US New York Nat records part C- In image 1, there is an interesting overlay. It is a blank
document, and it is at the very top of the page. Because it is an overlay, I did mark it
NNED. Would someone please confirm this is correct?
https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/1b9cc8b0-54b4-4f9f-af62-8696502cfd99
Thanks,
Answers
-
Yep, it's NNED.
0 -
erutherford Lisa Kay Horlacher
I had a similar image recently when I was indexing in that project and I actually ended up indexing it for the following reason:
I checked the reference images and found that there was no other image that covered The petition for Naturalization. It appears that the deposition paper is attached in such a way that it cannot be completely removed and that the person photographing The petition for Naturalization underneath folded the deposition to get it out of the way as much as possible. If that image is marked NNED there will be no record of The petition for Naturalization.
I realize this doesn't follow to the letter the instructions concerning overlays but I think this might be a worthwhile deviation from the rule.
Just my thinking.🙂
2 -
If there's an overlay, for whatever reason, it should be marked NNED. It's not our job to speculate as to why however much of the overlay is there. There is no PI that gives exceptions to "well, ya know, if it's almost off the record, go ahead and index it" and until there is, it has to be marked NNED. I had a Declaration where the only thing that was missing was the Record Date, but that was overlaid by a COA. Had to mark it as NNED.
0 -
If only a more common sense approach (like yours) could filter through the whole FamilySearch indexing process: it would certainly make those elusive records of our ancestors / relatives easier to find!
Whilst I am not arguing with the response from erutherford, sticking strictly to the PI is certainly of no help to researchers in cases like this. Conversely, not long ago I read that project instructions for one particular batch were if one piece of data was not discernible in a document, another should be substituted. The other data did not even relate to the items being indexed, so this just shows the inconsistency between the instructions between one project and another, and why I have suggested the whole process should be subject to review.
As I always stress, indexed records are supposed to provide a helpful means of locating the originals, but some of the current PIs are making it more difficult to locate records. I just find it so sad that FamilySearch (compared to other websites) is making it so difficult to locate the records that are passing through its indexing projects, but then are either not being indexed at all or are being placed in collections to which they have no connection.
1
