I found a set of images that was not indexed correctly. The first image was not indexed so all the f

Christopher Tippett · April 1

Here is the indexed images link.

Ohio, County Death Records, 1840-2001," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-D1SB-7G?cc=2128172&wc=7DZ2-P9C%3A1296032501%2C1296346802 : 2 October 2014), Franklin > Death certificates, 1919, no 1-2015 > image 1 of 2047; county courthouses, Ohio.

Copy Citation

Julia Szent-Györgyi · April 1

The indexing is perfectly correct. It's just the index-to-image association that's off by one. This happens sometimes, especially on older indexes: when they were made, there was no direct association between index entries and images, so those had to be established later, based on whatever was recorded in the index metadata. There are multiple ways that the numbering of the microfilm could diverge from the numbering of the digitized images.

I found a set of images that was not indexed correctly. The first image was not indexed so all the f

Answers

Categories