No blind references please, give us some help scanning through the film images
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Vern said: The suggested task to review possible record links needs some improvements. The reference I just received to document my GGrandfather told me search through 750 images of births and burial covering 20 years time. If there can't be an image number given with the reference, FamilySearch should at least provide some way to see where you are in the film set. Give an indication of the record types and the dates.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
ATP said: Vern,
Is it possible you can provide a link to that document of 750 images which would make it clearer in how to respond to your comment...0 -
Robert Wren said: This excellent video by FS Product Manager, Robert Kehrer might help
"If you haven’t found what you’re looking for using FamilySearch’s basic search tool, don’t give up. There are many other ways for you to access information about your family that you may not have known before. Check out the presentation “Finding Elusive Records on FamilySearch” to learn these valuable research skills and break through the roadblocks on your family tree."
https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/...0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Hi Vern!
If you are talking about one of the sources that has been indexed but for whatever reason they included a link to the enter film instead of a specific page, you can use the indexed data to help.
Where ever on the film the indexed data was taken from, chances are pretty good that their values are what was taken from the source image. So if a birth date for George Smith was given as 31 October 1888, then you have the ability to scan the film for the image that you want.
Robert Kehret of FS gave a presentation on Finding Elusive Records. It can be viewed at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn2VY...
Hi presentation is primarily discussing how to find images and records in FS's archives that have not been indexed (70% of all the records that FS has are not indexed and cannot be found using the normal "search by name approach"). However, he does discuss in a few places how you can find a particular person on a film. Basically you open some of the images at the beginning of the film to see how the documents are organized. Some are organized by alphabetic groups, and some are organized by date. It can vary but once you've determined that structure, it's relatively easy to go in and jump around to find your record.
750 pages is NOT a large number of images. Once you get familiar with the structure of the document, you should be able to find your record in just a few minutes. You don't have to go through every single image to do thist!
And when you have found it, make a note of BOTH the page number and the image number, then edit the source citation and add that information to it so the next guy and jump straight to the image.0 -
Robert Wren said: And/Or just attach the image to the PID.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I usually don't do that because I'm uncertain about copyrights. Also, many of FS's contracts with document providers are time based. It is totally possible for an image to disappear. If you have copied the image and put it onto the FS website, FS is now displaying an image that by contract they were supposed to remove.
So it's a question.
But if you put the full information (film#, image#, volume and/or page number) a person will still be able to quickly find the location cited once they have access to the source images again.
Just a thought0 -
Robert Wren said: Yes, but for those indexed SourceLinker added sources WITHOUT a link directly to the image, attaching it directly from the digitized image works very well. I then add to the source title "IMAGE" - and save others the time of looking through the 1,000 or so images. AND the IMAGE is the needed SOURCE- not the index, IMHO.
And, yes, noting the page and image numbers is easy to add to the image also - you know like a belt & suspenders.0 -
Vern said: Thanks for taking a look at this. Here's where the Recommended Task took me.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
When you click on Browse the Film you go here:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
Granted that's not the biggest set out there. Also I can read this stuff so I could find my way if I wanted to. (The link already existed so why should I? Also, better images and waypointing are available on other sites.) BUT, if you have indexed the record already why not take me straight to the image?0 -
Vern said: Actually, that second link wasn't where you go. The FS link shows you all the little images. Enough to scare a novice out of doing any research.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/f...0 -
Robert Wren said: Image 317 rt side, 3rd from top:
If you looked at the film, you will see the first goes to 1811, so just find the LAST page with the waypoint for the second file, then search backward.
In answer to your "why?" question, some of the earlier films just simply failed to include the image number (or image) newer ones are better at linking.0 -
Tom Huber said: Generally speaking, when you have to browse a film, most original records are organized either by name or by date. This particular set of records is organized by date. As such, it isn't hard to get to the date of the event (which is recorded in the index) and then be able to locate the actual event entry you are searching for.
As to why -- not all indexes are complete and in the case of early films -- which this one is (44547) it was indexed from the film itself and therefore are not linked to the actual images.
There is an effort to link the older indexes with the digitized images, but it is a slow process and as it is, indexing far from being done for most films. To have an index provides you with the information that the person on the film was actually indexed, but as of this time, the images have not been linked.
With over 1 million films involved, it is unlikely that all the early films will be fully linked in the near future.0 -
Robert Wren said: I do agree it is sad that more training is not offered (required?) within FamilySearch, but . . .
Here's another helpful item from a James Tanner blog on the FHGuide site
https://www.thefhguide.com/blog/dont-...
As Jeff mentioned above: "70% of all the records that FS has are not indexed and cannot be found using the normal "search by name approach"
Consequently, I think I spend 70% of my research time in those records. (which is still FAR better than winding through microfilm and copying info with pen & paper)
Of course, I still spend an inordinate amount of time correcting mistakes - caused by the unavailability of training ( and the lack of requirement to "LEARN BEFORE DOING")
Exit soapbox!!0 -
ATP said: Vern,
Welcome to the research process after you had gotten your hands on the actual record before the days of the internet. : )
Fortunately, you have a date of the record making the virtual research process even easier and you don't have to go through all those images.
In the Image search box ending in 749, estimate where December 23, 1810 might reside in those rows of records using as parameters the beginning and ending dates for this set of records, enter an image number where you think the actual record might reside, working back and/or forth on the pages until you find the date and entry you're looking for.
Genealogy is never done! It is always a work in progress!0 -
ATP said: Vern,
Looks like Robert Wren has already found it for you! : )0 -
Tom Huber said: And, it is not always easy.
Back in the days of microfilms and fiche, searching for records was extremely time consuming, even at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City.
Even more important, it often meant a trip to where the ancestors lived to find local records that had not been preserved on film by anyone. If you were visiting an area where the local historical/genealogical society had walked cemeteries, maintained name files, and so on, that made it easier. But it still meant traveling, obtaining lodging, and then visiting during their hours of operation.
Today, with the computer interfaces to indexes and digitized images, it is much easier and in many cases, the local society has at least one page on the internet to assist in searching for the records that they have in their collection.0 -
Vern said: Thanks Robert. This reference was old news for me. The link had already been made. It's just this new suggestion to review the record wasn't particularly helpful.0
-
Vern said: Tom, you're correct in that we have been spoiled. It still seems sad that there's not a way to match that decades old indexing to the image dump they made from the film. I'm glad the film has been scanned and I know there are millions of rolls, but I wish for something more. There is no divisions between the baptisms and the burials for a starter. There are no breaks inserted or highlighting between the years. I look at the scanned church records found in the Norwegian Digital Archives and think why couldn't FamilySearch done as nice a job? The Norskies came into the digitizing game after FS, but jumped way ahead. As I said at first, we're getting spoiled.0
-
Tom Huber said: Well, aside from being spoiled, the divisions are something that are slowly being addressed with either a change in the title of the collection, or actually splitting the collection into its separate parts.
And there is some movement toward getting images matched up with the images, but I have no idea how much of the volunteer force that supports the site is involved or how much progress is being made.
So there is hope.0
This discussion has been closed.