Correction
Not easily clear how to submit corrections
But for Bourbon County, Kentucky Probate records there are some clear problems with the links presented https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9P3T-95GN?owc=37RV-2N5%3A173384901%3Fcc%3D1875188&wc=37RT-827%3A173384901%2C173429501&cc=1875188
The. most obvious issue--on my screen anyway--is there are links to four probate books for 1729 and/or 1730 in Bourbon County. Obviously, an impossibility.
There are also links to several books shown as Will Records, Index, for various years. I have gone through three or four and have yet to find an index--which are usually at the beginning or end of books
Bob Scott
Answers
-
Bob
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
And, I am certainly NOT an, Expert; or, Authority, on "Indexing".
[ And, without, examining the "Images" ... ]
In relation to your query ...
[ 1 ] The. most obvious issue--on my screen anyway--is there are links to four probate books for 1729 and/or 1730 in Bourbon County. Obviously, an impossibility.
Short Answer: They appear to be DIFFERENT "Volumes" (ie. MORE than ONE).
[ 2 ] The. most obvious issue--on my screen anyway--is there are links to four probate books for 1729 and/or 1730 in Bourbon County. Obviously, an impossibility.
Short Answer: There are NO "Indexes" for those Records (as yet); as, they are "Image" ONLY "Collections".
ie. NO "Magnifying Glass" Icon.
Here is a "Knowledge Article", in 'FamilySearch':
Some digitized microfilms and collections are not completely indexed
Just my thoughts.
Brett
1 -
@Brett ., the question has nothing to do with indexing. It's asking about some rather weird waypoints in a waypointed collection of images.
@Bob W. Scott, it appears to me that the waypoints have tried to break down the two films containing indexes to wills into smaller chunks. The catalog notes that these indexes are undated. I therefore have no clue where the waypoints got the 1729-1730 dates; they essentially appear to have nothing to do with the actual images.
(The catalog entry has its faults, too: its claim that the records are arranged numerically appears to be inaccurate. For example, the first section of the first of the two films appears to be alphabetical, with no sign of numbering, but the catalog claims that the film contains numbers 1 to 5000.)
As for getting this fixed: I'm not sure anyone at FS knows how to do that. None of the waypointing errors that I've reported over the years have ever been corrected.
0 -
Bob W. Scott I know exactly what you are talking about (statehood dates) and have also found some weird collections, this one in Ancestry. Take a look at this title: " Kentucky, U.S., County Marriage Records, 1783-1965". Retyping for emphasis: Kentucky marriage records, 1783. (So this won't be lost on some, Kentucky became a state June 1, 1792.)
When I looked carefully at the specific source applied to the ancestor I was researching, the image CLEARLY has "Commonwealth of Virginia" in several locations. Here is a link to my particular record in Ancestry in case you want to see it. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/1707532:61372
This clearly implies that the genealogy collections agreements between Virginia and Kentucky have taken an unusual turn. "Records are found with the location that existed at the time the record was created" is no longer applying to Virginia and Kentucky.
0 -
If anyone has updated information on this, I am very interested. I think I have shown you how more than FamilySearch has collections grouped as Kentucky for periods of time when Kentucky did not exist. This is quite evident when you follow the link Bob W. Scott has provided, and click one of the options for Bourbon county BEFORE the existence of the state of Kentucky. State of Virginia is clearly in the handwriting in the wills.
My desire to understand what is going on relates to a big group of ancestors who were in Kentucky before it was a state, after it achieved statehood, and eventually all moved to Indiana. It is very upsetting to see records groups in a non-standard way.
0
