Unusual error message
I'm working on the Thomas Whittaker/Whitaker MH54-1RH family in Lancashire, England tonight. Thomas died in 1870.
There were several 1841 censuses suggested. I had already attached the correct 1841, so I declined each of those hints. There is a possible duplicate suggested, but there is a lot of work to be done IF it is a duplicate. Thought I would leave that for tomorrow when I will have more time and energy for the work.
There is a suggested 1871 census. Since Thomas died in 1870, it should be a quick matter to refuse that suggestion. Nope. Instead, I get a very unusual error message.
I've tried several different browsers - same result.
Answers
-
I get the same thing. I tried clicking Review and Attach, and got the "Well, this is unexpected" page (which is either error 403 Forbidden, according to the URL, or 404 Page Not Found, according to my browser's tab label and the illustration).
It looks like "not a match" still works, so in this particular instance you can get rid of the useless hint, but it's all rather ...disconcerting.
1 -
Yes, I realize I could have discarded via "not a match," but I felt I should bring it to the attention of the PTB. Definitely disconcerting.
0 -
We sent you a message with details about the message of access denied, also if you go on review and attach it results on the 404 Page Not Found. It happens because the Source hint or search help brought you a record from a collection which has restrictions of access.
Here is an article to illustrate the issue.
Why do some indexes have access limitations?
Limitations in access to indexes on FamilySearch come from record collection agreements between FamilySearch and partnering organizations. In some cases, these agreements give us permission to share certain records in a limited way—with those who visit the Family History Library or local family history centers in person.
Here are some possible solutions to try when an index you want to view is not available online:
- Search the Catalog to see if similar records are available in a different format.
- Consult the Research wiki to find other sources of information for the place of interest
- Ask the FamilySearch Community for research assistance.
- Try to access the records at a later date. Our agreements can change over time, and we always strive to make more records available to our users.
0 -
That does not make sense @FlorGuevara1 since all the other England and Wales censuses are also image restricted yet those attached to Thomas with no issue.
Thank you for trying, but I don't believe that can be the issue in this case.
You can see here, on LRDT-DWP, Peter Gilmore, that I have attached the 1871 and other censuses with no problem. Peter is Thomas Whittaker's son-in-law. https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/LRDT-DWP
0 -
FYI
It's 'Brett'.
Just in passing ...
'Yes'; but, when you attached, that "Source", for the "1871, Census of England and Wales", to Peter GILMORE ( LRDT-DWP ), that was back on 14 April 2019; where, there was NO "Restrictions" in place for the "Census' of England and Wales", that "Restrict", for the "Census' of England and Wales", has ONLY crept in, not so long ago; as, the 'Time' Limit, on "Contractual Agreement/Arrangement", with 'FamilySearch', had expired; and, needs/needed "Renewal" - hence, the problem/issue, NOW.
But ...,
That Said ...
Regardless ...
That "Error Message", is just PLAIN "Wrong" ...
There SHOULD be a "Message", that one (ie. the particular User/Patron concerned) CANNOT 'access' such; except, through the likes of, a "Family History Centre" of the Church (or, an "Affiliate" Library).
Especially, for those, who do not have, partner "Accounts" linked/connected.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Detached, exited, and reattached - with no error message.
0 -
FYI
It's 'Brett'.
Just in passing ...
'Yes'; but, "Images", of that Census, are NO LONGER available, like they used to be ...
And ...
We also know, from other 'Posts', that 'FamilySearch', is WORKING on the WHOLE matter; and, Problems/Issues, ARE appearing; as, evidenced in this post (of your); and, others ...
Hey ...
I was just throwing, a thought, into the mix ...
And ...
Who knows ...
Perhaps; because, as that particular "Source", was a "Source", that was originally/previously attached, PRIOR to the NEW "Restriction"; THEN, just maybe, that MAY negate, the NEW "Restriction", that appears (seems) to STILL be EVOLVING ...
Whereas ...
The "Source", for Thomas WHITAKER ( MH54-1RH ), has NOT, been preciously attached ...
That "Error Message", does not, occur with a connected "Account".
And, I suspect, that "Error Message", would not occur, when one is using, a "Computer", at a "Family History Centre" of the Church (or, an "Affiliate' Library").
So ...
That Said ...
As, I previously suggested ...
Regardless ...
That "Error Message", is just PLAIN "Wrong" ...
There SHOULD be a "Message", that one (ie. the particular User/Patron concerned) CANNOT 'access' such; except, through the likes of, a "Family History Centre" of the Church (or, an "Affiliate" Library).
Especially, for those, who do not have, partner "Accounts" linked/connected.
Just my thoughts.
Take it; or, leave it ... I care not ...
Brett
0 -
Hi Aine,
The problem is when you open the Research Help it results in the ! 403 message Record access denied, and you cannot attach it to your ancestor. We are currently inquiring about this issue, when we have an answer we will post it. We apologize for the inconvenience, thank you for your patience.
0 -
As stated above the issue is on how you see the Research help hints and for this reason this question would be moved to Family Tree. This issue is not managed by this Search platform.
0 -
It's a shame this thread has been moved to Tree where few will see it. There are several new posts from other users on the same topic.
0 -
I suppose it's difficult to decide the most appropriate category for questions like this. Regarding the 1871 census, I have seen three threads attached to "General Questions" today. However, "Search" is probably more appropriate for general queries, whereas "Family Tree" would seem more suitable if the query is in connection with linking the sources to IDs within FT. I see the moderator's must have a difficult choice here.
1
