I keep coming across a message that says "record has been removed" When I am doing a search. I am
Answers
-
@Marvin Keith Prescott
.
Keith
.
There are two reasons for this ...
.
Firstly ...
.
Such "Records" (ie. "Sources") ARE being "Removed" from "FamilySearch", by "FamilySearch"; as, they consider that such are the SAME or SIMILAR (what you might call "Duplicate"; but, most are not exact "Duplicates") to 'Other' (what they consider) BETTER "Sources", that already exist in "FamilySearch".
.
"FamilySearch" has been doing that for some time now.
.
I believe that it started with the "1851, Census of England and Wales"; and, then, expanded to the "1881, Census of England and Wales". Whereas, nowadays, is common practice for many "Sources".
.
Too many Users/Patrons were 'complaining' (I should say, 'whinging') that there were too many "Duplicates" (ie. SAME or SIMILAR) "Sources"; and, it was so much (ie. too much) trouble having to attach them all.
.
As you can gather, I did not mind or have a problem/issue with the many SAME or SIMILAR (what you might call "Duplicate"; but, most are not exact "Duplicates") "Sources". I loved to attach them all - the more the merrier.
.
What I find annoying now is that; as, I have attached such "Sources", they now come up with that "Record has been Removed".
.
The reasons for the existence of such SAME or SIMILAR (what you might call "Duplicate"; but, most are not exact "Duplicates") included, things like; but, not limited to:
.
- Additional "Indexing" of a Record
.. [Usually, as the previous "Indexing" was flawed or limited]
- "Indexing" by more than one organistaion
.. [eg. Other than "FamilySearch" = "Ancesty_com" and like]
- ETC; Etc; etc ...
.
You should not be too concerned about this; as, another Records exists.
.
Secondly ...
.
The "Restrictions", applied by the "Record Custodian", of such "Records", may have "Changed", due to a RENEWAL of the "Contractual Agreements/Arrangements" between the "Record Custodian" and "FamilySearch".
.
In other words, the "Record Custodian" may have applied TIGHTER "Restrictions".
.
Such is usually done due to "Commercial" reasons (ie. where 'Money' become involved - Commercial "Websites" pay the "Record Custodian" for access or filming or indexing of such Records)
.
If such is the case; then, nothing much can be done - such is life.
.
I hope this helps; and, puts thing into perspective.
.
Brett
.
0 -
In this case it is likely that FS has broken something. Brian Jensen (employee) has acknowledged that this is a problem in the discussion:
Please note that these corrupted source citations are all over at the moment. You will likely find some of these in the source lists of records you have worked on as well has hints showing up on different person records. I have no idea of what they are doing to "fix" these, but if it is a matter of them reinstating the URLs that have been broken, In my opinion it would be a very good idea at present to avoid the following:
- Don't detach these broken citations from a person record source list. If you do, you'll have to find them all again and reattach them.
- Don't dismiss hints that are broken like this. They are exactly the same thing--citations with broken URLs
- However, don't attach any indexed historic records that are broken like this. You'll have no evidence or proof that they are appropriate until this problem is fixed.
This really bothers me that FS has not at least put up a warning message on the site about this. I have folks going through and removing all of the citation's who's URLs have been broken on dozens of my relative's records. Many times I am now discovering that a value or conclusion that I've added to the person record citing a specific source, now has no evidence or proof whatsoever because the only supporting source has been detached. And since the URL is broken, they usually cannot be found and cited again.
Apparently this has been going on for a while now. I wish that FS would notify us about such things so that we don't go through the system blindly removing things that we'll just have to replace again one the issue is fixed.
Also note that the comment made above that "another record exists" is, in fact, incorrect in many of these records. Some of these were the old "pal" type URLs that were being replaced with the new "ark" URLs. This is either done by walking through and every attached source citation that references the old "pal" URLs would have it replaced with the newer "ark" one. In other cases I have seen where the new "ark" URLs have just been put into new source citations and sent out as hints.
These are all supposed to be "Persistent" URLs--meaning that they are not supposed to change over time. But I have seen changes in the past. This time something has not worked right and we are left with a bunch of corrupted source citations which cannot be used at present.
0
