Trying to replicate a search I did a few weeks ago, but cannot get the same result.
A few weeks ago I found a Danish Baptism record for one of my ancestors (see attached docs
). However, today I tried to find the record again by copying the link from the doc into Edge browser, but it says 'not found'. I then tried to find the record by searching for that person in the "Denmark Baptisms - 1618 to 1923" collection and it comes up with either thousands of results (when I just search his name and year of birth) or zero results (when I add in mother and/or father's name). Can anyone help me find this record again please?
Apologies if this type of question has been answered before. I did try to search for similar situations, but didn't find any.
Many thanks.
Andersen, Thomas Christian - Family Search - Baptism record - 1820.txt
Best Answers
-
The URL in your text file works for me:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XY4J-94P?lang=enBut when I run into things like this, I go to the FamilySearch Catalog (search —> catalog). You have the microfilm number, so search on that…gives you this page with the microfilm https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/results?q.filmNumber=49063
Then, go into the file and look to see what options you have.
https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/27082
I searched for the 'digital folder number' and I see 8 possible volumes. If there's a magnifying glass, you can search it — if there's a camera, it's been digitized and you can (usually) scroll through page by page.1 -
@Alison8007 This was your record from 2020, which was part of a decades old collection of extracted records which were not linked to images:
Thomas Christian (Found this by copying the URL in your attachment—not sure why it didn't work for you)
The film has since been split into separate groups, added to the collection "Denmark, Church Records, 1484-1941", and the index attached:
Thomas Christian Andersen (Found this by putting the DGS # in Image Search then scrolling to 1820. Record detail page was attached.)
The first collection remains because it's already linked to many in the tree, but the new one connects to images and original sources are always better than derivatives.
1 -
Thankyou @Lawanna-- and @SerraNola I really appreciate you taking the time to explain. (I tried the link again and it works for me again now too - maybe a 'glitch' this morning?). I don't understand where the 2020 reference comes from as it was August 11th this year that I found this record, unless I stumbled on the old data set rather than the newer. I've learnt a lot, and much more exploring to be done!
0
Answers
-
@Alison8007 The record citation is dated 2020, which would (as I understand it) normally indicate that nothing about this record has changed since then.
0
