Why can some FamilySearch records only be found on Find My Past?
I don't have a subscription to FMP, but through my registration can view the index(es) free of charge. Some links lead to the paywall, but others open up the record. One example I found today was for the 1774 marriage of a James Crofts at Hackney, Middlesex, England. At the bottom it shows "Index (c) IRI. Used by permission of FamilySearch Intl", but I cannot find it on a search of the FS database. I wonder if there is any explanation of why some FamilySearch records are free to view at Find my Past, but not on its own website.
Answers
-
We had a similar conversation a few days ago in this thread.
And, just for interest, I searched for the James Crofts marriage in Hackney on FMP. Even with my subscription, I can only see the index, not the image of the record.
I don't know how recently those records may have been indexed, but I recall some indexing projects I worked on, as an indexer for FS, that originally appeared only on another for-pay website. There was a contract for (as I recall) 3 years on that other website and then the images and the index also appeared on FamilySearch.
1 -
That same index appears on Ancestry, again with no images. From a different record set, the image of that marriage record is viewable on Ancestry.
0 -
This may be totally irrelevant, but the discussion below refers to a "lost" FS index where commercial sites implied FS once had an index, but it could no longer be found. At least, not as far as us non-members are concerned.
As I say, this may not be the same thing but just in case...
2 -
In the same ballpark, probably, as we would say here. And, as you and I discussed recently, Adrian, some indexes can no longer be found in a search on FS but show up once the record image is found in a browse. Not sure if the cause is the same, but the result is similar.
1 -
It's tricky trying to do this sort of thing on my phone, but I now have a distinct suspicion that this is the same thing as the discussion that I linked to above. Both the FMP index and the image-less Ancestry index are originally from FS. (Ancestry's image-less index is from a "Select" collection, which indicates an FS origin)
My hypothesis (if you'll excuse the high falutin' terminology) is that FS once had the index to this marriage; that index got passed through to both FMP and Ancestry; Ancestry then filmed the London PRs and created/modified their own index - this is the one that Áine referred to.
Then (and I have no evidence for this other than a gut feeling) Ancestry provided a digitised London marriage collection of images and linked indexes back to FS. That collection then replaced the original FS index, which wasn't linked to any images. Perhaps because the replacement is linked to images, the new FS stuff is not visible to non-members.
Result: the original FS index can still be found on FMP and Ancestry, without any images. But that FS index has been replaced by the Ancestry derived one inside FamilySearch. Crucially, the new index can't be seen by non-members.
I have no idea if this is right because by definition I can't see the evidence inside FS.
2 -
In theory, that marriage of James Crofts should be findable here: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1059524 for St. John at Hackney, index of the names of the contracting parties contained in the marriage registers from 1589-1820.
1 -
Thank you both for your contributions, Áine and Adrian. I wasn't expecting to find an image on any website (the FMP index clearly shows the link is only to a transcript), but believe I now remember variations of my question have been raised in the past, as well as in your more recent examples.
I know we'll never get a direct answer from FamilySearch (confidential contractual matter, etc.) but it just comes across rather odd when you find FS has given (acknowledged) permission for its material to be published on other websites and to return and find nothing to match in the FS indexed records.
Just off to bed, but will give your comments more thought in the morning! I haven't checked whether there was another parish church within Hackney, other than St. John, for example.
1 -
From the record set, with images, on Ancestry, it would appear there are or were multiple churches within Hackney.
0 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile and @Adrian Bruce1
Thank you again for your comments.
On this specific search, I was following up on an input to the profile of James Crofts (MMY7-4P5). Without adding any sources or marriage event detail another user had entered his spouse as Christian Applebee. (Attached sources shown the first name of the mother of their children was indeed Christian.)
The record found at Find My Past (as I have noted) shows a 3 April 1774 Hackney marriage that probably relates (their first child being baptised in 1775), but does not include the name of the bride! Therefore, I feel unable to add that marriage event to the couple without that further evidence of his spouse's surname.
On the matter of Hackney parish churches, from the GENUKI website it appears there was only St John's at the time period in question - other churches being built in the 19th century. There were non-conformist chapels, but - under then English law - no marriages would have been conducted in them, just baptisms.
I tried your FS link, Áine, (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1059524 ) and just a "No results found" message was displayed, after clicking on "Search the index", as you probably found.
In summary, apart from my original general query (on why I can't get to view the record on FS), I still can't get to any indexed record that shows Christian's surname. I tried a search on a "Christian" marriage in FMP (1774 Hackney) but got no results, so it appears the event has only been indexed in James' name on FMP.
I'll have a few further looks elsewhere - otherwise, the only way of solving this appears to be to visit the London Archives, where the original register appears to be held, according to the page at http://www.tinstaafl.co.uk/eandwhmi/middlesex/church%20pages/hackney_st_john.htm .
Update - Appear to have found it in the Ancestry index (again, don't have a sub), although the spouse shows as Christian MARSHALL in the index, so I don't know where the APPLEBEE came from at MMY7-4P5.
0 -
I was just coming to say that the imaged record on Ancestry shows the bride as Christian Marshall, spinster of the same [parish]
and saw that you had edited your comment to include the name of the bride.
1 -
Thanks, Áine. Had just posted you a private message, rather than continue to bore the rest of "Community" on the "personal side" of this issue!
1 -
And I had done the same, Paul. You'll find a new message from me in your box.
0 -
See further private message.
1 -
You can adjust the size. I'll send you those details in a moment. Hat tip to Julia who shared that helpful info a few months ago.
1 -
@Paul W said
It just comes across rather odd when you find FS has given (acknowledged) permission for its material to be published on other websites and to return and find nothing to match in the FS indexed records.
It's more than odd if you're not someone with access to a community that can sort out (maybe) these oddities. Every so often, I see on UK forums the question "Should I subscribe to Ancestry or FindMyPast?" And quite often, someone will say "Don't forget FamilySearch". Which is good. However, I have seen instances where someone (a non Church member) has followed this advice - they've taken a text only index that is in Ancestry or FMP but is marked as coming from FS, they've gone to FS to see if the FS offering can improve on the one from the pay site - and totally failed to find even the text only index. I imagine that it's for reasons like this one. Frankly, it doesn't give a very good impression of FS. Which is all rather sad.
Please note that I don't know enough about the data architecture of FS indexes and files to have any idea of how easy it would be to revive the apparently hidden indexes that are still visible in other systems. I simply want to put on record that there are people out there disappointed in FS for these reasons.
3 -
And we know - I think - that the recent issues with the Editor have caused many individual indexes to disappear. Try, for example, to find birth certificate #37008 for Ruth Kasper in Illinois, dated 18 Sep 1920. Father is Otto, and her mother is Emily Rushford.
I have the index and a copy of the record, retrieved during a visit to the AL, but I don't think you will find the index by searching.
0
