Why is a search for specific places in "Images" made so confusing?
My first comment should be that I have been quite used to sitting for hours searching the whole of a microfilm for the record I am seeking. As long as I can be quite sure I will reach the parish / location that is the object of my search, I remain quite happy to do this.
Unfortunately, the data attached to "Images" can lead to much exasperation when attempting to carry out what, ostensibly, would appear to be a straightforward search.
I illustrate this below with a screenshot of what one would expect to find when searching for a parish / township in this area of Cumberland in relation to the 1841 census.
However, the content does not follow the order suggested, nor does clicking on a specific place produce any useful outcome. There is a place that is not found on the film (more of that later) and three additional places that are included, but not mentioned on the right side of the page, or have been catalogued.
To expand, the actual order on the film of the places listed is:
Scaleby, Stanwix, Bellbank, Stapleton (part), Solport, Stapleton (part), Trough, Walton. Additionally, there follows records relating to Little Corby, Great Corby and Warwick Bridge. As rather expected, there are no records on this film for Piece, Cornwall.
As I suggest, I am quite okay with ploughing through films to find (or, often, not find) what I am after. But this layout (and this very common within "Images") only causes confusion and frustration. Why even bother to provide a list that is (as in many other examples) in no meaningful order, has omissions, and even lists material that is not on this film?
In the specific case of "Piece, Cornwall", someone in FamilySearch appears to have a strange need to link it to other areas, throughout England. The link below indicates its records to be on films which many of which, almost certainly, do not contain records relating to Piece, Cornwall:
Incidentally the link to the Cumberland census records (see screenshot) is https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-B3G2-3CTP?view=explore&groupId=TH-7771-101403-8800-71.
I would be most grateful if a moderator could escalate this issue, as I wonder if the team responsible are even aware of the current difficulties of finding records via "Images". If they are, we can only hope they are working as quickly as possible to rectify the situation. It is difficult to be optimistic about this, however, as the "new version" has still not addressed the problems outlined, which have been present from when the Images feature first became available.