Take care when using "Search - Images" (https://www.familysearch.org/records/images/)

LegacyUser

Paul said: Sorry if this is obvious to all, except (until just now) to me. But to obtain a full set of results for a particular place for which there are images at https://www.familysearch.org/records/... every option must be individually selected.

The example below illustrates. Clicking on each option will give separate results, unlike if you were carrying out a search at https://www.familysearch.org/search/, where an "exact match" search on the place name would include results whether you included, say, "United Kingdom" or did not. (See https://www.familysearch.org/search/r...) where I have carried out an "exact Birthplace" search using "Upton, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom" yet stiill have been given a result for "Upton, Norfolk, England" - i.e. without the United Kingdom suffix.)

(I had expected that just selecting the top option would work rather as it does at https://www.familysearch.org/search/. However, there are totally different results provided when selecting each of the four options.)

LegacyUser

Paul said: Incidentally, some of these records have been incorrectly indexed for the correct place name format for the period. Look at https://www.familysearch.org/records/... and you will find records (reached by clicking on the first option shown in the screenshot) that should not be appearing with a United Kingdom suffix - e.g. the ones dated 1334-1771. (i.e. relating to the "Unknown-1801" time period, for which the standard should be "Upton, Norfolk, England" - so should be found under the third option down.)

Best to click on all the options available, to avoid missing anything that might be of interest!

LegacyUser

Paul said: Here is another example of the type of problem being encountered when trying to reach specific records.

From the page at
https://www.familysearch.org/records/... I select the Upton, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom collection of 940 images said to be covering the period 1558-1915. This takes me to https://www.familysearch.org/records/.... As shown below, this has as Item1: "Upton, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom Church Record 1850-1864."

However, not only do the time periods not match, but Item 1 relates to Stanhoe with Barwick 1824-90 records!



Okay, I'll use the Feedback link, but this whole area of FamilySearch appears to need some serious reworking.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Update - After about 15 minutes, I have found images relating to Upton parish. Starting at image 532, the film item number is not clear, but the records of the parish preceding it on the film show as item 15. The 1850-1864 time period (shown on the right hand side of the page) is correct, but the item numbers for the different Norfolk parishes have been completely muddled in the listing. For example, the first reference to Stanhoe is as "Item or Entry 13", whereas it appears (as already stated) as Item 1 on the film.

LegacyUser

Paul said: I decided to try one more thing: to see how the Stanhoe with Barwick ("Item 1") records could be found.

I discovered they are found under the heading "Barwick, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom" - one entry for "Town" comes up in a search. The collection listed is shown in the same way as for Upton - 940 images for the period 1558-1915. However, the link that is supposed to lead to these records is https://www.familysearch.org/records/.... This shows Barwick parish to be "Item or Entry 28" on the film - for period 1844-1890, whereas (as already shown) these records are Item 1 on the film!

The upside of "Images" is in finding images of records you had no idea were available on the FamilySearch website. The downside is in trying to get to them, and in their not always covering the periods described when you do find them.

LegacyUser

Juli said: I have given up on even trying the Images function. The search combines all of the worst features of the Catalog's matching algorithm (can't find it unless there's an explicit cross-reference or you happen to [mis]spell it exactly the same way the cataloger did) with all of the shortcomings of the Places database (missing places/jurisdictions, duplicated places/jurisdictions), and adds all sorts of misidentifications, such as the item/location problems Paul mentioned, or the way it says "death certificate" for Hungarian civil registers (which are NOT certificates).

If all of the databases were fully correct, with all image ranges correctly labeled and all locations fully cross-referenced, and if there were a robust search with good filters, then an image search would be a very useful thing. As the feature currently stands, I think I will stick with the Catalog: it has its shortcomings, but they're familiar and I know the workarounds.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I agree that the images search is basically unusable, but for different reasons.

Some of the books contain images (usually pen&ink drawings) of personalities in histories. The lack of being able to search for people is a drawback.

Place searches can be problematical at best, but even then, I would have expected more. Finding images involved with obituaries (with the image search for a place) was interesting, but I am better off using the general search (historical) records and filtering from there.