Family Search Database May Be Erroneous
William Benedict III ID 97CD-DR9 has two marriage documents attached for the marriage in 1609. The one in Family Search says it took place in Bale, Norfolk, England and is an index only with no images. The one in Ancestry is the actual image of the microfilmk itself which clearly shows it taking place in Long Stratton St Michael, Norfolk, England. Long Stratton and Bale are over 40 miles from each other and the bride and groom were both from Long Statton. There are other burial and christening records that have the same identical problem. How do I get someone at Family Search to research this issue and confirm that the location shown in this database has not mistakenly had the wrong location entered for all the records?
Comments
-
As you can see there are currently 15 sources attached to the record of William Benedict III ID 97CD-DR9, in Family Search, including the Bale marriage place as well as the Long Stratton . Where is also the record for Willm Benedict in entry for Tho Bendict which list Christing place and burial place as Bale.
Son William also list birth and death place as Bale.
As well as a marriage record in 1609 with the place listed as Bale.
As you mentioned , the image states Long Stratton. However, there is no collaborating evidence that record belongs to William Benedict III ID 97CD-DR9,
0 -
Community Responder: I followed your report for the marriage of William and Elizabeth Stephinson (KN72-GVL) - and find it exactly as you describe - there does appear to be the need to verify the parish location (in FamilySearch collections) although the Ancestry image (also attached as Marriage source) does appear to clearly indicate Long Stratton St Michael, Norfolk, England.
The index here at FamilySearch displays Document Information:
Digital Folder Number 004033448
Microfilm Number 1596232
Image Number 00015
Originating System EASY
Indexing Batch I07387-0
The images for Microfilm Number 1596232 are browseable - but I was not able to locate the same register page Ancestry has with FamilySearch waypoints:
"England, Norfolk, Parish ...Record Office), 1510-1997> Long Stratton> Baptisms, Marriages, Burials> 1547-1748 "
which appears to be the correct dates.
Here is the link - but as you can browse (with the link below) - records for 1609 don't seem to include the same page as on Ancestry. This leads me to conclude that either the FamilySearch collection is incorrect OR that the Ancestry collection is incorrect (this is my unprofessional opinion - the records for the same parish should have the same pages).
This does not display all the items from the film roll as far as I can tell - so a little difficult to determine what is being looked at (I am informed it should be item 1 from the roll) I am wondering if currently the images are being 'worked on' because if you try to browse the same film for Long Stratton St Michael, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom on FamilySearch> Search> Images - the items for the roll covering these dates does not appear.
So without more information from FamilySearch I am at a loss as to how to help you further.
0 -
Again, I can confirm that the Long Stratton records somehow ended-up being indexed as though they related to Bale parish. A number of events relating to my ancestors / relatives took place at or near Long Stratton, so it caused me a lot of confusion when the family were suddenly found in Bale records, but a simple "mis-indexing" discovery solved the problem.
Unfortunately, FamilySearch has always been reluctant to correct even "metadata" errors in their indexed records and its Support team has advised me (in an email) there is certainly no programme for addressing such problems at the present time.
0 -
The link that genthusiast provided is for the records for Stratton-St Mary, not Stratton-St Michael. That is why the image pages do not match those in Ancestry. The Family Search Catalog shows that the correct film for this is 1596232, Items 1-4. It shows an index available and no images available, only a microfilm. If you browse the searchable image availabe for Stratton St. Michael, only the marriages 1837-1901, Burials, 1813-1905, and Banns 1828-1902 are viewable. Those images prior to those dates are not viewable.
0 -
How do I get a Family Search employee to respond to this?
0 -
sorry about that - that's the only ones that returned for that date period - for Long Stratton. I assure you I went to the Catalog at: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/471213?availability=Family%20History%20Library
I have another query with similar index challenges for another film number. Apparently this may be a common index issue right now for restricted records. To be clear - items 1-4 you are wanting access - do show as indexed and digitized but are restricted by contract with the Record custodian. The film is only viewable at FHL in SLC (I believe). The index is another matter and appears to be ... incomplete/incorrect for the location. Good eye to figure that it was a different parish - I didn't see that - how did you figure that out - through Ancestry? A great example of how the same collection with a different entity can help the researcher!
You may want to open a case by phone with FamilySearch support:
I was able to open a case on the other collection/index today! This will get you the best response from FamilySearch that I can recommend. If @Paul W wants to open a similar case - since he has the same issue - that may give further credence to the problem. He is correct that the case there is separate than the Community post here. I do not know that FamilySearch Community moderators can't open/access the same case management database.
@Paul W what does the P/Rs refer to in your 'attachment reasons'?
0 -
This is an example of what I have found relating to a number of my Norfolk relatives. The first image shows the incorrectly indexed record, the second shows how I have addressed the issue in Family Tree.
Unfortunately, you are unlikely to receive a response from a FamilySearch employee, as (apart from moderators) they rarely visit this forum and the email service is now terminated.
1
