There is no indication of whether a record is birth, death, baptism, marriage or membership
But there is a date and place, and when I say No Extractible data, it says this will delete all the info, and am I sure? I hate to drop a record when I see there is valuable information. This project is South Africa—Dutch Reformed Church Registers, 1660–1970 [Part C][M3X3-55P].
Answers
-
I would say that appears to be a page from an index, with no reference as to kind of record. And I believe the instructions say that indexes should be returned as No Extractable Data.
0 -
These are baptisms
1 -
But the reference to Bk.No (book number) and BL (probably Blatt/Page) indicates it is an index, not the actual record.
0 -
It is my understanding that we do indexes that have dates, isn't that right? I'd like to know how you found the page that said it was a baptism index, (the film digital note).
2 -
@Glenna GHB @Joan Bagley Gary Noble has lots of experience and knows how to access the films and film catalogs. I think he posted directions on how to do this a couple months ago. Maybe if you go back in the posts far enough you will find it. With his information I will be indexing/reviewing them as Baptisms. @gary_noble
1 -
It is very easy to access the films and images when they are available (sometimes they are not). This one happens to be available.
With your batch open, Click on Batch in the top left corner. Click About Batch. The first digits of the image name is the Image Group Number. The second numbers are the image number. Copy the first digits.
Open a new window, Click Search, Click Images, Click Show More Search Options, Click Show Advanced Search, Paste the Image Group Number into the appropriate box and click Search Image Groups. The results will come up and you can view the film's information as well as find image number 817 (your image).
1 -
@Melissa S Himes I tried your directions. I opened a new FamilySearch.org window and clicked on Search, then clicked on Images. I had to search the pop-up window and found the small option for Show More Options, and then again for Show Advanced Search. Then I copied the Image Group Number into the appropriate box. Then Select Image Groups. A screen did then show that the images were Baptisms in South Africa and the date ranges. That was the information I needed to know that my image was a List of Baptisms. But how did you find the number 817 for the above batch? I don't see batch numbers anywhere.
0 -
Batch [M3X3-PZQ] is certainly a Baptism record - NOT A Baptism Index though.
1 -
@Mary Rice You click on the link on that final screen to open the images. Then you would be able to insert the image number 817 into the Image _ of _ in the left corner of the film, and it would take you right to your image. (I just realized that if you switch over to the Newer Version of Search and select "More Options", it doesn't take all the steps above. You just click More Options and get the Image Group Number search right away.)
This doesn't work with all projects though, as it seems that some are behind a firewall and not available. (But, maybe they are to church members). It is always worth a try when in doubt. when I can't figure out what kind of record it is, they get returned for someone else to figure out!
0 -
@Melissa S Himes Thank for all your assistance. Most people seem to be sending them back as No, no extractable data. My question was actually where did you get the number 817?
0 -
@Mary Rice on your open batch, go to menu, click on batch then on drop down you will see about batch. Number on left of the underscore is the film number. Number on the right of underscore is the image number
2 -
I am reviewing these records and find that many people are indexing them incorrectly. I have checked a number of the records (including the specific one shown above) and these are BIRTH RECORDS. They are indexed but the date is the birth date. Plek = Place; BK No = Boek Nommer or Book Number and BL - Bladsy or Page.
1 -
@Mitch Mackrory Yes. I was flummoxed when first opening them until @gary_noble posted that they were Baptisms and posted the Film and Catalog. @Melissa S Himes also found the film verifying them as Baptisms. Why do you think that they are Births? Did you check some of the names on Family Search or Ancestry to find them? I'm interested in knowing.
0 -
@gary_noble Thank you. I was inputing the whole number, not just the first section. It works!
0 -
They are indexes to the Cape Ring Book Baptisms, but as Mitch says the date shown is the birth date. The example in PI is incorrect for "how to index a baptism 3". Here is the PI example saying its baptism date, vs the actual record it relates to, where it shows geb (born) 3 May 1882. The baptism date (not shown in index) is 8 Oct 1882 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSKX-99LV-D?i=348&cat=960849
3 -
Okay, so I am going to index them as baptism dates then, right? The sample above by Gary Noble looks exactly like the record(s) I have been seeing. Thank you so much, everyone, for trying to help us understand these pages. This is listed as an advanced project, and I definitely don't consider myself "advanced" but I do want to try to help index these records if I know I am not doing them incorrectly. Mahalo from Hawaii.
0 -
Wait...oh no. I just re-read the comment... and it said the PI example given is incorrect, and that it is the BIRTH date listed and not the baptism date, even though it is a baptism record.... So now I am back to square one. Do I list it as a baptism record? Even though it is a birth date that is listed? Oh boy... @gary_noble What do you recommend? Aloha, Norma
0 -
After studying all your comments should I assume that batches with this format/information should be indexed as birth records or do we need to look up each batch to find clarifying information? So far I've reviewed many batches incorrectly as church membership records.
1 -
@Mary Rice, yes, I checked several names against South African Genealogical Records and found exact matches for birth dates.
1 -
@susanjones7 these particular ones are typed indexes to the CAPE RING BOOK BAPTISMS, so must be entered as BAPTISM in the choice of record, but the DATE must go under the BIRTH date field of the entry. On whats coming through for review, you need to correct the date on all of them by moving it to the birth date fields, and blanking the baptism date field.
For all the others currently coming through for review in this exact typed format, where the record type has been incorrectly entered as births, memberships or burials, they need to cleared and sent back for reindexing. Unfortunately the names etc of the information is often correctly entered, but the way the project is set up, as soon as the record type is changed then the information is lost.
3 -
@gary_noble As I agree with what you are saying above, what can be done to change the Project Instructions to reflect this? Since the PI image for indexing Baptism Register #3, is incorrect as you have mentioned, Indexers and Reviewers who read these instructions will continue to do them incorrectly. I don't think all refer to our Indexing Community Forum, and so will continue to index and review this project incorrectly like I have been doing since these batches became available.
2 -
@Mary Rice I have emailed the FS dept, no reply possibly since its weekend, hopefully it will be rectified this week...
3 -
@gary_noble thank you! That now makes sense.
2 -
This discussion is very helpful for both indexers and reviewers as I have seen multiple instances of all the mistakes mentioned.
Now that I know what is correct, as I review these batches, I index all the information in on batches that were marked no extractable data.
Is that the best thing to do as so many don't know what to do with these records? I'm concerned if I just send them back the next indexer might not know to mark them as baptism records but the date goes in as birth day month and year
1 -
I have garnered much information here and I will be glad when the PI are corrected. However, looking ahead, surely there will be indexes of the baptism date and how we will know which is correct then? (The batches I have reviewed have been indexed as death dates.)
0 -
So, For the past 3 Days I have been doing them as Baptism dates. Sorry for that. Not my fault. I was doing this because I found a person who was 30 years old a few days ago so that seemed to confirm these were BAPTISM dates NOT birth dates. That birth year would have been 30 years previous. IT WAS NOT.
1 -
So what is the final decision on how to Index these? I am not doing anything else till I get that decision.
1 -
Problem is I forgot if it had an actual date. I have one now that has "16 jaar oud" in the date area and have seen (gedoop) next to the date on some. I will continue reviewing these as Baptisms and recording the dates in the Birth date entry.
0 -
But what about the place. Is it the Birth or Baptism place? Might have to have them as birth records.
0 -
gary_noble who has researched the records these come from and indicates the place is the Baptism place and this makes sense as they are Baptism records and there isn't a place on the Baptism entry for any place other than the Baptism place
Thank you for all the helpful information gary_noble
1
