Requesting a film to be put online
There seems absolutely no reason why just this one film from the collection (Film 1702862 DGS 4398339) should not appear online. It is a small part of a collection of Poor Law Records, which would definitely be subject to the same contract - probably with the Norfolk Record Office. I am sure it is an oversight that this has not been included with the rest of the collection and put online.
The original film (Guardian's Minute Books, Part B) still has images for viewing, but only up to image 2229 of 8040 - thereafter the familiar “Image Unavailable - This image is unavailable for online viewing at this time” message appears. (See https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DRFN-7J?wc=M6V6-WWL%3A161088401%2C161655801%2C161655802%2C162077204&cc=1824706)
As I suggest, in this instance I am sure there are no contractual issues involved, so is there a way of contacting the relevant FamilySearch team to request a review of the matter, in a hope I will be able to once again view the really valuable information contained on these pages?
It's so exasperating to think this film has been accidentally missed out of the process and this is the only reason why this material can no longer be viewed.
For below, see https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/589736?availability=Family%20History%20Library
Comments
-
Paul
As to FHL Film 1702862 ( DGS 4398339 ) ...
I am not so sure that that Film got "... accidentally missed out ..."
I do notice, that on "Note", for that particular Film, there is an "Item" of,
"Workhouse baptism register Apr 1825-Apr 1923".
I am not saying; but, perhaps the 100 Year "Time Frame", was been enacted - just a couple of Years still to go.
All the OTHER Films referenced seem well over the 100 Year "Time Frame".
You know how, just ONE "Item", in a Film, can make the WHOLE Film, "Unavailable".
Just a thought.
Whereas ...
As to FHL Film 1702860 ( DGS 4398338 ) ...
That is another matter entirely ...
As, "Note", for that particular Film, indicates, LAST 'Date' is 1825 (well, maybe 1900; but, still OVER 100 Years)
Maybe just a 'glitch' or ERROR ...
Again, just a thought.
Brett
0 -
You may well have assessed the situation correctly, Brett. Thank you for your thoughts. Although I am aware of the position when a film includes records that fall within the 100 year time frame, I had obviously not connected that to this example!
Before digitisation, I could view the whole set of records (images 1-8040) from start to finish. Unfortunately, the "downside" of digitisation has been a careful review of exactly what records (images) FamilySearch had been displaying on its website. As you suggest, just a couple of years and (subject to any contractual changes) the whole collection should be available to view again.
Thanks again for highlighting the specific circumstances.
1
