edited September 28, 2020 in Suggest an Idea
Douglas Macfie said: I began with the LDS microflim back when you needed to go to one of your centers and found things as long with the monitors very pleasant, helpful and rewarding - The I embarked on your web site which was just great andallowed me to do a lot of work - HOWEVER your site does not carry the information from the Drouin records of Quebec like the Ancestry.com site does which make things difficult . then there seems to be a great quantity of New York records missing also i have copies of Mirco fiche some one sent me a long tie ago of records in Dutches County NY that does not appear anywhere in the LSD files, then I have a family of 15 who lived and died in Whitehall New York back in 1810-1820 which can not be found on you site - when i was speaking with my cousin Walter Wiley who was a member of your group that your records were extensive .. it does not seem to be so have you halted the collection of these older records !!!!!
A van Helsdingen said: FamilySearch does not have absolutely every record of genealogical interest.
FS must negotiate with record owners to be able to publish records. If the record owner has the records on a commercial site like Ancestry.com the chance of them letting FS publish the records on FS (with no subscription fees) is zero, unless FS compromises and agrees only to make the records available at Family History Centers, Affiliate Libraries, to members of the LDS church only, viewable but not downloadable, or some combination of the previous restrictions.
Another thing to consider for Catholic records from Quebec is that official Catholic policy is that none of their records must be published on FS. This is widely ignored, but some Catholic dioceses do take this seriously and refuse consent for their records to be published on FS.
The FS Wiki (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/...) is a good place to start to find out how to access records. There are other genealogy help pages on the internet- try a local genealogy society or the archive or government agency that owns the records.
Have your searched for Dutches County in the FamilySearch Catalog?
Note that New York, or at least some of its counties and statewide agencies, are known to not be willing to release genealogy records to the public. The genealogy group Reclaim the Records has frequently (and every time so far, successfully) sued governments in New York for not making documents available to the public that they are legally required to make available.0
Douglas Macfie said: Ok this would explain things a bit more , for as I understood it LSD was collecting all and everything . I did not realize there were legal hurdles for your organization to surmount . I will get my self back to the LSD center here and go back to micro fiche it worked be fore . it was just more convenient to work from home as I am 72 years old.
do not get me wrong I have appreciated all that you have available on line at present it was just my area of searching appeared to be lacking in detailed information
thank you for your reply0
Juli said: pedant mode on:: LSD is the psychedelic drug (Lysergic acid diethylamide). I'm pretty sure you meant LDS, for "Latter-Day Saints". ::pedant mode off::
Keep in mind that FHCs have been closed due to the pandemic. I have no idea whether any of them have reopened yet.0
Douglas Macfie said: Sorry mistyped ............ but I do realize I have to be patient and wait for things to open ... no matter I have been working on this since 1981 and it is just a hobby ...0
Jeff Wiseman said: And LSD makes it harder to read the micro fiche :-)
Also please be aware that because the church has moved away from films and microfiche, many FHCs no longer even have the equipment to read them. Probably a good idea to call ahead first.0
ATP said: Douglas Macfie,
My guess it is not the lack of record holdings of the Church and not just the legal obligations, but, for the most part, it is the lack of Church facilitated indexing forces, etc. hindering the producing of those vast holdings online, most of which are civil and canon legal records microfilmed from the 1930s until ? All which have been in the continuing process of being digitized since the advent of FSFT. At some point recently, someone on this forum mentioned it was like in the neighborhood of some 80% of the Church microfilmed record holdings have not been indexed.
Patience, indeed! : )0
Jeff Wiseman said: Here is a short blurb on "Access to Records at FamiySearch" that you might find of interest:
Glenn P said: For Dutchess County, New York, you may want to try the Search>>Images feature in FamilySearch, found in the Search menu at the top of the page. This allows you to search by using the Search Historical Images Feature. Type in the location Dutchess, New York, United States. You then get a listing of records as Results, such as Census, Immigration, Court records, etc.. When I did this I had 2,751 results for that county. Each of these had a number of images to review. This will allow a search of digitized microfilm records not yet indexed. You may be able to find a set of images you want to review, by doing this. These may not be the records you are looking for, but maybe this will help.0
A van Helsdingen said: In my opinion, the Catalog is no worse than the new "Images" feature. FS continually says they have "limited resources" but they spent all this time making a new feature that essentially duplicates the Catalog.0
Adrian Bruce said: ... and apparently gets it wrong if there are multiple items on one film.
I have seen several times that if records for X, Y and Z were on the film, the new Images facility allows you to look for Y (say), brings up a screen for Y's images - but if you look, they are for Z. (And yes, I did document this in GetSat when the facility came out.)
In fairness, every once in a while the new Images facility find stuff that the Catalog search didn't.... Go figure...0
Paul said: I've only started making searches from https://www.familysearch.org/records/... over the last few days. I wonder what prompted FamilySearch to start adding images in this way - presumably most (all?) the items have not been catalogued? I guess it must be quicker to add images to the website by this method.
I have been sometimes finding it difficult get to the material I was searching for in "Images". It has also been interesting to find that strict "exact match" searching is the only option here. That is, if I select "Upton, Norfolk, England" from the drop-down menu I will get one result. If I choose "Upton, Norfolk, England, United Kingdom" I will get the nine results indexed in this format. Oh, no - I just found I have to click on the option suffixed with "Parish" - if I choose the one with the suffix "Town" I get zero results!
And to think, when adding a place name in Family Tree I have not worried what followed (say) "United Kingdom" - I did not realise the importance of specifically selecting "Civil Registration District"," Parish", "Town", "Populated Place", etc., if there are these multiple options. I have picked the first one with the correct place name format - hope this has not caused problems with the search algorithms, etc.
Going back to the way https://www.familysearch.org/records/... "works", it is interesting to see a "collection" containing anything between a handful of images (say "1-9") and several thousand. I assume the very small ones ARE whole collections - or are they just odd items that were missed during the (earlier) digitisation of a much larger collection of the same material?0
Adrian Bruce said: "I did not realise the importance of specifically selecting "Civil Registration District"," Parish", "Town", "Populated Place", etc., if there are these multiple options"
And of course, we are nudged into not thinking it matters by the fact that when we look at it on the person's profile, we do not see the type. (Anything we do not see, can't matter - can it? Sickly grin)
I was going to write that we don't see the type unless we start to do an edit, but I'm not even convinced that we see it then, because we have to start the edit process and then we can see the drop-down containing the type - but this has probably restarted the whole standardisation process so what we see may not be the type as it was beforehand. Maybe.
The other reason for imagining that the type can't matter is that those of us who think a bit (bad habit...) will know that the data would originally have been set up in FSFT without type - just with the text. So surely searching can't use anything involving the type, because the type wasn't there to start with - and perhaps still isn't there on vast numbers of profiles???0