Restricted access to Freedmen's Bureau Records?
About a year ago I attached numerous United States Freedmen's, Bureau Records of Freedmen, 1865-1872 to persons in the FamilyTree. Now these records have a lock symbol with the message, "restricted access." And these records are also no longer appearing in search results of the collection or a general search. Previously I was able to browse the image (a census) and select records for attaching to persons in the Tree.
Why did the access change? Is there anything I can do to access these records? (Manually attaching each one as an image is not my idea of great time…) These early censuses of newly freed African Americans in Virginia are invaluable and I want to include them into the FamilySearch Tree. Thanks.
Example record:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2H5-2SHY
Answers
-
@Anne986 Did you possibly edit any of those records? To correct a spelling or a date? That lock symbol appears after an edit, due to an apparent glitch with the viewer/editor. You'll find many threads on the topic. Here is one:
When I checked your sample record, I saw the same lock symbol, but I can also view the record image. Just click on the "View Original Document" button from your link.
The glitch makes the index for the record disappear, so that it cannot be found in a name search.
0 -
Áine,Thanks for checking this and explaining the error with editing. I had not edited that record. I just checked her sister, Martha Campbell's record which I have also not edited and it also has the lock symbol. I can view the image, too, but all those carefully indexed records are gone!
Martha Campbell
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2H5-2SW1
0 -
@Anne986 We've been told that the Engineers are aware and that a fix is coming. The most recent "We are actively working on this issue" is from 5 June.
0 -
Áine,
Is that message from the Engineers regarding the locking after an edit or regarding access to these Freedmen's Bureau records?
Thanks,
Anne
0 -
It's not a "message from the Engineers." It's a reply from a Mod asking for "an update on this high impact problem."
1 -
Áine,
Thank you for the clarification about the message regarding the editing bug.
Is this community thread the best way to ask about access to and the status of the Freemen's Bureau records?
Thanks,
Anne
0 -
@Anne986 To the best of my knowledge (an active user of FamilySearch, not a mod or an employee), what you are seeing is an issue caused by the glitchy viewer/editor. It's not, strictly, a problem with the Freedmen's collection.
1 -
Would this viewer issue cause these records to not to be indexed in search?
0 -
@Anne986, the index-editor's gremlin affects the permissions settings associated with the index, in unpredictable ways. This can render effectively-random entries (or sometimes entire pages of entries) invisible to Search - Records. Those entries are just as indexed as they used to be, they just suddenly can't be seen.
Complicating the matter is the fact that there was (or is?) a probably-entirely-different bug or error affecting permissions settings on some films or image groups. I don't know whether it affected the Freedmen's Bureau records or not, and I haven't a clue who to ask.
For the question of how best to find out the status of these records from Official Sources, the best I can suggest is to use the Feedback tab in the viewer-and-editor (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-XC39-85B?view=index&action=view). Provide your email address and ask for a response. (I've had a grand total of one response to such feedback, ever. Granted, I don't think I've ever asked for any.)
2 -
Julia,
Thank you very much for your informative reply. It was helpful to spell out how viewer issues can translate into indexing and restriction issues.
Happy Father's Day, everyone.
Anne
0 -
Why would this viewer bug only affect this Freedmen's Bureau collection so completely and not other collections?
0 -
@Anne986 The viewer gremlin affects ALL collections as explained.
1 -
Hmm, then it seems like the problem isn't the viewer bug, since all records in this collection appear to no longer be indexed or available.
Thanks,
Anne
0