About trusting some search results and very old church records not being viewable today
Should I blindly trust some record information produced by the ancestor search when the target ancestor record seems to be included in a film that is not viewable nor indexed according to the catalog format?
Some example:
Ancestor search
The search produces some relevant? direct data, nothing about mentions from some other specifics records.
There are not images available but there is a specific reference to a cataloque:
"España, registros parroquiales y diocesanos, 1307-1985", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:6JDG-MWMN : Sun Mar 10
07:00:34 UTC 2024), Entry for Joseph Thadeo Sandoval Moreno and Salvador
Sandoval, 6 de noviembre de 1748.
Looking for that catalogue (cannot success attaching an image)
I observe the ancestor info should be located under
Bautismos 1734-1764 → Film 1540141 Items 8-9 → and that the format of the catalogue is just pure film with no magnifying glass or camera icon. So it seems info in that film is neither viewable no searchable.
However a general search produces the later results, so i presume some indexing is available at the system, if not, where those results come from?
Colateral question:
Why those images about very old baptism registers are not viewable today? (it ranges from 1590 to 1760) , it has no sense.
Kind regards
Best Answer
-
There is a project - long-term - to break apart those DGS (films) with a mix of records from different eras. When that is implemented, you'll be able to see the older records while the newer ones, protected for the privacy of the living, will still be hidden. Until that happens, the entire DGS must be restricted to viewing only in Salt Lake.
1
Answers
-
The catalog entry for film 1540141 is
I am not connected with FamilySearch, and I am not a LDS church member.
What I see looking at the records on that page, is that most are available full view on home computers. It does seem inconsistent that a few films with records from the same archive are not available to view, and I would write to the FamilySearch Library, email address FHL-SLC-FilmRequests@churchofjesuschrist.org which is given in the link
1 -
There have been some recent reports of some DGS/Films accidentally being marked as unavailable. @Ashlee C. is there anything new on that problem?
0 -
Film 1540141 is not online because item 2 on it includes confirmations up to 1963 from the diocese of Cartagena-Murcia (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/371716).
Regarding the icons in the catalog: if the film was indexed recently (as in, in the last three years), then it will not have a magnifying glass icon, because the catalog has not been updated in that time.
3 -
Thanks a lot to all of you for your prompt answers.
vow Julia, as a newbie for ancestor searching it is a bit hard to me to follow the way from a single record result towards multiple catalogs involved, one film, DGS, …
It is quite disappointing also to get to the conclusion that a confirmation record of 1963 may block the possibility to browse a baptism of 1596 because (apparently) someone recorded both into the same film (despite different catalogues, what that may mean). I cannot imagine both entries being written in the same book, with more than 300 years gap between them (tend to believe an item might correspond to a book).
It has no sense at all imo. Do you think there might be some possibility to get this situation being reviewed in order to get at least full view of the oldest records?
Viewing records it is crucial to progress in ancestor searching as I realized many computer-based transcripts are erroneous and may drive to totally misguided conclusions.
Thanks a lot
Kind regards
0 -
Thanks a lot Aine,
It is hard for me to imagine the underlying dependency on a physical film of items already digitized, even indexed, as it seems to be the case. Looking forward to see that work completed. It is crucial for solid ancestor investigation. I reported only a single example case in my initial question, but actually and unfortunately i have found some many more examples like that, very old records being blocked.
Kind regards
0 -
They are supposedly working on breaking up multi-item films so that only the actually-restricted material will be offline, rather than the current all-or-nothing arrangement, but FS's holdings are best described as "vast", so I'm not really surprised that I haven't yet encountered unquestionable evidence of progress in that direction. (Another reason for my lack of surprise is that I avoid the "Images" section like the plague: its image-identification and -location algorithms generally completely fail for me, and the viewer is slow and weirdly bouncy, which makes me dizzy [and annoyed]. It is, however, the newer of FS's two image-viewing technologies, so I'm pretty sure that any updates will unfortunately only apply in it, not in the Catalog and its older [but in my opinion much better] viewer.)
You're absolutely right that looking at the actual documents (or images thereof) is crucial, but I'll offer a caution: don't use the words "transcript" or "transcription" when talking about indexes. Yes, FS (like every other genealogy website) practically canonizes the index, with the image — the actual source! — half-heartedly tacked on as an afterthought, but this does not mean that we users of these websites need to subscribe to that same sloppy thinking. What the computer searches and offers up is not a transcription: even without the inevitable errors, indexes are purposely-incomplete or -abbreviated finding aids.
2 -
@JAVIERSandoval2 FamilySearch holdings are vast. Each record, DGS, film is subject to contracts with the originator of the record. That means many contracts with countries, cities, counties, or church organizations. Every country has different regulations. Within the USA, every state has different regulations. Sometimes even within a state, different cities or counties have different regulations.
FamilySearch is a not-for-profit organization with a small paid staff, relying on volunteers for indexing and other projects.
Do I wish it would all be available more easily? Of course I do, but I realize such a project will take a long time.
1 -
Thanks a lot Julia for your answer,
agree with you, a transcription is much a serious thing than an error prone indexing attempt. I wish to try transcripting myself to believe, so need access to the actual source.
Kind regards
0 -
Thanks a lot Aine for your answer.
I am aware it might not be that easy. Thank to all of you that make this working
Kind regards
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile I think the discussion you were referring to is this one:
Those were all records from Italy. The restrictions were based on contract and/ or data privacy law.
0
