Upload Guidelines- Link in PDF Citation
Hello.
I downloaded some church records (baptisms, marriages, and burials) from Archion and wanted to upload them to their respective profiles on here. However, their website is printed at the top of the PDF as part of a citation.
Is this an issue with FamilySearch's upload guidelines of no URLs / links? I'm assuming it's only problematic if those are clickable? I know that Archion has been a part of RootsTech in the past, and I recall a video saying it was okay to post on this website, but wanted to ask first out of an abundance of caution.
Thanks!
Best Answer
-
You are correct, the upload guidelines of FS do state NO "Links to outside websites (i.e. no URLs)." And, as many have noted in other posts recently, FS is getting tougher about restricting those uploads.
You can see this post for some indication of what others are experiencing: URL links in memories items.
(I had made a comment about blacking-out the url, but I removed that statement….see info below. However, it would probably be best to not include the URL and instead add the URL in the Comments or Description of the uploaded Memory.)
0
Answers
-
Is the link clickable? Or is the link just a bitmap of pixels that can only be read as a URL by the human eye? If the latter, then the automatic checking won't know that it's text, never mind a URL.
I suspect that the Archion image might very well consist of a bitmap of the original page plus embedded text that contains alphabetic characters and could therefore be machine read as a URL. That doesn't mean it's clickable though. As I have no idea how the FS check works, I can only suggest that you try one.
I have a distinct suspicion that covering the text with a black redaction might not work. Firstly, if it is a PDF then how is anyone supposed to edit it? Secondly, covering the URL is just an optical effect - if the URL is text, not a bitmap image, it's still there underneath the redaction mark. Try it and see...
1 -
Blacking out the image of the URL is the worst kind of advice. That means the record loses the breadcrumbs that help others know the source of the document.
3 -
Thank you all for your help.
The link isn't clickable, @Adrian Bruce1, but the text is able to be highlighted with a cursor and copied. It's the same link to their base website as found at the bottom of this PDF (though this one is just an image of the text): https://cms-b-assets.familysearch.org/92/93/30f5e5064a439e2bcb55ae157087/flyer-en.pdf
In regards to cropping out the citation, my concern is that I don't want to violate Archion's policy either. I suppose I will have to contact them now and ask what to do.
I totally understand and respect FamilySearch's policies on the links. Obviously, you don't want hidden links or anything that might lead to an unsafe site or even advertising.
I hope in the future, however, there might be consideration that certain links that are already on FamilySearch as helpful references are not flagged.
1 -
Your last thoughts are embraced by many others….if you have a moment, it would be great if you shared those thoughts through FamilySearch's "Suggest an Idea." (The "Suggest an Idea" is active; your message will be shared with those who can make changes.)
2 -
@GFre - if the link cannot be clicked, but can only be copied, then I fail completely to see the risk to the FamilySearch site. It's no more a danger to the FS site than any Google search in another browser window is.
Maybe the Church imagines that people might think that any apparent URL appearing on the FS site has the sanction of the Church. That's about all I can come up with. But as stated in the thread linked by @AmberML1 , there are other places where URLs are allowed and no-one has explained why those are OK, but these aren't.
As it is, I suspect that there is every possibility that omitting the URL would be in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the target site. I don't know that is the case, I know only that it has to be a possibility. Also, omitting the URL of the site where the stuff came from is also in breach of all good genealogical process.
I can only suggest that you explore if there are any other means of sourcing that don't involve memories (I'm not at my PC at the moment for any inspiration).
Also, I did challenge the rejection of my own Memory ( I suspect the rejection was because it contained the URL of the Californian Digital Newspaper Collection) and they accepted my argument. But it could get a pain challenging every rejection if you have a number.
3
