Records that i can no longer find in FamilySearch
I can no longer find the following baptism in FamilySearch. Can anyone help? I do not understand why. John Reffell gender: Male baptism/christening date: 27 Sep 1787 baptism/christening place: St. James', Westminster, Middlesex, England birth date: birthplace: death date: name note: race: father's name: Joseph father's birthplace: father's age: mother's name: Susanna mother's birthplace: mother's age: indexing project (batch) number: I02558-3 system origin: England-EASy source film number: 1850972 reference number: item 3
Christening:
Date: 27 Sep 1787
Place: St. James', Westminster, Middlesex, England
Comments
-
The record is still there but access rights have been changed to make them more restrictive.
See
You should be able to view this via your local FamilySearch centre.
0 -
Hmm. Not sure what this means but that baptism can be seen as image 372 of 506 on film 5133659. (5133659 is presumably a synonym for 1850972 - that was certainly how I got in). Strangely though, there is no index information for that image, and when I use either "film" number as a search parameter, it says "No Records Found".
0 -
I did what I hope was the most basic search to pick up that index:
- Name = John Reffell (exact on both parts);
- Type = Birth / Baptism / Christening;
- Principal on record = Yes.
There are just 16 results, none of which match the search that the OP did. (Or the contents of the image).
All in all, I see nothing that says the rights on that record have been restricted, as per @Graham Buckell's suggestion. Doesn't mean they haven't been restricted, just that I can't see any message that they have and I can see the image, which is a bit odd if there's a restriction in place. My wild first guess is that the index has been lost...
0 -
There are two records for this event.
1. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:KCZT-89N
2. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N1DP-Q3X
Both records are restricted. See the padlock in the top right hand corner.
The can be viewed by Church members but not by non-members.
0 -
@Graham Buckell said "Both records are restricted. See the padlock in the top right hand corner."
But that's just the point - I can't see any padlock.
Using your URL, the first one says:
Well, this is unexpected...
We can help you search literally billions of records, but we can't seem to find the page you're looking for.
That's just a generic "we fouled up message". Nothing about restrictions.
The second one says:
We're unable to show this record to you.
This record can only be displayed on certain accounts. FamilySearch must honor the agreements we have with our partners, record owners, and internal policies.
Working backwards from the padlock that I can't see, that's a reasonable message. Given the number of issues that I've seen over access conditions, and given that I can see the image, I have no reason to actually believe that statement. I'm perfectly familiar with restrictions on images - but I've never seen a restriction on an index and none on the image. If there is to be a restriction on the index then the system needs to say so explicitly, not come up with a generic entry after I've done my search.
I would contend that for non-Church members, we can't tell the difference between access conditions on the index and a total failure of the search facility. That's bad.
0 -
As you surmised, the reason you cannot access these is because you are not a Church member. Access restrictions are generally dictated by the record custodians. In some cases, access is given to Church members but not to non-members. My guess is that this is an acknowledgement of the Church microfilming the records in the first place.
0 -
@Graham Buckell said "As you surmised, the reason you cannot access these is because you are not a Church member. Access restrictions are generally dictated by the record custodians. In some cases, access is given to Church members but not to non-members. My guess is that this is an acknowledgement of the Church microfilming the records in the first place."
I'd agree with everything you said but would point out that everything that you've described is what I'm familiar with where the index is visible but the images aren't! That circumstance is what I'm familiar with, expect and don't have a problem with. This is the exact opposite - the images are available to all but the index is forbidden.
I think I'm entitled to be confused and suspect a coding error... Your help makes it clear that there is a genuine restriction - but it's of a sort that I've never seen before, hence my cynical suspicion.
0 -
I believe other instances of this have been noted. Certainly, I believe it quite possible that Find My Past has agreed to continue allowing unrestricted viewing of "its" images, whilst withdrawing the rights of viewing the related indexes from public accounts. There are certainly plenty of instances where we are told, after opening up an indexed record, that no image is available, when all this means is that the FamilySearch website image has not been linked to the indexed record. Multiple filming and/or multiple indexing of a particular item has also caused some misleading messages regarding the availability of records (indexed or just the image) on FamilySearch.
I think you will be aware that there are different indexed collections (e.g. 1939 National Register and Scotland Census collections) that can only be seen at a FamilySearch centre, but can be viewed at home if added to Family Tree IDs whilst there.
My point is that, whilst it might be true an error regarding availability rights has been made here (and in many other instances, too), I don't think one can necessarily imply there must be a coding error just because it is the indexed record that is restricted, whilst the image for the record is available.
The note at the top of this collection (ref. 005133659) shows it is available courtesy of Find My Past. In line with the unfathomable arrangement with FamilySearch regarding the England & Wales 1871 Census collection, I don't think it strange to believe there might be a current arrangement (with FMP) for these images to have unrestricted viewing rights, whilst viewing the indexed records remains restricted to Church accounts.
0 -
@Paul W said
"... I believe it quite possible that Find My Past has agreed to continue allowing unrestricted viewing of "its" images, whilst withdrawing the rights of viewing the related indexes from public accounts. ..."
Indeed. If this scenario has been mentioned before, I've missed it - possibly because it didn't conform to the classic scenario of index=yes, images=no. In fact, the more I thought about it, the more likely this permutation became, which is why FamilySearch is negligent in not explaining what's going on.
Film 5133659 was filmed in 1992 for GenSoc Utah (the previous name for what became FamilySearch, I believe). This is long before FindMyPast first existed as an internet presence (in 2003 - see URL https://www.findmypast.co.uk/page/about-us). So I quite don't understand how the images on that film can have a display reading This image courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd. But hey, maybe FS signed away the control of its own images for a sum of money. It happens...
The collection for this film is England, Middlesex, Westminster, Parish Registers, 1538-1912 and the collection's home page reads (inter alia)
The Index may contain name, parish, birthdate, baptism date, marriage date, parent’s names, age, and burial information depending on the event. The index was created by FindMyPast.com. [my emphasis].
So presumably FMP allow LDS Church members access to the FMP index as a quid pro quo for FMP having access to the images. But only Church members have that access as there is no index facility on that collection home page.
The 1939 Register on FS is even odder - the collection home page says
The index was provided by Findmypast, and users will be directed to images on findmypast.com.
Well, there is no index for people like me and no images either!
All this is incredibly misleading for non-Church members like myself and surely gives FamilySearch a bad name. To be clear - I don't have any problem in not having access to those indexes. I do have a problem with not being told that I don't. Collection home pages that refer to an index but don't give access to that index, and don't explain why, just look like a coding error.
Then there's the padlock symbol reading "Record Access is Restricted" that Graham found. So far as I can see, that padlock symbol is on the index, so is only visible to Church members - who can see the index. Non-Church members can't see the padlock so don't know that index access is restricted. Instead, as far as we're concerned, the system simply fails.
The only people who the padlock symbol helps are people like Graham (to whom I am grateful for explaining what's going on...) Apart from that - it's a pointless symbol, I think, which took time and effort to code and test, I imagine, even though it's useless to anyone apart from mods, etc.
Please FamilySearch - if something is blocked off (for perfectly good reasons), tell us, rather than allow us to think that your indexes have become corrupted
0