Show what percent complete a record collection is

LegacyUser

Larry Bassist said: I am trying to figure out if the recently released index of Paris civil marriages from 1860-1912 is complete or not. I tried searching the index for a marriage that I know took place because I have a copy of it from the Paris government website itself (not FamilySearch). But it does not show up in the FamilySearch index. Also I tried looking at current indexing projects for France and it says there are no current projects.
That leads me to my suggestion: whenever FamilySearch announces a new record collection they should include what percent complete it is. Also, when one goes to that collection, in the header for it, there should be the percent currently complete. If I see that the percent complete has not changed since the last time I looked, then I won't waste my time searching it again. But if I see significant progress, then it might be worth searching in it again.
Thanks,
Larry Bassist
Springville, UT

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: A lot depends upon the source used to produce the index. In the case of some marriage records for Washington State, FS has an incomplete set and so a marriage that took place some sixty years ago does not show up.

Record Collections are not what you search, but the index to that collection. There may be factors that prevent the entire index from being visible to the public, including jurisdictional laws prohibiting public view for a number of years following an event.

I agree that it would be very nice if the percent indexed (which is what is searched) could be displayed (if not impacted by legal or contractual issues).

LegacyUser

Paul said: The lack of detail provided by FamilySearch has always been a major issue. It seems there are just not the necessary resources to provide the level of detail that is so important to most researchers.

Hence, the situation where many "Indexed" collections are only partly indexed. Even if FamilySearch cannot provide a breakdown of, say, what years are covered / missing there should be a clear indication when a (sometimes substantial) part of the collection has not been indexed.

Meanwhile - again due to lack of detail provided - if a collection IS updated the only notification from FamilySearch is along the lines of "15,657 indexed records added to an existing collection". Yes, but we've already searched the entire collection, so do we have do go through the whole lot again in a hope these additional records are the ones we are seeking? Unfortunately, the answer is "yes".

The digitisation programme has made things even worse. The notifications I get (by email) often advise of, say, 6 or 8 records being added! One particular collection in which I have an interest sometimes has a handful of records added one month, the same the next month, and so on. I wish there could be some planning whereby they could at least be "held back" until a more substantial number can all be added together.

Unfortunately, the choice is yours as to whether it's worth constantly searching a "revised" collection in the hope the update just might include the records you are seeking. I cannot see FamilySearch will suddenly change its method of record keeping - or, more importantly, how the finer detail is shared with its users.

LegacyUser

Paul said: See https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/... Scroll down the page to see the tiny number of records being added to some collections.

(I have added a new topic on the way new records are currently being added. See https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...)

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes. At one time we saw updates that said (say) 90% Complete - then you saw that it said it was 90% of Batch 3 of a collection, with nothing to say whether that was 3 of 3, 3 of 4, 3 of 20 etc.

The non-provision of coverage data is worrying for two reasons:

1) If I find just one baptism of a John Doe in Cheshire (say) within 5y of the date that I need, I have no idea just how likely this is to be my John Doe. If 98.5% of Cheshire's baptisms for that era are in FS, it's very likely. If only 20% of Cheshire's baptisms for that era are in FS, then there's a distinct likelihood that there are several others in the un-imaged or unindexed stuff.

2) If statistics about coverage are not available to us - being of a cynical and / or realistic turn of mind, I start wondering if they are even available to FS. How do they know when an indexing project is complete? And if this seems unduly pessimistic, consider that some films have been indexed twice (not two films of the same register, the same film indexed twice) - so what stops the converse of FS missing one out?

Now, in fairness to all, I should point out that none of this is easy... How does FS ever even know what registers should exist in the first place? People have written books and articles trying to establish what registers exist.... Also FS may not have the rights to some of the existing registers. For instance, Astbury (Cheshire) PRs exist but are only published by the parish itself. Penwortham (Lancashire) PRs were all destroyed in a fire in the 1850s. How does FS know this? Not actually easy... I only know those two because of my own ancestry.

So - percentage of what? Churches? Registers available to FS? Registers actually imaged by FS (which may not be the same thing...) I suspect all those things are important!!