Search Historical Records: Type and Collections trade places
Mark LeMore shared that FamilySearch has published a new blog article for the search records page: Getting the Most from Your Search: Understanding the Search Records Page.
The blog article currently says if you want to find a birth certificate, try filtering by Collection and selecting all collections of birth records. I think it should mention instead try searching by Type. This especially if you do not know where the person was born, or the quirks of record collections; some collections contain records of several types. Type is under MORE OPTIONS: Record Options.
Setting a record type is much less complex and time consuming than selecting Collections. Also, this introduces novice searchers to the important concept of record type, which leads into the concept of collections of records of one type or another. Although Collections came first in the evolution of FamilySearch, and consequently so much more instructional material is available about them, they are in the deeper end of the pool.
The Search experience has a basic channel of search options then filters, and an advanced channel of more options then the same filters. I would swap Type and Collections, making Type a filter so it is in the main channel of experience and putting Collections in the secondary channel for experienced researchers. Or, on further reflection, I would put Type in both places and teach beginners to use Type rather than Collections in the filter.
Comments: 6 of 1 - half dozen of the other?
I agree there are some nuances between Record Type and Record Collection. I think Record Options: Type is there to keep with the theme of broader Search Parameters/Results and then narrower filter options. What I think I mean specifically: Type could include records from multiple collections - whereas if you want to Search via collection - that is a narrower search (make sense?).
Here is an example: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?f.recordType=4&q.anyPlace=Missouri%2C%20United%20States
Searching Missouri, United States for Record Type 4 (Immigration and Naturalization - yes it's type 4 because types start with Type 0 - Birth, Baptism, and Christening)
Interestingly if this type is chosen - I 'think' you cannot 'narrow by collection' because the Collections list doesn't include 'Missouri' (I had to copy/paste to text because browser search page is not available for 'Filter by Collection' area of the page).
Related Note: It seems some Record Options: Type searches will automatically modify Preferences: Fixed Table/Data Sheet viewing options (because the record type typically only has a subset of these options?).0
More and more collections are mixed type: historical records of X village. In that situation often it is more helpful to filter on record type than on collection.1
In that case, I'd think you're right - the filtering would need to be by Type. I wasn't aware that's the trend in collections...0
There is no reason we couldn't have it both ways: Collection filter and Type filter. Use one or the other. (Use both at your own risk.)0
Yes Familysearch custom drag and drop or hide features. 👍😉0
If you examine the Search page you'll see that Filters available later are determined in part by what Search terms are used.0