This has to do with Alabama Marriages, 1816-1957 and https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQ8Q-36N
some sort of broken link
but WHY the broken link - is really more the question you are asking.
what specific record are you trying to get at when you receive this error?
I wonder if this was a link that you Book-marked
and then recently clicked on the book mark to get this error.
Its possible that between when you originally bookmarked it and now - the link had changed.
but you didn't say you were basing this on a bookmark - so I don't know if that is the reason.
It was a Marriage Record for Alabama as I indicated. The link is NOT broken, it indicates that the record has been removed. My question is why the record was removed. Obviously the error code of 410 means something to someone.
my question is which of the many marriage in the Alabama Records were you ciicking on. The message you are getting is a very generic message that happens when the file cannot be found - which could mean that it was removed - but could also (more probably) just as well mean that the link has changed (that the file is now at a different storage location) . The 410 - is a very generic message across the system - and not just a message unique to Alabama Marriages. its like a "file not found" error. but the 410 - isnt (by itslf) gong to explain WHY the file was not found - it requires further investigation - especially to know which marriage the link was for - - they may have just moved it (to a different link).
It was the marriage record for Daniel Snider and Barbary Weaver married 26 April 1828 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. If you go to the bottom of the page of sources for Daniel https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/2MPV-YRH you will see where it is attached to the profile. At the time it was attached, the data/record was available. I have searched and searched, the record is gone, trust me I know what I am doing. https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1674672 is the collection that it was a part of.
The matter has discussed in the "FamilySearch" ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum previously on a number of occasions.
There are, many; and, varied, reason as to WHY a "Record" is "Removed" from "FamilySearch".
One such explanation; but, NOT limited to or the only one, maybe that the Contractual Arrangement/Agreement between "FamilySearch" and the Record Custodian, has been, renewed; up-dated; or, changed; where, the Record Custodian NO LONGER wants the Record to be available on "FamilySearch", for whatever reason - as such access to the Record in "FamilySearch" is "Removed".
Not good ...
Not helpful ...
The Record Custodians have the ultimate say as to what happens to the Records in their custody, that they have given (or, access) to "FamilySearch", NOT the other way around.
I hope that this puts things into perspective.
The explanation you give Brett - would make sense - if the entire collection was taken off line
but other records from the same collection and similar years still seem to be on line and reachable.
I do see that I cant find a single case of a Tuscaloosa County Marriage in the collection in question. So it does appear to be more than just a random case of one specific marriage being removed - but something more wide-spread for that specific county.
I do see that the marriage is found on Ancestry's Alabama marriages:
@Dennis J Yancey
'Oh Ye of little faith' ... not, spiritually, just the matter regarding "Contractual" Agreements/Arrangements ...
Just tonight, I was looking for a "Christening" record of a particular Parish in England, you would have expected that to have been available as a "Source" in "FamilySearch", to attached to an individual/person in "Family Tree"; as, there was a (Church) Microfilm number and a DGS number (ie. it has been "Digitised"); but, 'lo and behold' it was now NOT available (anywhere to be seen).
Many Parishes from England (and, even from other Countries) were also ON the Microfilm; whereas, they were available = some only "Indexed"; and, some, both, "Indexed" and the "Image".
I did some investigating of the particular Record I was Searching for in, both, "Ancestry_com" and "FindMyPast_com", the results were:
There was an "Indexed" Record, with reference to the (Church) Microfilm number; but, NO "Image".
There was, both, an (their) "Indexed" Record; and, an (their) "Image" of the Record; but, of course, NO reference to the (Church) Microfilm number.
Analysis: Due to "Changed" situation (ie. now available on "FindMyPast_com"); and, as such, "Contractual" Agreements/Arrangements have been, renewed; up-dated; or, changed; where, the Record Custodian NO LONGER wants the Record to be available on "FamilySearch".
And, as such, the Record(s), for this case, a particular parish on the (Church) Microfilm have been "Removed" or "No Longer Available to access on "FamilySearch" - in this case NOT even the result as experienced by the poster of this post.
So, in essence ... the entire Record on the (Church) Microfilm DOES NOT have to be made "Unavailable" ... "FamilySearch" can (and, has to) be very specific.
I am not specifically referencing the "Alabama Marriages, 1816-1957" Records (and, have not had a look); but, it is possible that my original "FYI" may apply in regard to those Records; but, also, as importantly some of the Records are NOT that OLD (eg. Up to 1957), maybe that is part of the reason why some of the them have been "Removed" or "No Longer Available to access on "FamilySearch" = Privacy - maybe, maybe not.
But, just so you are aware, the entire Record on the (Church) Microfilm DOES NOT have to be made "Unavailable" ... "FamilySearch" can (and, has to) be very specific, on certain occasions.
Just my thoughts.
Yes - I undestand all that - and agree
just seems very strange that for Alabama marriages - and just one county - all the way back in 1828
would have been left out - and all the others included...
(its not a privacy issue - its almost 200 years ago)
if it had been all of one state excluded and another state included - I would have a better time understanding - as different states have different laws.
but why just one county??? this seems like an error / flaw in how the data has been restricted or even stored.
not a matter of "faith" :-)
I totally understand that one record could be restricted and another one not in a specific collection source.
I was just saying I didn't think such made sense in this specific case.
I am sorry, I obviously did not understand your context.
But, not really strange ... in the case I referenced, (some) other Parishes in the particular 'County'/'Shire' were available in "FamilySearch"; and, they were available in "FamilySearch", most likely; because, they were NOT yet available in "FindMypast_com"; but, they most likely will no be in the not to distant future; as, "FindMypast_com" is doing its own "Filming" and "Indexing" - as I said things "Change" - not always for the better.
Even though I have travelled (all) over you way and spent over 12 Months (off; and, on)' plus, researched my Extended Ancestors and Family over that way; and, helped others/locals do the same, I have no knowledge for how your Record Custodians manage their "Contractual" Agreements/Arrangements with "FamailySearch"; but, I know that in many cases it is a ever changing field.
I still would suggest that the Records in question have been "Pulled" for whatever reason.
And, it is mot always for the better ...
Have a good "Good Friday", ours has just finished (just after NM).
Been a long day ...
yes it is a possibility
I'm just saying - the possibility that someone messed up when they deleted/or restricted the file is also a very valid possibility.
who does a user contact to confirm that was not the case?
Happy Easter! :-)
'Yes', that "... possibility that someone messed up when they deleted/or restricted the file is also a very valid possibility ..."; and, in fact, a 'given' - it is always on the cards.
FYI: There have been MANY posts asking, why particular Records are no longer available, in the "FamilySearch" ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum, that Forum is probably the best place to raise such queries, in the hope that you may get the answer.
Happy Easter to you too ...