What is the explanation for this 98% useless index record?
These are the details for index record https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F7XF-TP2 which was offered to me as a hint for my G-GPs.
The copied Citation reads:
"England, Cheshire Parish Registers, 1538-2000," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F7XF-TP2 : 12 February 2018), John Griffiths, , Other; citing Page: 44 Record number: 345, , Record Office, Chester; FHL microfilm 1,655,858.
This is the central part of the index record:
So - where exactly did this "other" event take place? What is an "other" event?
There is a minor clue in that it comes from film 1655858 but this covers Ditton (Lancs), Warrington (Lancs), and Dukinfield (Cheshire). Fortunately, I have my own subs to FindmyPast and was able to look for this record in FMP. It didn't take more than a couple of minutes to learn that this:
- was a Baptism event (not an "Other") and
- the place was Warrington St. Peter (18 Marford St being the parents' abode)
And where did the FMP index come from - the one with the crucial "baptism" and "Warrington St. Peter" on? Well, it says at the foot of the FMP index:
Transcriptions © Family Search
Hmm.
So - where has the index information been lost?
- In the indexing process itself? I guess not - it seldom is;
- In the metadata for this batch(?);
- In the mapping of the indexed data and metadata to the index record?
- In an auto-standardisation process? That's what we usually blame but it seems unlikely that is involved here - it wouldn't normally lose the event type - could it?
- Somewhere else?
More speculatively: I believe (but do not know for certain) that FS did once have the correct index - it indexed the Cheshire records for Chester Record Office for them to pass on to FMP. FMP have the correct data so presumably either they've corrected it all or FS have reindexed the film and messed up.
The point is that anyone with access only to FS data will not have been able to understand what this data represents (it says "Image Unavailable"). Because it came up as a hint, there could have been a major temptation to accept this (all 3 names on the index matched my family - that's presumably why it was hinted). The data that would let me say "Surely GGPs weren't in Warrington?" just isn't there...
Answers
-
The point is that anyone with access only to FS data will not have been able to understand what this data represents (it says "Image Unavailable").
The image loaded just fine for me, so it may be a problem with your network, or maybe FamilySearch just had a bit of a hiccup when you tried to view it.
As for the incorrect index, have you checked if there is a duplicate index in FamilySearch? Sometimes the same image gets indexed twice, so perhaps FindmyPast got their information from another index.
0 -
@BraydenGraves are you perhaps logging in using a LDS member account? There is no image for a non-Church member.
1 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile I am, but I've never heard of FamilySearch locking a record if you aren't a member. That said, it may not be on purpose. I once saw a bug report for a coding website where people who's username started with "K" couldn't sign in. Weird stuff happens sometimes.
0 -
There are many records that Church members can view from home that the rest of us cannot.
2 -
Still "Image Unavailable" for me (as a non-Church member, just to confirm).
I don't see a duplicate index at the moment - but since it's virtually impossible to confine my search to a specific year, it's difficult to be certain. Doing an exact search on parents' names and pulling off Record Types of "Birth, Baptism, and Christening" and "Other", finally gets it down to 4 results - only 1 in that year.
My suspicion is that FMP did indeed get their information from another index - one with sensible values. I note, for instance, that the Citation includes the date 12 February 2018. If that represents a creation date for that particular index, then it's ages after FS produced the index for FMP, so there must have been an earlier index - surely?
Difficult for me to be certain based on the visible evidence but the only sensible explanation is that FMP used a different, correct index from FS. But I can see no sign of it. Which suddenly makes me wonder if the earlier (correct) index has been retired in favour of this one which has no placename and a bad Event Type.
1 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile Yeah, the index should probably be fixed then. I wonder why it's locked, there doesn't seem to be anything different about this record when compared to others.
0 -
@BraydenGraves It usually is a matter of the contract between FS and the record holder. An example with which I'm very familiar - BMD for New Jersey, USA. Church members can view the images from home. As a non-Church member, I can only view at an Affiliate or FSC.
2 -
@BraydenGraves said
" ... I wonder why it's locked, there doesn't seem to be anything different about this record when compared to others. ..."
At one time the reason for locking was quite simple - FamilySearch produced the index for FMP, a commercial company. Therefore FS Church members had access as a quid pro quo for doing the indexing but obviously no-one else could have free access. Not sure if that applies to this particular film now.
In any case, the unavailability of the image is only the last link in the chain. The first two issues are (a) no placename in the index and (b) "Other" as the record type instead of "Birth, Baptism, and Christening". (To be clear, if you search using a record type of "Birth, Baptism, and Christening", you will not see this record - perfectly logically since it has a different Record Type. )
1 -
@BraydenGraves: I would amend Áine's statement to "there are a great many records" that only LDS accounts can see. This includes basically everything that's also on FMP, or on any other paywalled site (such as Archion) that has an agreement with the LDS church.
I suggest that before you comment about image availability, always check with a public account first.
1 -
The pop-up banner about the availability of record images used to include that information (Affiliate, FSC or member account), but that detail has been deleted.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi In my (admittedly weak) defense, I had no idea that was a thing. I probably heard it at some point, since I took a few family history classes, but that was several years ago. (@Adrian Bruce1's explanation above actually sounds vaguely familiar.) The only place I've ever helped anyone in-person is at the local FamilySearch center, which doesn't have the issue.
I'll probably be getting an alternate account now, thanks for the suggestion!
0 -
@Adrian Bruce1 Fair point, I'd only considered the readability after the record is already found. I suppose you could potentially find it by screwing around with the filters, but that is definitely not ideal. If it was available to edit, I would do so, but that doesn't solve the issue of finding the bad record to begin with.
0 -
@BraydenGraves Don't feel bad. I know permanent staff members who forget they have access that the rest of us do not have.
2
