Retired duplicates and “unable to show”
We have talked a few times about issues with the retired duplicates that often are not the same record.
This week, I’ve encountered a retired duplicate in Illinois Births and Christenings, with a link to the “most current copy.” Unfortunately, the link takes the user to an error message.
We're unable to show this record.
This record can only be displayed on certain accounts. FamilySearch must honor the agreements we have with our partners, record owners, and internal policies.
Cook County, Illinois records are restricted to view at AL/FSC. I was at my AL when the error appeared, so it’s not an issue of restricted record access.
URL of the record labeled "retired" https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V224-5KZ
URL of the inaccessible "current copy" https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQTY-75S
I have images of the records in my files, but the guidelines for this Community indicate that I should not post them here.
I’ve recently done a great deal of Chicago-area research. I often must find the record image through the back door. One index on a for-pay genealogy website lists the FHL number while a different index sometimes has the certificate number. When I find the record image that way, while at my AL, there is almost always an index attached, but a search will not find it. The index has become invisible, possibly due to an edit – either by a human or the place algorithm.
I’m an experienced researcher and work with unindexed records regularly. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the indexes for many records have become invisible.
Can this problem please be escalated to the engineering team? I’m sure I’m not the only researcher who runs into these problems.
Thanks.
@Ashlee C. please.
Answers
-
I think I've encountered this problem while researching some early 20th century Argentine records, though perhaps the cause is other than the one ascribed here.
0 -
Áine Ní Donnghaile This appears to be another manifestation of disappearing records due to permission problems that engineers are already working on. The film this record originates from (4031013), has only 254 total records in search results when there are over 1800 images. This will be reported and if engineers say it is a different issue I will let you know.
2 -
Thanks @SerraNola.
Cook County, Illinois records have been particularly hard hit by this gremlin. I hope we do not need to report each individual DGS.
2 -
I was at my local Affiliate Library yesterday working in Cook County, Illinois vital records again. And, again, I ran into the apparent disappearing permissions problem.
DGS 101277015 for 1984 deaths has 4426 images but only 1075 indexes show up in a search. A sample record that is indexed but cannot be found in a search, the death of Lucille Niberg: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QGNF-QGHP
Also DGS 101276942 for 1978 deaths has 4309 images but only 2387 indexes show in a search: https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.filmNumber=%09101276942
A sample from the unfindables - Harold Elko on Image 1434: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2MJ-C9PG
Thank you.
1 -
@Áine Ní Donnghaile Actually for DGS 101277015, the number of search results is 250 if you restrict it to "Principal on Record" (575 for DGS 101276942). I know this is a big issue for Cook County collections, especially when compounded with the placename errors. Please continue to report when you find missing records. The problem exists in other collections, as well and we are trying to get an accurate description for engineers.
0 -
Thanks @SerraNola
I'm still very involved in a major Chicago/Cook County project. I've been visiting my Affiliate at least once per week. I can only access when I'm there.
0 -
Today's example from my visit to the AL: DGS 4298200 of 1912 Cook County, Illinois birth certificates has 1425 images but only 153 records show on a search confined to that DGS.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.filmNumber=4298200&q.isPrincipal=true
An example of an indexed record that cannot be found on a search - Dorothy Marie Rushford https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQ1P-1X7
Thank you.
1 -
@SerraNola I spent much of yesterday at my local Affiliate. Below are more Cook County, Illinois births with lost/invisible indexes, with a sample record from each DGS.
DGS 4032196 from 1889 returns only 171 records on a search confined to the DGS
Oto Kaspar https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQTJ-XXPDGS 4271684 from 1899 also shows only 171
Male Jirosek https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQR2-ZXXDGS 4031058 from 1890 shows 174 records
Edna Widholm (indexed as Vidhahn) https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQR5-XX2DGS 4031123 from 1893 shows 201 records
Gertrude Troendel https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQRW-QRXDGS 4271685 from 1899 shows only 142 records
Josie Koubek https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQBS-42WDGS 4262856 from 1902 shows only 156 records
John Rushford https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NQYD-KMQEach invisible record shows the padlock symbol.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you.
3 -
My image has disappeared. Rather than risk everything disappearing if I try to edit, this is the sample with the padlock.
0 -
@ Áine Ní Donnghaile Thank you! This saves me a ton of work. It will all be added to the report on this issue.
2 -
@SerraNola Thanks. I'm sure I'll have more for your list after my next visit to my AL.
At some point, can we take it as a given that poor Cook County needs a complete rework? Or do we truly need to report each DGS?
Thank you.
1 -
@ Áine Ní Donnghaile Reporting a large number of DGS with missing indexes helps makes the case to the engineers that it is a serious issue. I think there are at least 200,000 persons "locked up" and unsearchable from Birth Certificates alone.
0 -
Well, then, I'll keep reporting.
1 -
I've spent a good portion of today at my AL, documenting Cook County births. I regret to inform you that I think the estimate of 200,000 persons "locked up" is probably VERY low.
I started working on Chicago birth certificates, 1878-1922 containing 907 DGS (10 pages at 100 rows each, with the final page only 7 DGS). Checking just the first 100 DGS, there are well over 100,000 inaccessible records. If the remainder of the record set follows the same pattern, approximately 1 million names are hidden or locked away. And, of course, The 1878-1922 set is only one of numerous Cook County birth record sets.
I'm building a spreadsheet with DGS numbers, image frames and indexed principals shown on each.
I also found a strange issue in a few DGS - those have MORE indexed principals than image frames.
1 -
@ Áine Ní Donnghaile The sooner you can build the spreadsheet, the better. What I discovered today is that engineers aren't seeing the same thing on their computers. They could not duplicate the errors so it's even more important to have some accurate feedback. Thank you.
0 -
We have seen that all too often - the engineers don't see the same thing ordinary users do because they are logged in on church accounts in the FHL or equivalent. Access level is not the same.
I've been through 200+ DGS today, and have the spreadsheet for those DGS.
2 -
I am gobsmacked by this news, given the volume of problem reports/feedback that has been raised on this matter over many months. A big thank you to @SerraNola for your persistence, care, and collaborative approach.
0 -
@SerraNola As I cannot attach a spreadsheet here, may I send you a private message?
And, please, if you can, suggest to the engineers that they look at the issue using a normal user account.Thanks.
1 -
@ Áine Ní Donnghaile Yes, you can send that to me privately. One of the engineers replicated the problem on his home computer last night so no worries there. However, engineers simply do not have time to flesh out how many DGS are affected or how many collections, for that matter. We do not need to identify EVERY DGS but reports never become a high priority when they only reveal the tip of the iceberg. Our hopes are that the Community can help us provide real numbers by real users.
0 -
I think it would be a very safe bet to say that all DGS containing Cook County, Illinois births are affected. I haven't found a single one out of close to 300 I've checked that is not impacted.
Unfortunately, a new gremlin has struck (see this thread), and my detailed search is stalled until that is fixed.
1 -
@ Áine Ní Donnghaile Your illustrative spreadsheet will be linked to the report on this issue. Your numbers can be verified by searching by FHL Film# on Ancestry. The few that I tried show the number of names in results slightly less than the number of frames in your spreadsheet, which would be about right.
I am trying to compare these Cook County collections with others that are missing indexes and it's difficult since I don't have access to images. When you view the images from your library, do you see the indexed names that are there? Generally, the pages show partial indexes and some with the label "this page has not been indexed".
0 -
Yes, I can see the indexed names when I'm at my Affiliate Library. As I explained earlier, I have often found those names by the "back door" because the index on a for-pay site has the Film number (not DGS) and another index sometimes has the Certificate number. And, when I find the image by browsing using those close, there is an index, with the padlock symbol, as illustrated earlier.
0
