints from any computer, but at FHCs only by users of other religions. The indexes of Scottish censuses are LDS-only- when non-LDS make a search, they are told that no results were found, even for common names like Smith. Almost all Lutheran records from Germany are only accessible to LDS members (just like the example I quoted above). But on the other hand, all US Federal censuses- which I'd guess is FS's most popular collection- and other records from NARA are equally accessible to all.
0 -
@A van Helsdingen For the first record you mentioned - film 1896777: All of the Camera icons with flags are not accessible:
I get the alert:
Images Available
To view these images do one of the following:
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
At the bottom of the Catalog page:
About this record
This screen shows the complete catalog entry of the title you selected.
The Film/Digital Notes contain a description of the microfilm or microfiche numbers. Some family history centers and libraries maintain collections of previously loaned microfilms or microfiche. A camera icon indicates items that are digitally available online.
Generally, catalog entries are written in the same language as the original record they describe.
Reasons why microfilms may not yet be available digitally on FamilySearch.org include:
- The microfilm may be scheduled for future scanning.
- The microfilm may have been scanned, but have a contractual, data privacy, or other restriction preventing access. FamilySearch makes every effort to enable access dependent on decisions of record custodians and applicable laws.
There is 1 without a flag which I can view the images of - but no index to search.
For all those with magnifying glass the result: 'No Results for Film Number:'
The access is limited to just the film images for film: 1896777 Items 3-7 DGS: 102779713
Do you have access to these Catalog film images for this film?
Film: 909700 has 7000+ index only names that I apparently can search.
0 -
That is interesting, but also expected. The Catholic records (Items 3-7) on that film are supposed to be viewable only at FHCs and Affiliate Libraries. The Lutheran records (Items 1-2) are viewable only to Latter Day Saints. Putting them together, these records should be viewable only to Latter Day Saints who are currently at a FHC or Affiliate Library.
So it makes sense that you see a message saying that you must visit an FHC or AL, and I get a message that implies there's no way I can see the records at FS, and that I must try other websites. In this case, there are no other websites. The archive that has custody of the records isn't letting them be digitized by the free website Matricula, despite pleas from both myself and the Catholic Diocese (who used to own these records, but no longer have possession of them).
0
