Correction: Two Henry Duck burials indexed as part of England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991
I have reviewed images of the original records on FindMyPast for the burial of Henry Duck listed in two separate records:
While technically accurate, the records as indexed do not contain full information. Both Henry's were sons of John Duck of Detling, Kent, England, the first being an infant son. I feel that the index should contain this vital information as well as the burial date.
For reference, the FindMyPast URL is:
Thank you for your kind consideration, Jeff Bonevich
Answers
-
And to my surprise, the second record listed above, for Henry buried in 1634, the date appears to be totally wrong: in the index a date of 6 April 1634 is given, but in the original the date is 2 November 1634. Please correct this at your earliest convenience. Thanks!
0 -
Putting each FamilySearch link on its own line corrupts the URLs. The corrected links are https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JZLB-ZNT and https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JZLB-ZJ6
An index is considered to be a finding aid and is not meant to be a full extract of the record.
2 -
Thanks for catching the URLs and correcting.
As for the index, I agree in principle except where the original record is not available to examine which is true in a lot if not most cases for FamilySearch - I can no longer order microfilms to look for images of the originals, not all microfilm has been converted to digital images, and I am not in a position to visit a FHL/FHC regularly enough to see if they exist. In this case, I found the original could be examined on FindMyPast.com (paid service) and found the discrepancies. Correcting the index would make things much more useful for users, especially correcting an error.
jeff
0 -
You can flag your post to call the attention of a moderator, but, in my experience, editing an index, when the images are not resident on FS, doesn't happen.
0 -
@Jeffrey Bonevich, you are mistaken: all of FS's microfilms have been digitized. Every single reel -- and that's A LOT of film. The problem is, "digitized" is not at all the same thing as "online". The former is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the latter. Other requirements for "online" include permission from the record custodian, and lack of legal restrictions (such as privacy laws).
Based on your impression (which I do not share) that most images aren't available on FS, I would guess that you work mostly with English records? Those have all been finding their ways behind paywalls of late, mostly on FMP, and that's why they're not available (or no longer available) to you from home on FS.
FS does not allocate any of its limited resources to correcting individual entries in published indexes, and users can only correct some fields of some indexes if the image is available to them on FS, so I'm afraid Mr. Ducke's entries are going to stay incorrect on FS. You may be able to get FMP to correct their version of the index, but I have never been able to make an account with them (my name is invalid, donchaknow), so I cannot advise about the details on that.
There's a catch-22 on the accuracy of indexes versus availability of the document: if you can't see the document, how do you know that the index is incorrect? How do you make a correction if you have nothing to support it? There is no easy solution to this basic logical quandary, so it's best to continue to follow the good advice of generations of genealogists: "Never trust an index."
3 -
@Jeffrey Bonevich Your first link is on Microfilm Number 1736692, Bishop's transcripts for Deal, 1564-1908, which is available at FSCs and Affiliate Libraries. Your second link is on the same film, so the same access.
The FindMyPast link indicates Kent Burials, Birth, Marriage & Death (Parish Registers). It's quite possible that the indexes on FS were not made from the same original record on FMP, since Bishop's Transcripts are copies of the Parish Registers. FindMyPast is not terribly transparent about their sources.
1 -
Interesting! And good to know that all microfilm has been "digitized" - what a monumental effort that must have been! I get the limited resources argument, but could there at least be a way to comment on the index entry, to give others additional information from the community perspective? (I am a software dev, I understand the complexity, etc.). It's all got to be for the greater good. Just register this then as a request for an improvement to the site. If there is a better way to do that, happy to learn!
0
