Vital records with no headings
I just checked out a batch of vital records, but I looked over the images in the batch and the reference images and can't determine if they are marriage, birth, or death records. The information is perfectly readable, but I don't know what entry type to use. Should I put that it has no extractable data, or should I use a random entry type? I don't know what to do with this batch.
Okay, thank you! This is the batch code: M3D9-Z52.0
Hi Eliza Marie Hunsaker, sorry I am so slow. I looked up your batch and checked both images carefully.
The column headings give some clue but as you said don't really state what the record is about. Marriage is out because there is no couple. Is the occupation that of the person in question or of the father?? If we knew the answer to that it would help.
I tried to look up the original record using the process recommended by John Empoliti but for some reason I was not successful.
Maybe he will see this and be able to help.0
Hi @Eliza Marie Hunsaker and @LarryClark43
I also tried to find the original record and failed. I'm not sure why the film is not at the location indicated in the batch. I've done more investigating, but to no avail. As I mentioned when I posted the method for finding the film from the Batch information, it usually works. But it didn't in this case.
This project is part E
South Africa, Natal—Vital Records, 1868–1976 [Part E][M3D9-Z52]
The method does work for part F. For example for this one.
South Africa, Natal—Vital Records, 1868–1976 [Part F][M3VH-RGP]
I know that is of no help, Larry.
I've tried finding the film by other methods and have come up empty. I'm not sure what's going on.0
Should I just post the batch as having no extractable data, or is there something more I can do?0
I wouldn't mark it as no extractable data. If you don't get an answer from a moderator I would return the batch. someone will know if these are birth or death records. From what I see I would guess birth but that is just a guess. Without being able to check the beginning of the record I really don't know.
If you want to return the batch go to Batch at the top of the page and just click return.
As you marked the question as answered you might not get any further response from a moderator.0
Unfortunately, I think the method John has described for finding the image collection that an indexing batch relates to will only work if those images are freely available. I’ve done a catalogue search for the image group (see https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/3153435?availability=Family%20History%20Library) and found the following information for image group number 106497932:
Department of Home Affairs, Pietermaritzburg-Birth Registers-Indian, 6 Oct 1956–21 Jul 1962
There are no digital images available for this image group, not even at an FHL. I suspect that this is because the dates are recent and subject to privacy restrictions. Looking at all of the image groups in that collection, it appears that images are available for those image groups that cover records dated over 100 years ago. I'd guess that these indexed records will not be available to search on Family Search when they are indexed; the instructions say there may be restrictions.
However, the image group title does suggest that they are birth records, and the records do look like birth records so you could perhaps make a judgement call on that. Without the attention of a moderator, I don’t know how any indexer or reviewer would have anymore certainty than that so I’m not sure what benefit there is to returning the batch, someone has to make a judgement call or return them as no extractable data. (My understanding is that records returned as ‘no extractable data’ are reviewed by Family Search so will be picked up by them, they won’t be lost.)
I don’t have the depth of experience with indexing that @John Empoliti and @Melissa S Himes have; they may have a different view to me.0
You could be right about that. Yes, I would return it for someone perhaps more experienced with that project to deal with.0
I would index them as birth records. They have a name, a date, the names of the mother and father, and an occupation like the birth records in the example.1
I don’t have any experience with these records, and found the “Occupation,” “informed,” and “Found.” headers/fields odd and incongruous with births. I do not have an informed Indexing opinion on this batch/project. I don’t think I tried another batch from this project to see if it was just this batch or whole project for which films are unavailable for viewing via this method..
in trying different keyword searches when the image I’d search failed, I did learn that some boxes were mislabeled as deaths or vice versa (via the comments). During that experiment I also learned that one can do at least one kind of “Boolean” search. I successfully searched on “South Africa” AND “Natal” AND “Death” I believe; or maybe it was “Birth.” Anyway I ended up with a relative handful of films that didn’t look like the ones in question - 40 in one case, and I think 8 in another. I’m not sure if the capitalization of AND is significant. I’ve seen it be in other situations. During one of these searches I saw the comments about mislabeled boxes.
Also, films for other (e.g. military) records that were going to have restrictions upon publication were available for viewing during the indexing process, so I don’t know what to make of the special treatment of these mysterious ones.0
These are birth records1
That settles it.0