How do I locate a FamilySearch record from 2012?
I have a print copy of https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XRFH-1VN:accessed21Nov2012.
In searching for the record today, there are no results.
Best Answers
-
On the the url you provided if you back space and take off :accessed21Nov2012. You can pull up the record which indicates that this record was a duplicate and has been retired. We recommend using the most current copy.
In the upper right-hand side of the page when you click on View Current Record you will be able to pull up the new record. See attached screen shot.
We hope you find this helpful.
3 -
If you go to the URL https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XRFH-1VN You will see the statement above the record "This record was a duplicate and has been retired. We recommend using the most current copy." Then there is a link to the current record. VIEW CURRENT RECORD
1 -
Thank you very much; I appreciate the help with FamilySearch.
-OldTom
1
Answers
-
Why do we get this message? I am viewing the original documentation, so how can it be a duplicate? It is as valid as it always has been.
So does this mean that all the initial sources that created a person are now retired? Now, can you explain to me how Iwill receive the answer to my question? Will I get it an answer through my Messages, or will I have to continuously return to this Community site to see if and when someone answers it?
0 -
@GloriaHorrellKendallUdy ( & @Thomas Weitzel )
Gloria (& Thomas)
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
FYI
A little background ...
It is most likely, that: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XRFH-1VN was a, possibly the, "Old" ORIGINAL Record (ie. "Source"), for the ACTUAL Record (ie. Event), in 'FamilySearch'.
And, the ACTUAL Record (ie. Event) itself, was LATER "Re-Indexed" by either, 'FamilySearch'; or, another organisation; whereby, the NEW (Duplicate) Record (ie. "Source") of https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XR5N-PLT was then later "Uploaded" into 'FamilySearch'.
'FamilySearch', not so long ago, initiated a "Clean Up", of SIMILAR Records (ie. "Sources'), for the SAME "Event"
'FamilySearch', basically, "Retired", MANY of the "Older" ORIGINAL Records (ie. "Sources").
[ I think, it may have started, with the "Census' of England and Wales" ... ]
Unfortunately, some us think, that the "Clean Up", was an unmitigated DISASTER ...
"Older" ORIGINAL Records (ie. "Sources"), that had been "Attached" to individuals/persons (ie. our Ancestors), in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', many YEARS ago, in 'Good Faith", WITH the EXPECATATION, that those "Sources", would REMAIN, 'in situ', in perpetuity ... "Retired" ... GONE ... it had 'Heartbreaking' ...
[ I know; as, MANY of my Ancestors were 'Targeted'; &, had their "Sources" RETIRED ... hence, 'Heartbreaking' ]
Luckily, SOME of the such, "Retired", "Older" ORIGINAL Records (ie. "Sources"), were 'resurrected'; as, many of voiced our displeasure.
But ...
That Said ...
Unfortunately, NOT "ALL" the of those, "Retired", "Older" ORIGINAL Records (ie. "Sources") were 'resurrected'.
The REAL problem/issue was, that MANY of the "Older" ORIGINAL Records (ie. "Sources"), that were "Retired", were NOT actually EXACT "Duplicates", they were ORIGINAL Indexing of the SAME Record (ie. Event).
In MANY instances, a Record (ie. Event), MAY be "Indexed", MULTIPLE times (by MULTIPLE Organisations).
[ And, eventually, they (ie. ALL; or MANY) find their way into 'FamilySearch' ... ]
And, on many of the occasions, the LATER "Indexing", is the same, no different.
But, on many of the occasions, the LATER "Indexing", MAY contain MORE "Detail", than that of the ORIGINAL or subsequent "Indexings".
Unfortunately, there were some occasions; where, the LATER "Indexing", EVEN contained LESS "Detail", than that of the "Older" ORIGINAL "Indexing", that was "Retired".
The latter, is where, there was GREAT concern ...
Now ...
That Said ...
Who really cares, if there is, MORE than one "Source" (ie. Record), in 'FamilySearch', for the SAME "Event".
The more, the merrier ...
They are NOT exact "Duplicates" ... simply, "Indexings", of the SAME Record (ie. Event) ...
Why not, just let, "ALL" the "Sources", in 'FamilySearch' REMAIN, 'as is' ...
And, ESPECAILLY those that have ALREADY been "Attached" to individuals/persons (ie. The Ancestors of Users/Patrons), in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', many YEARS ago, in 'Good Faith", WITH the EXPECATATION, that those "Sources", would REMAIN, 'in situ', in perpetuity.
Of course, there were (and, still are) those, who just think the SIMILAR Additional "Sources", are just a 'nuisance'; and, a bother (ie. too much like hard work), to have to "Attached".
[ ie. And, "Clutter", the "Sources" 'Tab', of Ancestors...MAINLY; as, they are a LOT of work to "Group" together ]
As you can tell, I am NOT one of those; and, do not subscribe to such ...
I truly hope, that 'FamilySearch', STOPS, the wanton "Retirement" (and/or, "Removal"/"Deletion"), of "Sources" ALREADY in 'FamilySearch'.
So ...
That ...
The "Older" ORIGINAL Records (ie. "Sources"); ESPECAILLY, those, that had been "Attached" to individuals/persons (ie. The Ancestors of Users/Patrons), in "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', many YEARS ago, in 'Good Faith", WITH the EXPECATATION, that those "Sources", can REMAIN, 'in situ', in perpetuity.
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this does not help/assist; but, I hope, that this may provide you with some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
Another thing worth pointing out (even if it is not relevant to the case being discussed) is the role of record custodians. If FamilySearch and the record custodian of a record do not renew the contract allowing the index to be published, then FS has no choice but to "retire" the source immediately.
That said, I have seen contracts where FS maintains ownership/IP of the Indexes created from records (even after the contract is revoked), which presumably is to prevent situations like this.
0
