FamilySearch employees / management should respond to queries only they can answer
There are at least two issues I can think of that are repeatedly being raised within Community.
Firstly, concerning the currently locked Catalog. Not a case of necessarily knowing when it will be updated, but if this is the intention. We are being advised the beta version is only meant to reflect the holdings of the physical holdings at the main library at SLC, so will not act as a replacement for the "locked" one found under "Search".
Secondly, whether there is still the intention to digitise microfiche holdings. Again, no precise timetable is being requested - just if this work will proceed at some stage.
I would stress - much as many FS patrons would like specific answers on FamilySearch's plans regarding these two items - the point being raised here is that FamilySearch employees need to engage with us when the need arises, either through this medium, or through the Blog.
After all, we (everyday users and moderators) happily volunteer our time in addressing nearly all the queries raised on this forum, so surely it would not require too much effort for employees to address issues that are impossible for us to answer?
Comments
-
I raised this issue with Mark McLemore a year or so ago. Sadly, the situation does not seem to have improved.
I have recently noticed an employee answering some questions in his purview, [thank you] but there are still many questions going unanswered or without a definitive reply.
Regarding the catalog, at one point in 2022, I read that the revamp was due to be completed by the end of 2023. Obviously, that didn't happen. We know that deadlines are missed or extended, with good reason, but a little communication would go a long way.
4 -
Agreed @Paul W - I spent some time away from FamilySearch and on my return, I have to say that the degree of informed engagement from "non-civilians" has slumped. To be honest, the "non-civilian" input to GetSatisfaction was very often from engineers etc commenting in their personal capacity - that was fine, I understood it and valued their informed comments. Now, I may be seeing engineers commenting, I don't know - my apologies if I am and I don't recognise it - but in all honesty it's difficult to see much engagement by FS. It wouldn't be so bad if we could understand the basics and then fill in the gaps for ourselves. But some of the facets such as the freezing of the current Catalogue and the scope of the Beta Catalogue are not remotely obvious. One might even say that they are, in fact, counter-intuitive.
We don't expect cast-iron deadlines. Heck - many of us are / were IT professionals, so we understand that reluctance. But we don't even see a pathway.
I could take a wild guess about microfiche - if the 'fiches are not produced by FS then I doubt very much if they'll ever be digitised by FS. But that's my guess and it would be nice for me not to have to guess.
If you want my pet peeve, it's Search / Images which was shambolic a couple of years ago. A few months ago, I got my hopes up because it all seemed to work. Until it didn't... Again, some management input would help with explaining what's wrong. Can it cope with more than one place on a film? Is it all dependent on recataloging multi-place films? Maybe explanations exist but why not link to them from the actual software?
4 -
I'm a little uninformed on the locked catalog thing. What is that all about? As someone who does research at least 8 hours a day lately, I always have FamilySearch and Ancestry open, doing tandem searches in both systems. I hope that the locked catalog issue is because they are about to beef it up. I think many people, who are exclusive users of FamilySearch, would be dismayed at the large number of digitized collections becoming available in Ancestry that are not in FamilySearch. I have been spending the last 3 days in non-indexed will and probate collections in Ancestry finding records that either do not exist in FamilySearch at all or are in collections you have to be at a Family History Center to access. I'm adding a lot more sources from Ancestry to FamilySearch PIDs than I am adding FamilySearch sources to my Ancestry trees. I'm still finding lots of critical documents in FS, but honestly, Ancestry is much more fruitful. Will this start changing when whatever catalog issue is fixed that you guys are talking about?
0 -
The only thing that should be affected by the locking of the Catalog is the ability to view details of material added / acquired by FamilySearch in the period since the Catalog was locked - over two years ago?
We are told the workaround for this is to make a search in the "Images" section. However, this is not so easy to navigate, as it is often pure guesswork as to under what heading the desired material will be found. (I will try to give an example, later.)
The lack of records you are now finding when using FamilySearch is an unrelated matter. Many record custodians would prefer to work alongside a commercial concern, like Ancestry, as this would be more beneficial to them financially. However, the reciprocal arrangements FamilySearch has with Ancestry and Find My Past (you can publish some of our material, if we can publish some of yours) often does lead to material becoming available on the FS website.
(Incidentally, I have found that even without a subscription to FMP, I can view / download many images there for free - most of which do seem to have a "Courtesy of FamilySearch" acknowledgment attached, however, although not necessarily available on FS without restrictions.)
Here's an example of the problem in finding a record in "Images":
To (hopefully) find the record you are seeking, you then might need to check against the different options under which Carlisle, Cumberland has been "standardized", as the records might have been placed under an unexpected heading! For example, you will have to check where a collection covering 1760-1850 has been "filed". Also, some records will have been placed in multiple places, for example:
So where do I find that 1720 christening record I want to view? At least I only have two options in this example - often "collections" contain, say, between 30 and 300 images, covering the same period / type of record, so there are multiple options for where you might find an item being sought.
And this is supposed to be a substitute for the Catalog? Please revise it and unlock asap - or perhaps that will never happen? We don't know, of course, which is why I started this discussion in the first place!
3 -
"... For example, you will have to check where a collection covering 1760-1850 has been "filed". ...
Yes, I've already fed back that splitting stuff by date is counter-productive because sources straddle administrative time-boundaries.
2 -
This is the sort of thing that drives me a little crazy. I answered this thread on 6 June, and the OP accepted my reply and thanked me. Today, 30 June, a mod comes along as if I never spoke. Meanwhile, there are dozens of threads that need staff/mod attention with no reply. https://community.familysearch.org/es/discussion/comment/517974#Comment_517974
0 -
For info on microfiche, please see https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/518888#Comment_518888
The latest info I am aware of about the catalog is what is given here: https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/our-catalogs. This is the same info @N Tychonievich offered in https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/518019#Comment_518019
0 -
I think this partly helps proves my point - as per the title of my original "Idea".
True, there is now an article explaining the position on microfilm, but the rest of us can only speculate on the future of the Catalog until a FamilySearch employee provides an update - not necessarily when, but whether the Catalog is undertaking a revamp and the new version should be released at the earliest opportunity.
I know you, Stephanie V and N Tychonievich work hard in escalating issues in order to provide answers, but it appears some FamilySearch teams are just not willing to collaborate will you, so there remain long-standing issues where we are being kept in the dark as to any future developments.
3 -
Now that the new Catalog has been released - there's no way to access it except via the announcement or a bookmark that I've undertaken to make. I had posted a comment on the 19th of October and was redirected to this conversation. So, I'll repost my questions that FS still hasn't answered (and are hinted to in the above string).
Two Catalogs -- Yuck!!! -- Are there plans to merge them?
I can't even figure out how to access the new "FamilySearch Library Catalog" from the Search drop down. And, the name is way too close to the original library "FamilySearch Catalog" as to be confusing to nearly everyone I talk to. Having to look two places to find things whose physical and/or digital location might be the same (e.g. 'old' books in the FSLibrary vs. 'newly received', but perhaps not newly published in the FSLibrary, definitely not intuitive).
Also, can you add the icons for the media type back to the new catalog representation next to the words? It's much easier to parse the media type with an image (perhaps add a globe for online digitized/searchable availability vs the digitized microfilm camera).
0 -
@sarah1.5495486784957014E12 The only way I have found of accessing the FamilySearch Library catalogue is as follows. Perhaps there is an easier way
Main Page https://www.familysearch.org/en/ scroll to bottom of page
Site Map https://www.familysearch.org/site-map
FamilySearch Library https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/
Collection https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/library-collection
Our Catalogs https://www.familysearch.org/en/library/our-catalogs
The FamilySearch Library Catalog presumably would be of value if you were visiting the FamilySearch Library, but apart from that, any other value escapes me. You are supposed to be able to access digitised books from this catalog, but I just tried, as examples, two links for digitised books neither of which worked, so perhaps none of these work.
0
