When will indexing of a specific source ACTUALLY MATCH the records shown?
"Deutschland, ausgewählte evangelische Kirchenbücher 1500-1971," database, FamilySearch
(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C398-V9WQ-3?cc=3015626 :
18 October 2019), > image 1 of 1; Records extracted and images
digitized by Ancestry.com. German Lutheran Collection, various parishes,
Germany. (noted to be for dates 1860 - 1875 on image 3) This above database is one of MANY that I have reported that shows erroneous index information for events of another period (in this case 1805 - 1819 approx that is NOT part of these images). First problem, this earlier period has NO records in this particular image file and so should NOT have anything other in the index area except those related specifically to 1860 - 1875. THIS IS BECOMING EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. WHY is this mismatch of index information NOT being corrected by FamilySearch? I was looking for the source data for a 1827 marriage (which is NOT in this file that the link took me to either as the actual written data or in the index info). So second problem, that links provided do not take you to the correct source. PS For a third problem, I have also sent in other queries, that the index provided for a particular page does not match to the correct image where the TRUE handwritten source is. We should not have to search back and forth 5 - 6 images to find the handwritten source for the index info. The index at the bottom should be for what is being shown on the handwritten source image above it. IF the index information cannot be properly aligned with the TRUE data then don't even put it in!!
Answers
-
The reason for mismatches between index and image is generally time: the index was made decades ago based on the microfilm, and often failed to accurately record the associated numbers (film/reel, image/square) -- or even if the original index recorded things correctly, there have been many opportunities for that information to become lost or corrupted, from both ends. (Such as, beginning bit of film got cut off, remaining images got renumbered; or system transfer meant re-entering the metadata, and typos were made.)
I'm not sure where you're seeing a claim of "1805 - 1819" for what's labeled in the Catalog's viewer as "Film # 105484123". The fun part is, this film number is missing from the catalog. It's there in the Images viewer, with a date range of "1869-1905" as the sum total of information about it on the search results screen.
You have to view the image group (by clicking the date range) to get any further information about it.
The Images section claims that these images are unindexed.
Going back to the Catalog's viewer, I chose a random entry from the bottom tab and clicked the "piece of paper" icon at the left; this took me to that index entry's details page (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPNZ-KN5X). The Document Information on that page has both a "Digital Folder Number" of 105484123 (the one that's not in the catalog) and a "Microfilm Number" of 001198436 -- which is in the catalog (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/306820), with a different digital group number (102620448). The camera icon goes to the latter digital image group, which does not seem to match up with the other one, although it does start with baptisms.
The second part is marriages, though, meaning that my randomly-chosen index entry may actually come from this microfilm. The image number (115) is wrong, though, because the title page for the marriages section is image 120 of 471. Ah, found it: it's image 177 (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS8X-2SKG?i=176&cc=4111605&cat=306820), and the Index info tab has a different index entry for it (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6FB9-Y71W). This one just has the (correct) digital folder number, not the microfilm number.
Eh. It's complicated and convoluted and has had many decades to accumulate errors, but sometimes, it's possible to track things down regardless. If you give the particulars of what you're looking for, I can try my hand at getting FS to cough up the image.
1