Image numbering changing by the minute and links no longer point to the right image.
This references (for example) https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/L1KD-N24 and look at the baptism record for Agnes Gertr. Hertel. The link shows:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVT-8SC5-W?i=729
I've noticed that the image numbers have all changed now. If you look at the link you'll see i=729 on the end. (It WAS image 730 in the film yesterday!) but today's its image 660!! Which is too bad, as for the entirety of the linking project over the last month, we've been asked to put a reference to the image number in our source citation, and that's not even correct anymore - thank goodness the link still gets there.
But every one of the Christening "Reason This Information Is Correct" sections now says something like this:
"Baptism Record - Saint Peter Claver Catholic Church, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, United States
LDS Film # 008132880 Image 730"
And it's wrong now.
Now it's showing image 665 and 676. and the "of ###" part is also changing!
Why is it changing by the minute? and the link no longer points to the right page! It's off by 1.
I'm attaching two screenshots taken minutes apart.
Answers
-
And right now, on 730 of 766. It is dependent on which of the several viewers.
0 -
I was going to be happy with that, but 729 is now the image being pointed to. 1 page away. And yesterday when I was on the line with a familysearch help person, I couldn't see the image, but they could, and the 729 in the link pointed to image730.
I dunno what's happening… It's like writing a thesis paper, and all the bibiliography citations keep changing.
0 -
The link is always one digit off the from the number of the image because the computer starts with zero (000), not one (001).
0 -
Right, I understand that, but the destination is no longer correct is all I'm pointing out.
0 -
@Justin Masters It's certain that changes were being made to this film yesterday, but are you familiar enough with this film to determine what was added to increase the number of images? I can find no errors and the item #'s match with the old catalog listings.
1 -
I'm personally not that familiar enough with this film. I was asked to link names from the film to familysearch entries. I happened to have a number of "oddities" happen to me as a result of doing this.
There is a woman who I was doing my volunteer work for, and she might be more familiar with this.When I complained to her yesterday about my lack of access to images from my machine (but able to get to them from my work), she later said the following (which I don't understand it's relevancy to my problems)
"_____ and I just ran into problems with the images and I found out that FamilySearch changed the " look" of the tab for "images" and the look of the results page. So it was redesigned. However, the collection numbers and the image numbers should still be the same."I think she's referring to the UI changing. I DID have that happen a few weeks ago to me, as she had printed instructions with screenshots that didn't match what I ran into later. I made a suggestion via the feedback tab for a change in how the UI and backend operate to more accurately reflect others tagged in a record.
0 -
@SerraNola I've worked with many Wisconsin RC DGS over the years, but I don't have specific knowledge/notes on this one. But, I noticed that all the DGS in that group end at 1920. It's unusual, in my experience, for all to end the same year as registers/books were used until filled in the individual parish and then a new one was started.
My point - I'm wondering if this might be a case of one of those longer DGS being broken apart
0 -
What is DGS? That's a good question as to why it ends at 1920. I don't know.
0 -
DGS has been used for several years now, with the D standing for Digital.
We've been told a project is in process to break apart those DGS that cover many years. In that way, items that are restricted for privacy (within the last 100 years) will be separated from those that are unrestricted (more than 100 years ago).
0 -
Perhaps it's part of the mythical process of breaking up the all-or-nothing restriction of image groups?
There has always been a need to keep track of the "of NNN" part of the image numbering on multi-part films that are part of waypointed collections. An image on such a film can have at least two different "addresses": the one based on the whole film, and the one based on just the waypointed section.
For example, film 4838221 image 32 of 903 is image 25 of 595 when it's Hungary Civil Registration - Nógrád - Balassagyarmat - Marriages 1901-1908.
One of the reasons I've been avoiding the Images viewer as well as the editor-and-viewer is that they give the numbers without providing any context for them: you can never tell whether it's the whole film (or even which film) or just some arbitrary-seeming part. This makes it Exceedingly Difficult to properly cite an image using those viewers.
They've severely disimproved the Catalog's viewer in the past few weeks, making it behave in many respects just like the awful ones in Images and the index editor, but given that it still gives the same film number, despite the different numberings, I'm not sure whether this is bad-viewer behavior or something entirely new. (Granted, in the bad viewers, it'd be impossible to tell if this was happening, because they hide the film number.)
For whatever it's worth, the link https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVT-8SC5-W?i=728 gives me image 729 of 766 on film 8132880.
0 -
(Oops, typo: it's image 24 of 595 in the waypoints. Because of the images, I'm loath to try editing my post.)
1 -
One newly-added wrinkle allows us to see the DGS/Film number even on the viewer that hides it. That little citation button opens a dropdown that includes the DGS number.
0 -
I've noticed a couple of references to different viewers. I don't understand this. How does one see different viewers?
I tried one following instructions above to get to a camera symbol to look at it, but it showed a blank screen yesterday. I didn't know if that was because of my being blocked from images or not.
Now I can see lots of images, and I can zoom in (it's VERRRRY slow at the individual image level, taking 20-30 seconds to load.) But I can see the images there now. It's odd that you type in an image number, and it still shows it waaaaay zoomed out. But maybe that's useful for browsing to get a sense of context - what's around it, to look for a pattern, or blank pages, or even the beginning or end of a book.
0 -
There are ways to force some of the viewers to load. Other viewers show up at random, but more often lately.
I'm normally a Firefox user; however, I've found that the new viewers are less problematic (don't take agonizing minutes to load) in Chrome.
Julia has put together a couple of good posts on the different viewers, so I won't try to re-create the wheel. I hope she has them bookmarked.
The one I just referenced above, with the citation option, is the Images viewer. It was known as the Beta images viewer, but it just became the primary images viewer on Wednesday while I was at my local Affiliate Library downloading restricted images. It gave me fits for a few minutes and then settled down, and the old one is no more. You can access it here and then open more options to put the DGS number in the box. In Chrome, it works mostly very well.
0 -
Okay, that is similar to a viewer I saw with an obituary set I dropped into as a source, and it nearly killed my computer with it seemingly loading ALL the images into memory at one time. (I have 32 GB RAM and I restarted Firefox as well because it was creaking badly.)
I appreciate your explaining/showing how to get there.
0 -
My recommendation - avoid it in Firefox. It will make my computer crawl to a stop and Firefox will flash messages "this page is slowing down Firefox. Do you want to close it?" If I use it in Chrome, it hums right along. I find it particularly good for unindexed DGS.
0 -
Hmm… I checked again today, and tried to go to image number 730… and can't. Because it only shows 699 images.
So, I tried scrolling upwards in this thread to find a link that I could use to get in the ball park https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVT-8SC5-W?i=728
And it shows me there are 695 images….
This is frustrating.
0 -
From the Images Viewer, DGS 8132880 still has 766 images.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVT-8SCG-W?view=explore&groupId=TH-909-70991-62043-66&grid=on
1 -
11:32 AM MST today - 661 of 697
4:22 PM MST today - 725 of 761
0
