See page: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/83928?availability=Family%20History%20Library
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
A quick 'look' ...
That is ODD ...
Your reference indicates, that they ARE "Digitised"; but, NOT 'On-Line" ...
When I did a search, in the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue", for those FHL Films ...
The result is that they ARE "Digitised"; and, ARE 'On-Line' ...
Something ODD ...
Just my thoughts.
Yes, you are correct. I misinterpreted the microfilm reel image to tell me they were only on film. If they were digitized and just not available, I expected to see the camera and a lock key (so I totally ignored that number that you highlight).
The more interesting question now is why do you see the camera? Are you at a FamilySearch Research Center? I was working from home.
PS: I just confirmed that I was logged in and repeated my search. I still get the microfilm reel.
OK, I just looked closer and realized I titled my question wrong. The film numbers I intended to indicate are 700378 and 700379 (whereas I said 700387 and 700389... I transposed numbers on the first one and then for the second film incremented that wrong number!).
Can you access those digital images?
PS: I'm going to edit my question title (if I still can).
IF, you have a look at the URLs; THEN, you will notice, that yours, is DIFFERENT, to mine ...
Notice ... the 83928 reference
Notice ... the 83943 reference
I just searched, in the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue", using those FHL Films ( 700378; &, 700379 ) ...
Call Number Film/Fiche/Image Group Number (DGS)
Question: Where did you access them from?
I accessed them exactly as you suggested: via catalog and roll film number.
They were the old film numbers for civil records from that town. The corresponding church record rolls (700880 and 700881) are digitally available.
Those DIFFERENT FHL Film numbers ...
That puts a different complexion on things ...
SAME as you ...
They ARE "Digitised"; but, NOT 'On-Line" ...
As such ...
Here are some "Knowledge Articles", in 'FamilySearch':
I know, that this certainly may not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
There used to be a way on catalog pages to directly send questions of this nature to FamilySearch staff (which is what I really wanted to do)... but that seems to be gone... it now sends you to these Community pages. Do you know a way I can send a direct note to the staff?
You have, by posting in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
'FamilySearch' "Support" ( Personnel ), are NOW "Part", of this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
[ ie. As of, the EARLY Part, of LAST Year ... ]
I urge you, to read and take in, those "Knowledge Articles", that I previously provided.
As, NOT everything (ie. the "Indexes"; and/or, the "Images") is (or, will be) accessible/available 'On-Line'.
There are VARIOUS "Restrictions", imposed by the (MANY) "Record" Custodians, from who 'FamilySearch' OBTAIN the Records, that are in the (MANY) "Contractual Arrangements/Agreements", between, 'FamilySearch'; and, the "Record" Custodians, that 'FamilySearch' MUST adhere to; which, often RESTRICT, the ability of 'FamilySearch', from making such available/accessible 'On-Line'.
@Thomas Steichen and @Brett .
Info for you in re. the films that Brett sees differently from Thomas in the catalog.
The 2 of you are using different kinds of accounts as you use the catalog. Brett's account is tied to a church record number for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thomas' account is not. Some items on our website are contractually restricted such that only Church Member accounts are able to view the images. Here is the officially approved explanation of this situation:
“FamilySearch’s model for preserving and providing access to the world’s historical genealogical records is to work with record custodians to provide the broadest access to such records for the most people possible.
In other words, we strive to attain legal permissions to publish record collections with the greatest access each circumstance will allow. If full public access cannot be attained for specific record collections, FamilySearch works to provide free access to those records through its family history centers and FamilySearch affiliate libraries and may also seek online access for specific groups.
As a nonprofit organization funded by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, FamilySearch may seek access for members of the church when broader access is not granted by the record custodian.”
So, while we'd like to give free access to all records to all users, we are simply not always able to negotiate that level of access with the record custodians. When you see that film reel icon in the catalog, if travel to Salt Lake City is an option for you, you will be able to look at the physical microfilms if you visit the Family History Library. I'm sure that's not a terribly satisfying answer, but we can only do what we can do as far as record access.
I've been doing this for ~25 years, Brett, and well understand what those articles say.
The reality, in this specific case, is that civil Hungarian records (and also church records) from that era and place are normally available digitally. This is a clear exception and almost certainly an oversight.
The village in question is now part of Burgenland, Austria, formerly part of West Hungary but transferred to Austria after WW-I. This is one of 3 villages (more accurately, civil recording district) in that transferred territory where some of the civil records (1895-1920) are not available in digital format. All of the church records for Burgenland are digitally available and many of the military record sets too.
I can tell you this because I am part of the online "Burgenland Bunch" genealogical group and we provide direct links to all the available record sets (see pages starting here: https://www.the-burgenland-bunch.org/LDS/LDS.htm). I would like to see the few missing ones completed.
The failure to mark these sets with the camera and lock key also tells me that it is not a legal limitation... rather, the process of making them available in digital format was never completed... i.e., an oversight.
Please be, advised; and, aware ...
That I saw the SAME thing, on the 'FamilySearch' Account(s)'; as, BOTH, a Member of the Church; and, a non-member of the Church.
[ ie. It matters NOT, whether one is a Member of the Church or not ... one 'sees' the SAME thing ... ]
I checked such; BEFORE, posting; and, the WHOLE matter, was made even more confusing, by the INCORRECT FHL Film numbers, that ORIGINALLY appeared, in the "Title" of this post, that have subsequently been amended/edited.
Hence, WHY, I provided, those "Knowledge Articles".
@Brett . I tested with both member and public accounts and did not see the same thing. If you are sitting in your family history center when you test, that will impact your results.
Our LOCAL "Family History Centre", is UNFORTUNATLEY, temporarily "Closed", due to the "COVID-19".
ie. Re-Opened; but, was Re-Closed, again LAST Year; &, has NOT been approved, by the Stake President, to Re-Open.
ps: Plus, I was using TWO (x2) different "Browsers", for the different Accounts.
I mentioned 3 recording districts where records were not available digitally. The other two sets include some records where publication would violate the local laws on wait times for record availability, so they are correctly limited. (i.e., they are too modern)
If you look at my 9:44am reply to Brett, you will see that I do not believe your 9:38am response applies to these records... or if it does, it was applied in error. The Hungarian National Archives was the source for those records and they have made available without limitations all the other records for the now Burgenland, Austria region. Why would they limit this one set?
Also note that I originally quoted your response but that message failed to post multiple times, thus this delay in response.
@Thomas Steichen I can ask for a check on the permissions for those records. Meanwhile it is worth noting that our access rights do sometimes change. Archives might decide to give another website exclusive rights to publish the records. Or an archive might want to use access to the records as a revenue generator. But I'll ask for a check on the access and get back to you on it.
Yes, thank you. While I understand the possibility of what you suggest, I'll also propose that it would be highly unlikely in this instance, as there is no significant difference from these record sets to the thousand-plus that are available.
Also, in double checking the other two recording districts, I see that...
Szolnok, Hungary, has one roll # 2430268 that should be available. It has birth and death records for 1912-1924 and marriage records for 1912-1947 (the Hungarian limits are 90 years for births (so 1931 now), 60 years for marriages (1961) and 30 years for deaths (1991).
That same roll also contains records for Jánossomorja , Hungary... and they do not violate the availability laws: marriages for 1924-1947 and deaths for 1925-1950.
So, this roll should be checked out also.
The Burgenland Bunch is interested in those two Hungarian villages (Szolnak, Jánossomorja) because their recording districts included some villages that transferred to Austria in 1921. That roll may be limited by the Austrian laws, which require a 100-year delay before publication of birth records (the marriage and death records would not be limited).
There is another film roll containing Szolnak, Hungary records that is not available digitally. It contains a Roman Catholic Familienbuch for 1685-1900 and is item 8 on film roll 1573076 (DGS 7955303).
It is my expectation that this item is unavailable only because it appears on a roll that contains other items that are restricted. I say this because other regional Familienbuchen are available (evidently because their film rolls did not contain restricted items).
This raises the general question of whether the unrestricted items on a roll can be made available?
The current practice appears to be to restrict the whole roll when even one item is restricted. Such a practice would explain why the Szolnak and Jánossomorja marriage and death records I mentioned are not available, as they are on a roll that has Austrian-restricted birth records.
Can you look into this question too? I.e.: Can the unrestricted items on a roll be made available?
@Thomas Steichen You are quite right. If any of the items on a film roll are restricted, all are. That is true because the current way of viewing films online does not provide a way to only show one item off of the film. But, I am told that this will change in the future as they are working on getting those record sets split up so that unrestricted content can be viewed. No idea how long such a project might take.
Thanks @N Tychonievich, it is good to know that the restriction issue is being looked into.
As far as I could tell, the rolls that I (badly) asked about initially do not suffer from this problem, as no other items are listed when those roll numbers are entered. I do hope this one can be resolved soon.
I appreciate the info,
In case it helps, here's an example of what civil registrations for places that are now in Burgenland should look like in the catalog:
I do think that there has been an error in the access settings for Mosonszentandrás, as I can see no difference between it and Gálos in terms of administration, laws, and record ownership.
Hi @Julia Szent-Györgyi
That is an interesting example, especially given that when I go to it via your link it shows the restrictions' "lock key" ...but it still lets me see the records. Further, when I backed out to get back to this message thread, the "lock key" no longer appeared, so it seems even the software doesn't know how to control those records!
My expectation (and past history with those records) say that there should be no restrictions, so I'm not sure why you say that this is "what civil registrations for places that are now in Burgenland should look like in the catalog." Can you explain that?
@Thomas Steichen, you're describing the catalog's standard behavior regarding logged-in status and the two-week checkbox.
If you're not currently logged in, everything in the Catalog shows as restricted. If you click on a camera-and-key anyway, and you've checked the "keep me signed in" box, it'll silently log you in and show you the images if they're available to your account. If you then hit the "back" button, you'll be viewing the catalog while logged in, so the keys will be gone from anything that's available.
(I don't know what happens if you haven't checked the box and click on a camera-and-key. Does it take you to the login screen, or does it just say "nope, can't", without telling you that the problem is login status, not actual restrictions?)
I presume it does the standard thing and asks you to login first.
As you might expect, I'm usually working with the checked box and get the silent login treatment. I now suspect the weirdness I experienced was due to starting from these Community pages. If I access directly from the BB pages, I usually get silently logged in and the images appear directly (as we use direct links)... I therefore skip the catalog pages so do not see the camera and/or camera and key images.
As always, thanks!
If you look at the above reply to Brett, you will see that I do not believe your response applies to these records... or if it does, it was applied in error. The Hungarian National Archives was the source for those records and they have made available without limitations all the other records for the now Burgenland, Austria region. Why would they limit this one set?
I am finding the same situation with records from: Hungary, Komárom, Kecskéd - Civil registration. There are seven films from the 1900's that run from the 1910teens to the 1970's than so no source other than film although a recent post from the Family Search indicated that all records have been digitized but not necessary indexed.
@ john curlew_1
Hi John, we eventually worked out that the reason the items I asked about were unavailable digitally was that at least one item on the microfilm roll was restricted. The items you list above for Kecskéd should not be restricted... but they only represent items 6-9 on the first roll and items 1-3 on the second roll. By implication, something in items 1-5 on the first roll and something in items 4-? must be restricted on the other roll.
However, in checking the first roll (by searching for the roll number), items 1-5 should not be restricted, so this is an error. In checking the second roll, there are additional items 4-7 and, again, none of these items should be restricted, so this also appears to be an error. Perhaps if you petition FamilySearch, these rolls might be made available.
I am not connected with FamilySearch
The above records are part of the collection https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1452460 "Images of births to 1920, marriages to 1950, and deaths to 1980 reported to and recorded by civil registrars". "Archiv der Stadt Budapest (Archive of the City), Hungary."
As the individual digitised microfilms showing the microfilm icon above are part of this collection, it would appear there there is no reason for the digitised microfilms to be restricted in this way, as the dates fall within the parameters of the collection, and this is a Family Search error which need to be corrected,