Searching on IGI records can still be helpful
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Paul said: I thought I'd open a new topic for this, although it follows my recent post at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea.... This illustrates how the IGI records can still be useful - especially when searching on a specific parish / batch number.
The link below is to the website containing batch numbers for the British Isles and North America.
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~hughwa...
From there, I find the batch number for the parish from which I want to check records. Then I go to https://www.familysearch.org/search/c..., input my batch number and get results, as illustrated below.
Although these records are all supposed to be found by using the main website at https://www.familysearch.org/search/, it is sometimes difficult to separate records of parishes with similar names, or even discover exactly the format in which to input the place name. Consequently, I find this a good alternative method of searching, especially in fitting certain circumstances. (e.g. search on whole parish, rather than a specific surname.)
The link below is to the website containing batch numbers for the British Isles and North America.
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~hughwa...
From there, I find the batch number for the parish from which I want to check records. Then I go to https://www.familysearch.org/search/c..., input my batch number and get results, as illustrated below.
Although these records are all supposed to be found by using the main website at https://www.familysearch.org/search/, it is sometimes difficult to separate records of parishes with similar names, or even discover exactly the format in which to input the place name. Consequently, I find this a good alternative method of searching, especially in fitting certain circumstances. (e.g. search on whole parish, rather than a specific surname.)
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Paul said: It appears it would have been best me for to have added these comments at https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea..., after all.0
This discussion has been closed.