Access to images
I understand the reasons why not all images are available for viewing. But there are different degrees of inaccessibility. Some records are held closely by their custodians who want you to acquire the images directly from them. That's understandable. Others are for viewing only on an FHL or affiliate computer. I currently have about 450 records in UK parish registers that I want to see. I am also an active indexer.
So the idea occurred to me that my computer where I do all the indexing (currently about 4000 records/mo) could perhaps be designated an "affiliate" computer for purposes of record viewing. A threshold of indexing activity would put a cookie on the computer (or something similar) and that "affiliate badge" would entitle one to see these images. The badges would have to expire after a time. Perhaps the indexing system could add a unit to the badge for every 1000 records indexed (or reviewed, of course) and the badge could be decremented a unit every week or month or something.
Or maybe this would be cheating the spirit of the agreement?
Jim
Comments
-
James
.
Just my thoughts ...
.
You are not alone ...
.
Short Answer: 'No'; and, 'Yes', you are correct, that "... would be cheating the spirit of the agreement"
.
Those, "Contractual Arrangements/Agreements", with the Records "Custodians", are WHY those "Batches" of Records to be "Indexed", DISAPPEAR (ie. taken back) after a certain period of time - whether or not, you have "finished' indexing the batch.
.
Those "Batches" of Records to be "Indexed" are NOT to be, kept; copied; passed around; or, basically, used for research purposes - although, many of us, would like to do that; especially, when you find a Record pertaining to one of your "Ancestors", while indexing - it happens.
.
Those "Batches" of Records to be "Indexed", are ONLY for the purpose of "Indexing", nothing more.
.
Again, just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
ps:
.
There is NO remuneration for doing "Indexing".
.
You Volunteer to do "Indexing", WITHOUT any expectation of remuneration.
.
When you "Index", you are really providing a SERVICE for OTHER Users/Patrons.
.
Nothing more, nothing less ...
.
Many do "Indexing", simply, to pay back, for what they have received, for free.
.
.
0 -
I must say that I found your ps sermonette a little demeaning. I have indexed hundreds of thousands of records for exactly the community minded reasons you recommend. I regularly do genealogical research freely in response to questions I get. I thought my idea might have some use, especially in these times when access to FHL facilities is locked down.
Jim
0 -
Jim
.
My 'ps' was not a 'sermonette' ... I just wanted to put that forward, right from the outset ...
.
There are some, who "Index", in 'FamilySearch; and, feel that, as they "Index" in (for) 'FamilySearch', that they should have (more/greater) access to some of the "Restricted" Records in 'FamilySearch'.
.
I am in no way suggest that you are one of those ...
.
Enough said ...
Lets leave that ...
.
Now ...
.
I understand, your suggestion, relates to the fact that;
(1) "Family History Library" (FHL) of the Church,
...... [ in "Temple Square" in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA ]
(2) many "Family History Centres" of the Church, around the World; and,
(3) many "Affiliate" Libraries, around the World.
are STILL currently TEMPORALITY "Closed", due to the "COVID-19" Pandemic ...
.
But, please be aware, that some of the "Family History Centres" of the Church, around the World (or, "Affiliate" Libraries, around the World), have "Reopened"; but, certainly operating under (Health) "Restrictions"; whereas, certainly NOT all.
.
I totally understand ...
I am one of the lucky one's; as, my local FHC, was one of the one's that "Reopened".
.
I am sure, that during this "COVID-19" Pandemic, there have been, countless, requests to 'FamilySearch' to LIFT, all the many "Restrictions" on access to Records in 'FamilySearch', due to TEMPORARY (all-be-it, extended) "Closures" and the "COVID-19" Pandemic ...
.
But, such, is just not possible ...
.
The "Contractual Agreements/Arrangements", between, 'FamilySearch'; and, the Records "Custodians", are, both, varied; and, complex.
.
The are countless Records, all around the World; and ...
As such, there are countless Record "Custodians", all around the World; and, ...
Hence, there are countless "Contractual Agreements/Arrangements", that 'FamilySearch must enter into.
.
And, another complexity to add to the mix, is the inclusion of the involvement of the COMMERCIAL "Subscription" (ie. "Paid") Websites.
.
It is a legal 'nightmare'; and, 'mine filed'; that is, ever (ie. constantly) changing.
.
Hence, why, is just not possible ...
.
Just some perspective.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Jim
.
Something else ...
.
Here is a post in the OLD 'FamilySearch' ("GetSatisfaction") 'Feedback' Forum; now, this (New) "IDEAS" ('Feedback') Forum, over 9 Months ago, by 'FamilySearch', on this matter ...
.
Requests for access to records during temporary closings
https://community.familysearch.org/s/idea/0874V000000siRwQAI/detail.
Quote:
----------
Thank you for your inquiry and suggestion. We have had several requests in this regard as a result of the temporary closing of our Family History Library and family history centers due to COVID-19 precautions. Due to contractual obligations, we unfortunately cannot offer expanded external access to records restricted to family history centers and affiliate libraries. We apologize for this inconvenience.
.
In the meantime, we encourage you to explore the vast record collections that are available on FamilySearch. Millions of new indexed records and images are added weekly. And if you haven’t used our new Explore Historical Images tools, you might be surprised at the potential discoveries you can make in our growing unindexed image collections.
.
We appreciate your patience, loyalty, and support,
.
FamilySearch Support
----------
.
And, here is the whole "Image", of the page/screen, with the "Banner" at the TOP, of the "Search/Records" in 'FamilySearch':
.
.
And, here is a "Knowledge Article" in 'FamilySearch' on the matter:
.
Restricted records during COVID-19 outbreak
.
Quote:
------------------
Information
.
We have had several requests to remove record access restrictions as a result of the temporary closing of our Family History Library and family history centers due to COVID-19 precautions. Due to contractual obligations, we unfortunately cannot offer expanded external access to records restricted to family history centers and affiliate libraries. We apologize for this inconvenience.
.
In the meantime, we encourage you to explore the vast record collections that are available on FamilySearch. Millions of new indexed records and images are added weekly. And if you haven’t used our new Explore Historical Images tools, you might be surprised at the potential discoveries you can make in our growing unindexed image collections.
.
We appreciate your patience, loyalty, and support.
------------------
.
I know that this does not help.
.
I just hope that this gives you some additional perspective
.
Brett
.
0 -
As a non-Church member and non-indexer, I'm not too sure of this - but my understanding was that indexers were supposed to get some sort of compensatory access. This has never been delivered by FS and, I know from exchanges in the old GetSatisfaction, this has caused some degree of dissatisfaction. I have always imagined that this was not due to any mean spiritedness by FS but a simple "Err, yes but how do we do it?"
Maybe short term elevating to Affiliate status could be a way forward?
No doubt everything depends on the agreements - I have some vague idea that access for indexers actually is in some (at least) agreements, but whether doing indexing work on Devon (say) records should qualify you for Affiliate level access to Durham (say) records pro tem, I've no idea.
0 -
James, I fully sympathise with you. For years I've been active on this forum and its predecessor (GetSatisfaction) discussing this issue, and I've taken action by contacting record custodians and politicians on this issue.
FamilySearch cannot unilaterally give Indexers greater access rights. That would violate contracts with record custodians. But I believe it is true that in around 2015 FS promised that Indexers would get greater access to some records. I assume they meant that would try and negotiate this with record custodians. It seems that they have not succeeded for even a single record collection, and I don't think they have the systems and digital infrastructure for this.
FS could not designate your computer as an Affiliate Library without breaching contracts. If your house was treated as an Affiliate Library, you'd have to abide by the standards FS sets for these facilities, most notably being open to the general public for a certain number of hours each week.
At the start of the pandemic, FS could have tried to negotiate special access arrangements. Ancestry was successful in getting free access for its users for a limited time to records from the US National Archives (NARA), and the UK Archives (TNA) dropped fees for online images. FS did not try, or was not successful at doing this. At the time I think this was a defendable position, but given how long and serious the pandemic has become there is much frustration among genealogists.
If you didn't know, Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) get special access to all kinds of records both on FS and other websites, on the grounds that substantial numbers of them pay a tithe (10% of income) to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who is the primary sponsor of FS. The fact that Indexers and other volunteers get no special access and are told to expect none, while substantial numbers, probably even a majority, of Latter Day Saints are not paying tithes but get special privileges and public praise from FS is the cause of much resentment and concern.
PS: I live in New Zealand, where Affiliate Libraries are open. I'm offering to do some look-ups for you at my local library. You can send me a private message through this forum.
0 -
I can see the issue I have touched on is much larger than my simple-minded assumptions. All I was suggesting was that a way be found to view more widely those images which are in fact viewable at an FHL facility. For me this would be UK parish records. But I can wait for access to our local centre here in Penticton, BC to come back.
Thanks for the look-up offer A van H, but I currently have about 450 on my list which is growing daily and I wouldn't know how to pick out a few of special interest. That's the thing about seeing the images, it's only then that you find the interesting notes and juxtapositions of other records that you know they are of special interest.
Jim
0 -
Re "... FS promised that Indexers would get greater access to some records. I assume they meant that would try and negotiate this with record custodians. It seems that they have not succeeded for even a single record collection, and I don't think they have the systems and digital infrastructure for this."
I have it in my mind, though I can't "source" this, that extra access for indexers has been agreed in at least some cases. I think it's much more likely to be a simple case of FS not having "the systems and digital infrastructure for this." Especially if the agreements were much more complex than an all or nothing, but were custodian / record based.
0 -
A van Helsdingen,
"If you didn't know, Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) get special access to all kinds of records both on FS and other websites, on the grounds that substantial numbers of them pay a tithe (10% of income) to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"
I don't profess to understand the details of how the church and FS set up their contracts with record custodians, but I do know that members paying tithing (regardless of how many there are or are not) has nothing to do with those contracts.
I suspect that it has far more to do with the organizations that a legal contract is made between. Since one of the organizations is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that would be very simply defined as everyone who is a member of that organization. The leaders of an organization represent the members of that organization and not everyone else in the world.
Trying to write in all kinds of exceptions for non-member specific individuals, or even individuals of loosely defined groups (such as everyone who did indexing for X amount of time between the dates of Y and Z) would be exceptionally difficult from a time and resources standpoint to include in a solid and precise format for a legal contract. I mean, how would the president of an organization also represent people outside of that organization when signing contracts involving their organization? Things just don't work that way when forming contracts.
All historical records that the church has full legal custodianship of are made fully available to everyone (member or otherwise) through FS. If there are any restrictions, it is not based on choices by the leaders of the church, it is based on the desires of the record custodians as recorded in the contracts.
So members paying tithing is not the grounds for anything involved in those contracts.
0 -
In response to Jeff and Adrian:
I just remembered that in 2019 I received a copy of the contract for the UK Censuses and other records in TNA (I shared this on GetSatisfaction), and that it specifies certain types of volunteers that are to get access: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8qcldM8i8-wTEpSV1ZJSG93X1Vvc3VxSk1JTzRBOVJnc1dN/view?usp=sharing (see page 2 of 10)
But it appears that these provisions have never been implemented. TNA told me the minimum number of names one must index to get access has never been set. And another interesting thing is that volunteers for FS are defined as "Church Members" for the purposes of this contract.
As for tithing, my point is that the fact that some Latter Day Saints tithe has been used both by by FamilySearch and record custodians as justification for why Latter Day Saints get special access to some records. I'm not suggesting it has any legal relevance. Simultaneously FS has insisted that non-LDS donors and volunteers should not expect any sort of reward, which is plainly hypocritical.
0 -
That is interesting. Although the generalized term of "Church members" included a lot more than real church members, there are no indications that I could find that implies all of those individuals would have access in exactly the same ways.
In this particular case, FamilySearch would now need to be able to separate non-member volunteers from non-member non-volunteers.
However, the fact that in 9 years the minimum number of of names indexed has never been addressed certainly seems to indicate FS not real interested in pursuing it.
But just because FS has the right to provide this capability to it's patrons still doesn't mean that they actually will. I still believe that identifying all of the individual exceptions to the church membership that have "qualified" for some special access is not a trivial activity. Furthermore, the list of exceptions would have to be maintained by somebody somehow. The list of members is already being maintained by ward clerks through the world. So that mechanism is already in place.
The use of the Family History Centers and Affiliate Libraries may be a way to offer these opportunities without having to set up an entirely new system for tracking entitled non-members.
0
.