Mislabelled films
I have identified what I think is a parish register that has been mislabeled. I am unsure what to do about it.
Chr that are recorded in the original Parish registers of Bedingham ALSO show up as being recorded in the Brundall PR. The record set where that parish is Brundall, comes up as image unavailable.
The records used by permission of Familysearch on FindMyPast repeat the same error
The image of the Bedingham PR
The reference to the unavailable film of the Brundall PR
Answers
-
Your first URL leads me to this page, so I don't know what error you are seeing:
Try this shorter URL to the same page: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DRPS-T9L
0 -
You are correct, the first URL takes you to the Bedingham PR. Which is the correct place for all the Chr.
In the search function, all the Bedingham Chrs are repeated as being in Brundall, so I believe that the index entries showing Brundall are incorrect. This is supported by the fact that clicking the URL as per the index, gets me to an image unavailable message.
The Find my past index, which is used by permission of Family Search has the same error, SO it appears to me that there is a film that is mislabeled. But that's a guess.
Either way, the index is incorrect.
The citation to the 'wrongly' indexed place is - "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975", database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J7LJ-QPK : 4 February 2023), James Challis, 1766.
0 -
I was at my Affiliate Library the other day when I replied. I can't view these from home, but the DGS 4115502 has 26 parts, with many different locations.
@N Tychonievich Could you check this one, please? There is no (original) showing, but, as we know, it is not always evident any longer. Thank you.
0 -
I work with Norfolk records quite a lot. What happens (as suggested) is that there are often (usually, when it comes to films of Norfolk Archdeacon's Transcripts) records for lots of different parishes on the same film, but they all get assigned / indexed to just the one parish - which is frequently "Item 1" on the film.
This has been a problem which has predated the "auto-standardization" issue and applies to other (English) county's records, too. From my experience, it is unlikely FamilySearch will get around to correcting these errors, even after they have been made aware of them.
2 -
Oh - and if the film is actually mislabelled in the catalog, then there is an official path to request a correction. https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-request-a-correction-to-the-familysearch-catalog I've had good success on the few occasions I've used that path.
1 -
@shirleyelrick Thank you for reporting the errors in identifying the parishes on DGS 4115502 within the England Births and Christenings record collection. When I went to look at the issues, I noticed that the England Births and Christenings record collection is a legacy collection (https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Births_and_Christenings_-_FamilySearch_Historical_Records).
This is a collection that was put together years ago--back when volunteers were sent microfilms and they would sit in FamilySearch Centers looking at the films and transcribing the data. The box at the top of the linked wiki article above says that corrections are not being made to these collections. So sorry!
2 -
@N Tychonievich - just for your info, while England Births and Christenings record collection is a legacy collection, so apparently isn't having any new or modified indexes, nonetheless, I'm fairly certain that images were being linked to the indexes quite recently.
For instance, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N22Z-PZN has a Check Image Availability icon - if you click it, you end up on film 4421088. I can't tell when those images were linked but they certainly weren't part of the IGI that was a feed into England Births and Christenings - I remember thinking that FS seemed to be adding images in an odd (to me) fashion - instead of creating a new collection for the Record Office in question (or county or Diocese or...) they were linking the images into the England Births and Christenings collection.
Since I can't tell when the images were linked, I could be wrong but I'm sure the images have appeared since the nominal 2010 date for England Births and Christenings.
(Of course, it might be that Church members saw these years ago but non-Church members like myself only saw the images recently as films came out of restricted use. I guess that might also explain it...)
2 -
@Adrian Bruce1 Yes, that is right. Images are being linked to some of the legacy collections. They aren't always accurately linked, but within a few images. The original indexes were not linked to images, but the source film was recorded, so engineers have been pretty successful in going back and linking things up.
But they are not accepting requests to fix errors in the indexed data. So, when that is way off, but you can view the image, I suggest using the image as a source instead of the indexed data. The image is, of course, a better source anyway.
3 -
Thanks @N Tychonievich - you are, of course, absolutely correct about using the image as a source, not the index. Using the image is one thing I always do. 😉
0
