Suggested modification to the FamilySearch catalog
This is not my suggestion. It was submitted to FamilySearch Support via email and the person making the suggestion does not want to use Community because of the inability to delete a post. I'll just give it to you the way the person sent it via email:
"I would like to suggest some changes to the FS's catalog feature:
1-I would like the films to be searchable by film numbers or DGS or by dates.
2- I would like to say if they are searchable by film number, they do not need to be in order, but if they are that will be better."
We responded with instructions for searching the catalog by film number, since that is already a feature. Further clarification from the person:
"The problem is that the current number search is not direct. When you search for a number, the result will show you the whole entry of all the films that contains in the title/town/item that the film is set in. It doesn't get you directly to the right film."
I believe the guest is incorrect in his assumptions and will respond to explain what he sees when he searches for a film number and sees more than one result. But he is also insistent that this get posted to Community.
Comments
-
My sympathies, N. (You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.)
Perhaps this guest needs to be taught about his browser's text-search feature. That would allow him to go straight to the film he wants on the catalog detail page. (The only complication is if it's a multi-page listing.)
1 -
I believe a very valid point is being raised here. I have often inputted a film number, only to be offered a page full of alternative film numbers (relating to material coming under the same heading), which I then have to scroll through before I reach the one I want.
I believe it perfectly reasonable to expect there to at least be an "exact" filter, so I can see the contents / viewing availability of just that one film of interest.
Here's an example, whereby I just wish to view film 1471075 (which I had noted as covering multiple Norfolk parishes, when I last viewed it an a FHC some years ago):
And here's what I get returned:
1 -
@Paul W, as I said, that's what CTRL-F (or your browser/OS equivalent) is for.
A separate catalog page for every line in such a listing would be somewhat like a library card catalog with a separate card for every chapter of every book.
0 -
Like my son - in circumstances similar to this - you will probably feel like banging my head against the wall! But, please understand that to me, and the less computer-savvy among us, using the FIND / CTRL-F function would not immediately come to mind here.
Oh, and I'm sorry, I don't quite go along with your analogy, because in the majority of cases there will be just one result appear - even where there are many films that belong to the same category / are of identical subject matter. I tried some examples earlier - before I managed to produce this one - and (in spite of there being several films covering the same parish material) a search on one film number did not reveal the others. It just shows the Catalog is not completely consistent in its cataloguing of material by subject matter.
0 -
@Paul W is correct to highlight the issues. Suppose I wish to check up on an entry from the Irish Registry of Deeds on "film 531699, starting image 325" (And you can't get much more exact than that...)
If I enquire on film 531699, I get two lines reading:
Transcripts of memorials of deeds, conveyances and wills, 1708-1929
Author: Ireland. Registry of Deeds
If I click on that entry I get twenty-seven pages of films. So the requestor is perfectly correct to say that "It doesn't get you directly to the right film".
Now, the truth of it is that if you are a Jedi-Master of the Registry of Deeds and know what to expect, then you can binary chop to get to the right type of film. Then you can binary chop the title of the film (because it has dates in) - all of which depends on several things such as having the titles in a consistent format - spot the potential flaw there?
There are basically two issues here.
One is the extra time, which may or may not be material. Yeah, Ctrl-F is adequate most of the time. However, not always... I've no idea how many 27 page listings there are, but it didn't require much thought on my part to come up with that example - which is out of my own database, I must add.
The second issue here is the abiding fault of FS Query Interface design and it's the refusal to give an exact result and preference for throwing more at the user because the system knows better than the user what they want. In this instance, if I ask for a film, why can't I be given that film, straight away? It's the psychological impact there, which doesn't rebound to the credit of FS.
2 -
As an afterthought, maybe the new version of the Catalog will be able to provide all what your contact is requesting - and more! After two years of the current one being locked, we certainly have high expectations as to its enhanced features and capabilities.
1 -
@Adrian Bruce1, depending on the type of "film" number, there's a shortcut: if what you have is the digital image group's number, then you can plug it straight into the film-viewer URL (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/008093695).
Of course, your example is not the digital label, so figuring out the URL involved clicking through the catalog listing. (It's on page 10.) But somehow, I'd rather do that than fight with the Images section, any day. I suppose part of that is familiarity, but it's mostly mistrust of Images: it has lied to me every single time I've tried to use it, by being too specific. Yes, the Catalog shows more than what I asked for, but by doing that, it shows me exactly what is or isn't there, and I'm reassured that I'm not being lied to. (Well, other than about placenames that can be either hyphenated or not. Searching for Nagyszeben doesn't turn up Nagy-Szeben. But this is a long-standing quirk that I've learned to work around.)
1 -
Search> Images does have it's quirks but I find it's variety of search options to be much more powerful than Catalog (yes Catalog is still useful) ... But searching by DGS I have found is pretty reliable in Images - however as mentioned - for whatever reason if DGS is not found I have had good success searching with place, record type or collection title variant/combination.
I believe there is just so vast a quantity of film images - that films with multiple items for example - are not necessarily way pointed/separated yet - though in my opinion Images does this better that the older viewer.
As far as the Idea of searching by film/DGS ... um Yes, this horse been drinking for a while:
But yes I do think there are possibly two issues being discussed - 1. way pointing/separating film items and 2. Searching for that film/DGS taking you directly to that film/item. I think until FamilySearch completes organizing the films - or Community helping them to do so - what the user wants may be a bit away - but yes, FamilySearch is trying to get there.
I would ask the guest - "have you tried Search>Images?"
0 -
Search> Images does have it's quirks
I would say, @genthusiast that for a long, long time, it's not had quirks - it's been useless. Essentially navigation appeared to be totally broken where there were multiple places and / or multiple items on one "film". I simply couldn't get to the correct item - it was going anywhere on the film and once I had some images, it was impossible to get to the right place on the film.
I fed back many times describing the issues that I had.
Interestingly, I just tried to access images for Wybunbury. At first it seemed to work and I ended up with what I wanted (hooray!), then I ended up with some Frodsham records (that are at the start of the same film) and after that it all seemed to fall apart. Whether the issue is software or cataloguing, I don't know.
2 -
I seem to have the misfortune of always wanting to view a parish record from a film that has about 16 items. Yesterday, I had this problem and must have hit on every other parish before reaching the one I was seeking. Is the listing on the right side ever in order?
I thought that Images might have been developed a little more after this time, but I try to steer away from using it as far as I can, as it is completely exasperating to use.
1 -
"Is the listing on the right side ever in order?"
Working from memory - I don't remember ever seeing it so. Which is kind of weird because as an ex-programmer, my attitude is why would you not add Item Number to the stuff visible in the righthand pane? And if you did add it, why would you not sort by it?
0 -
@Paul W Above I said
"I just tried to access images for Wybunbury. At first it seemed to work and I ended up with what I wanted (hooray!), then I ended up with some Frodsham records (that are at the start of the same film) and after that it all seemed to fall apart."
I've just been trying to see what might have happened and I discover an interesting thing. There is a new version of Search / Images (I know it's new because at the top if offers me the option to "Return to Old Version".) I have yet to get my head around it all - but it does seem to be a vast improvement. From selection by Place, you get a list of Items on what isn't Films (it says Image Group Number, whatever that is). If you choose one, you go to the right place - and the righthand pane applies just to that item.
The main issue is that the descriptions of the items appear to be the descriptions of the films - e.g. "Baptism Records, Burial Records, Religious Marriage Records, Religious Rate Records, Tithe Records" appears to apply to the whole of the film because Rate records are never on the same items as parish registers (famous last words).
I did end up in Frodsham again instead of Wybunbury but maybe that is just a cataloguing issue, as so much else worked?
1 -
Yes- I've been using the new version for a while. It is great at somethings but seems to 'hide' some records - in which case a combination of old Catalog and new Images works great (I believe many collections are now referring to the same image - whether in old viewer or new). I have found that some films are still not way pointed/separated as one would wish - but generally I like the new viewer better than old (especially if new 'edit every field' index is attached - it generally works better than old ...).
0 -
Rather that wander too far off-topic (as I am prone to do!) I intend to raise separate topics, following my experiences in using Images over the last couple of days.
Update - have since raised "Images" issues at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/144184/why-is-a-search-for-specific-places-in-images-made-so-confusing#latest
0 -
So, this thread has so many posts in it, yet I am not quite sure what is the point of controversy . I'm sure someone will point out what I have missed, but here is my observations on catalog and images. The collections we bump into when we search by either film or image group can be 1) fully searchable 2) indexed but without the index pointing to a specific image, or finally 3) never seen by human eyes other than those of us who like to click "next" for hours at a time (me, for example). In order to properly navigate collections of the #3 type, I first need to poke around and see how they are organized. Then I used the "browse multiple images" to jump around.
I have also seen, once or twice, collections rearranged so that an image that used to be associated with a film or image group # now has a bad link. (Which is why I never report when, for example, I find a rogue set of marriage records interspersed with death register images, etc. I don't want to be a part of breaking links).
The person making the original post seems to want to be informed on what state the collection is in. My thought is that it is a reasonable suggestion and that there would be no discussion. Many good ideas sit there with no replies because there is nothing to argue with. So now I think I've missed something. What?
Also, jumping on the image search tangent, I have found it useful. During the time when the 1950 census was being worked on, a county I was waiting for seemed to be at the end of the list. I searched images and found all the images grouped by ED. While not searchable, I was able to click through and find the family I was looking for.
0 -
I agree with most of your points, Gail. But, even with the "new version", finding records for places in England can be very tricky when using "Images". A lot of this relates to the "United Kingdom" suffix. Strictly speaking, records up to 1801should not carry the suffix, but those from 1801 should. (I'm never sure how to treat records for 1801, but that's another issue!) The problem is that some records cover both periods and others have been catalogued without regard to the "standard" format. So, for every placename, I have to carry out at least two searches - and this can be further broken down into sub-categories (meaning still further, separate seaches) - many of which are not appropriate to the type of record that appear under that heading!
So, whilst things have improved with the introduction of the "new version", I still tend to stick to the (albeit out-of-date) Catalog, or search from the image-only list of collections that appears under "England".
Here's an example of the pick-list for Tendring, Essex - one of which might have the records connected to my search under its heading:
And this is what I get when I pick the option that I know does match the heading and for which there definitely are records to be found (I tried out a few more options besides this one):
I only found what I was looking for by going to the Catalog, finding the DGS number and pasting it into Images:
Well, eventually the film has loaded - although it has 2180 pages and (hopefully) my Tendring parish records will be there when I search - though not in the position the list suggests, of course! (See https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-X96S-9G4?view=explore&groupId=TH-266-12643-44666-10&grid=on)
1 -
@Paul W Ah, ok I understand exactly the issue now. I have to tell you that at one point I took (ie PAID for) a 12 hour seminar on just Irish records. That, of course overlaps with the UK thing, which is very confusing, although researching my Scotts-Irish heritage and diving into 700 years of history, I have learned a huge amount of background information on why there are 2 "Irelands", Scotland isn't the same as England, England isn't the same as the UK , Wales is just out there in the UK universe, etc. Whether or not the 2 big islands have their own name is a mystery to me, but it doesn't cause me to lose sleep.
The fallout is that I don't know how to research my many ancestors who lived all over those 2 big islands. I find places on the map where it seems they may have lived, and then gaze wistfully at the zoomed in satellite images.
When I'm ready to wade in the murky details you are alluding to, I will probably come to you in the future with a pin on a map and ask you to help with research pointers of said location for different centuries. Seems like a topic someone could get a PhD in.
EDIT: Your images just appeared right after I wrote all of the above. Good heavens! What a mess!
0 -
I'm still far from brilliant at it, but after about 38 years of research of my English ancestry (rather less on the Scottish side) I have managed to develop, say, a certain mindset involving my approaches.
By all means, contact me via "Messages" on any specific issues - no guarantees, of course: I still have many elusive events to trace for my ancestors.
1 -
Your example provides a good one for showing how the 'new version' 'hides' collections. Using DGS - as I mentioned above 'usually' takes you right to the Images. Yes, the reason it didn't find it searching Tendring, Essex, England, United Kingdom is because the collection is linked to Tendring, Essex, England (as you mention). If you use the map approach in the 'new version' - do you find Tendring records easier?
0 -
I'm not quite sure if I am understanding your expression "map approach". My problem is simply in guessing which category the records might have been placed under. It's hit and miss whether the correct category has been chosen by the team responsible for the "filing", but as yet I've just had to try to wotk my way through until I can find where records have been placed. There are currently seven options for Tendring in Essex - but not one for where these records should have been best assigned to - "Tendring, Essex, England, United Kingdom" - Parish 1801 - present".
I wish FamilySearch would reduce the available options (as I've mentioned in other posts) so the "United Kingdom" suffix could disappear and some of the categories would go the same way. True, there is a difference between Tendring the parish, the hundred and the civil registration district, but these three names would be fine to use for the "Tendring" records on FamilySearch. As an example, I would bet few FamilySearch volunteers / employees would be able to differentiate between records of Tendring the village and Tendring the parish (me, too), yet two separate terms are used here.
1
