Missing info in "current record"?
Hello, twice I have encountered the message that a record is being retired and please use the current record. When I go to the current record, the info I want is missing (bride's mother and father). Here are links to a retired and current record of the same event, as an example:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J45L-VSK (being retired)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JHF3-SH9 (current)
It's a bit distressing to think information is being lost. Does anyone know if I am making a mistake or whether this is truly a problem?
Thank you.
Best Answer
-
Hello @ChrisSimpkins1
Thank you for posting your concerns regarding retired records. You are not making a mistake when you find that the current version of the record contains less information than the one being retired.
There are various reasons why the original record has been removed.
- The record was updated to match current contract permissions.
- Duplicates exist, and this specific copy was removed when the collection republished.
- The record was republished. As engineers clean up some old record collections, the new records can show changes. The new record can show more or less data that the retired record.
For more information on retired records, please see the full article in the Help Center. A link to that article is provided below.
We understand that it can be frustrating when a record that you have used in the past becomes unavailable. It is the goal of FamilySearch to make as many records available as possible. However, the record owner, not FamilySearch, determines how and when records can be accessed. Records become unavailable when the agreement between FamilySearch and the organization that owns or manages the record changes. FamilySearch may no longer have access to the record, or they may place new restrictions on how a user can view the record. For more information, please see the full article in the Help Center by clicking on the following link.
Why did some historical records disappear from FamilySearch?
We hope that the above information is helpful. For suggestions in how to locate the more complete information when a record is retired, please refer to the above-linked articles.
2
Answers
-
Chris
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
You are not alone ...
Many of us in the past, in the older versions, of the Forum(s), have requested that "Sources" (ie. Records) NOT be, either, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed".
NO "Source" (ie. Record) should be, either, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed", regardless is there are OTHER "Indexing" of the SAME 'Event'.
ALL such (past) "Sources" (ie. Records) WERE originally "Attached", 'in good faith', WITH the EXPECTATION that such "Sources" (ie. Records) WOULD remain in place and on record (ie. 'in situ'), attached to one's Ancestors.
The concerns, by SOME Users/Patrons, of the extra work required/involved to "Attach", the SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', 'seems' to have 'swayed' the, thinking; and, considerations, of those at 'FamilySearch'. Such should NOT, have been; or, be the case.
WHY do SOME Users/Patrons, feel that it is so ONEROUS a task, to "Attach", the SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event'?
I just DO NOT understand, WHY ...
The ADDITIONAL "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', really provide attritional proof/evidence.
The more, the merrier ...
I have had COUNTLESS, valid; and, acceptable, "Sources", that I "Attached", through 'due diligence', a number of YEARS ago, all 'in good faith', with the EXPECATION, that they would REMAIN, 'in-situ' ▬ NOWADAYS, summarily, "Retired"; and/or, "Removed".
Interestingly enough, some (if not, many) of those that were ORIGINALLY "Deleted"/"Removed", have SUBSEQENTLY been "Restored", to some degree ▬ that is interesting, in itself ...
'FamilySearch' really NEEDS to, CEASE; and, DESIST, with the "Deleting"/"Removing" of ANY "Source", that are SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event'.
Plus, 'FamilySearch' really NEEDS to, RESTORE; and/or, REINSTATE, "All" the MANY "Sources", that are SIMILAR (or, what some, refer to; as, SAME) "Sources", being ANOTHER "Indexing" of the same 'Event', that WERE previously "Deleted"/"Removed".
just my thoughts.
Brett
ps: By the way, here is ANOTHER, recent post, in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum on the matter ...
"Ideas" Section
'Topic' = "Records (Searching And Viewing)"
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
Don't Retire Duplicate Records
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/87862/dont-retire-duplicate-records
Fell free, to ADD a (your) "Vote" (of support), to that post, to upgrade the VALUE of that post.
.
2 -
I've seen that message more than a few times. On the ones where I have seen it, in my own research, I've carefully compared the 2 versions. Without fail, I've found that the newer or current version has more/better information, generally including an image number which makes it easier to retrieve the image from the digitized microfilm.
HTH.
Edit to add an example - the current extract of this NYC marriage record, from the same reel of microfilm, has the marriage certificate number. The retired version has no certificate number in the extract. Since the reel is filmed in certificate order, having the certificate number makes it much easier to retrieve the record.
current https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:249Z-8SY
retired https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F6H8-N15
0 -
Would you comment on whether you believe that is the case in the example I gave? Thank you.
1 -
I have the image of the NYC marriage I used in my example. I'll go to my affiliate library one day this week and retrieve the German marriage record image so that I can be sure of my facts. I don't like to analyze the extract when I don't have the record image.
0 -
Thank you for these replies. I understand about permissions issues. It sounds like some sources might remain fully available on microfilm when they are not fully available online, which accounts for some of the difference in reactions between researchers. Thanks again for helping me make sense of it.
1 -
I went to my affiliate library today, and I have the records. I think I have an answer for you, and I don't think any information is lost by retiring the older version of the extract/index/transcription. It's just been logged in a different place.
By drilling down to the digital folder number, 8208815, and then searching on the name, we can see that the baptism is now indexed as one record and the marriage as another indexed record.
Joseph Straubenmüller's baptism in 1820 is https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:DQ52-GK3Z
Joseph's marriage Thekla Hummel in 1853 is https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:DQ52-B3ZM
Both records are in the same register. The baptism is Image 81 of 910 from the digitized microfilm, hand-numbered page 148 in the register. The marriage is image 315 of 910, no number on the page, but the year 1853 is written there.
Hope this helps.
2 -
0
