Can't access some image records
I am trying to look at BMD records for Douro, Ontario, Canada for 1860 (Ontario Roman Catholic, Peterborough, Douro, 1846-1865). The first three images come up, but when scrolling to the fourth, it flashes for a split-second and then an error message comes up: "Image Restricted. Image access is typically determined by local laws or the custodian who has the original document. This image may be visible from the custodian's website or at the physical location. Custodian: Unable to load custodian link." If I type in "100" to go directly to the hundredth record, that error message comes up right away. Other Peterborough records can be viewed normally. I used to be able to view these records normally; how do I get access to them?
Answers
-
@SerraNola Could you please take a look at this one? It may be one of the lost permissions problems.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YW3-3YF
In thumbnail view, all 130 images are visible, but an attempt to view the individual images returns the error "Unable to load custodian link."
Thanks.
1 -
@Nora8253 I just checked and still encounter the error.
Then I cleared FS cookies, signed out, closed and reopened my browser, tried again, and still get the error.
Windows 10 and Chrome, both fully updated.Are you possibly logged in using a Church account rather than a Public account?
2 -
I just tried to access these records and the problem persists. I am using Windows 10 and the most recent version of Firefox, with no ad blockers.
1 -
@MDoran1 @Áine Ní Donnghaile I created a public account recently for the express purpose of being able to see what you see. I went into Community to get the link to these records and without even thinking about it, clicked on the sign in. The system recognized my email as a moderator, so yeah….I was looking at it with member rights. I did go back to my public account and then got the restricted message. I have been told that there is a lot of shifting going on with permissions to bring things into compliance and thus there may be errors yet to be resolved. This might be one of them.
I would like you try this workaround that worked for me while in my public account. When you go to image 3, do you see one line of index at the bottom of the page. If so, click on the document icon to go to the person's index detail page. I was able to click on view document and view all of the images in the new image viewer. Let me know if this works for you.
1 -
@SerraNola I'm at my FSC this afternoon so I can see most things. I'll check your workaround when I get home.
BTW - I had a different problem with a Cook County, Illinois record while at my Affiliate Library earlier this week. I'll be checking it here at the FSC. If the problem persists, I'll let you know.
Thanks.
1 -
I tried the suggested work-around and got nowhere. One thing I noticed is that records kept at Granite Mountain Record Vault are inaccessible. A lot of records are listed as being kept at that site that I don't see when I search for Ontario Roman Catholic records, Peterborough, Douro. That might explain my recent observation to a cousin that image records for Douro (and elsewhere) seem to have disappeared from FS. One other thing: Why is it that I can see the first three images, only glimpse the fourth, and after that I'm blocked from seeing any others? My expectation would be that the whole set of records is either visible in its entirety, or it's not. This, again, points back to my suspicion that there are widespread programming problems with "pointers" in the FS software. I notice that the obvious bug with the record navigation app (wherein zeroes disappear when you try to edit a record number) still hasn't been fixed. Among other problems.
1 -
@SerraNola
I'm working from home today and tried your workaround through the doc icon, and I am able to view that image. Also tried paging through (using right and left arrows on the image) and jumping forward 10 or 20 images, using the Image number selector and the thumbnail row at the bottom. Able to view all images.
Thanks.0 -
It took some fooling around to be able to see that first record at the bottom, but after that, I was able to view the whole image file using your workaround. Thanks very much for that! Saving an image as a source and attaching it is much more cumbersome than the already cumbersome method that I have always used when I can go to the images directly though. Why are there now two ways to scroll through the image files? What was wrong with the older way of doing it? Will we have to "stand on our heads" henceforth whenever we want to view and attach an image record, or will FS recognize this as a bug that needs to be fixed? I'm not the only FS user who has encountered bugs and reported them, only to be ignored.
0 -
@MDoran1 An easy way to access these records in the new viewer is simply to go to Images.
Not all record collections have been transferred to the new viewer and thus the digital image link takes you to the old viewer. We often get feedback of errors trying to open an image in the old viewer so in the future when you encounter this—if there is an index, just use the workaround. No need to stand on your head. It's probably also a good idea to bookmark it while you're in the new viewer.
Yes, you are correct the microfilm records at the Granite Mountain Vault are currently not accessible. For decades people could order a film # and for a nominal fee have a copy shipped to their nearest FH Center. A few years back the project to digitize each of them was completed so this service was discontinued. FamilySearch is the custodian of the microfilm, but not the digital images. The archival custodian of the original documents says who can legally access the records online. FamilySearch makes as many as possible freely available within their contractual agreements. Recently, because supplies of microfilm are no longer unlimited, FamilySearch has been forced to stop making copies of microfilm in the vault that are not available at the library. They are working on other ways to make them accessible. I hope this answers your question about finding records that seem to be gone.
If you are aware of users who have reported bugs and been ignored, please send me the links. I'm not clear on the disappearing zeroes bug you referenced. The zeroes before a film number are not needed to search.
1 -
About the problem of the disappearing zeroes, a while ago I wrote this note to the FS community: "I have complained about this bug previously but it persists in the record navigation app. Go to a page of records, e.g., Canada, Quebec Catholic Parish Registers, 1621-1979; St. Régis; Baptêmes, mariages, sépultures 1848-1876, and try this: Replace the page number "1" with "200" and hit <enter>. It takes you to page 200 of the records, as you would expect. Now, say you want to edit the page number to "100" instead of "200": Backspace over the "2", replace it with "1" and hit <enter>. It takes you to page "1", not page "100" as expected. For some reason, the zeroes have been lost. If you do the same thing using numbers that aren't zero, e.g., start at 223, try to go to 123 by backspacing over the 2 and replacing it with 1, hit <enter>, it takes you to page 123, as expected. If the way the navigation tool works depends on the number you type in, it's a bug."
On the issue of record availability, my understanding is that the Province of Ontario delegated the safekeeping, maintenance, etc., of the province's historical BMD records to FamilySearch in perpetuity. It sounds like the "in perpetuity" part of the deal is in jeopardy. Am I wrong about that (I hope!)?0 -
@MDoran1 All of the catalog entries I looked at states the original microfilm for Ontario civil registration is housed at the Archives of Ontario or the Archives of Canada. If you mean will FamilySearch have copies "forever" the answer is yes and they have made them available to the public.
In all my years of searching films I have never encountered the problem you described with the zeroes, probably because I change the number by backspacing from the end. Actually, I only use the numbers if I know the correct image. Otherwise, I just scroll the film with my mouse. I think if I reported this as a bug, it would be very low priority for engineers as they already have so much on their plate. Still, I will make note of it for future reference.
0 -
Did you try the example I gave you? Do you agree that it doesn't work as it should? Thinking back to when I was learning how to program in C, I recall one of the lessons being how to write a simple text editor. That simple editor would work here, without treating "100" differently from how it would treat, e.g., "111". In fact, it would work exactly the way the old FS record navigation app used to work, before it was "improved" last Fall. I edit record numbers as I described because I do something like a "binary search" to home in on the record date that I am looking for. I find it too inefficient and time consuming to look for records the way you describe. Getting back to how text editors are programmed, the way the FS navigation app works now looks like the classic bug where, in certain circumstances (e.g., editing 100 to 200 by changing 1 to 2) a pointer gets corrupted. If you corrupt enough of them, the stability of the whole session degrades to the point where you get frozen and have to reboot. That has happened to me in FS many times in recent months (but nowhere else). Plus, it's just annoying to have to keep in mind that "100" will be handled differently from how any other number that doesn't contain zeroes would be handled. I added something like 600 names to FS last year, most of them using the old and much more reliable FS software. I'm finding the FS software WAY too buggy and cumbersome now, and I have cut way back on my FS activity as a result. It's very likely that I will just find something else to do instead.
P.S. You asked that I advise you of any other people who have found bugs. Several others have found this bug, as reported in the thread that I started about it a while back. Also, on the problem of the inaccessible records, there was a user in South Africa who was having exactly the same problem. I'm sure you will be able to find that.0
