Parish registers for St. Jude, Manningham, 1865-1914
Having heard and even read somewhere on this website, that the scanning of all films had been completed. I went to the catalog and looked for the above parish.
The entries for St Jude, Manningham, Yorkshire were as they have been for years. Only the Film Numbers are given.
Is this,
a) An error in you database.
b) An oversight, and the films will be scanned asap.
c) An indication that you have lost the films.
d) Confirmation that the job of scanning the films has yet to be completed.
Answers
-
Two things to note:
- "Digitized" does not equal "online".
- The Catalog has been locked (=unedited and uneditable) for several months now due to background software changes.
That said, this is the first time I've encountered an empty DGS column, and it is disconcerting.
1 -
I did not know that the Catalog was not being maintained.
I look forward to the day that the new software is installed and functioning.
Hopefully, in my lifetime.
0 -
George
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ....
Please be aware that ...
IF, a FHL Film has a "DGS" reference/number; THEN, that FHL Film HAS been "Digitised".
Whereas ...
As, to whether or not, a FHL Film, has either
(1) been "Indexed"; and/or,
(2) is 'On-Line',
in 'FamilySearch', that is another matter entirely.
And, is subject to any "Contractual Arrangement/Agreement" between, 'FamilySearch'; and, the particular "Record Custodian".
And, the principal reason for such; being, that the particular "Record Custodian" has mandated such, in the "Contractual Arrangement/Agreement" between, 'FamilySearch'; and, the particular "Record Custodian".
Now ...
That Said ...
IF, a FHL Film DOES NOT have a "DGS" reference/number; THEN, that FHL Film has NOT been "Digitised", for whatever reason.
And, the principal reason for such, most likely; being, that the particular "Record Custodian" has mandated such, in the "Contractual Arrangement/Agreement" between, 'FamilySearch'; and, the particular "Record Custodian".
But ...
That Said ...
Of course, there can be OTHER reasons for such.
As an aside ...
Here are some "Knowledge Articles", 'FamilySearch':
[ And, in regard to your query ... ]
What are Notes or Film/Digital Notes in the catalog?
Where it states, among other things:
Quote
------------------
- Format—icons to indicate ways to view a record
- Magnifying glass indicates that some portion of the item is indexed.
- Camera allows you to browse digitized images.
- Camera with a key explains viewing restrictions.
- Film reel indicates that FamilySearch has a physical version of the material—a microfilm or microfiche. The record custodian denies user access to the digital images.
- No icon means FamilySearch lacks a physical copy and the record custodian denies user access to the digital images.
[ NOTE: In particular, the latter two ... ]
------------------
Why is no camera icon showing for a digitized microfilm in the catalog?
Plus ...
Why do some indexes have access limitations?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/why-are-some-indexes-restricted
What are the image restrictions in Historical Records?
Why did some historical records disappear from FamilySearch?
I know that this may not help/assist; but, I hope that this gives you some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
1 - Format—icons to indicate ways to view a record
-
Brett
The one thing I hate about Familysearch HELP is that the answers one gets to any query, is the standard excuse. I always think of grandmothers and eggs. As a long time user of Familysearch, I am aware of everything your post has said. It also tells me that you have not even bothered to look up the subject parish in the catalog. For then you would have seen that only about 1% of your post was even relative to the problem.
If you have nothing constructive to say, then please say nothing.
1 -
@Brett . is not a FS employee. He, like myself and many others including @Julia Szent-Györgyi are ordinary users of FS who write these responses voluntarily.
I think a response from a FS employee would be helpful. Since supposedly every film has been digitized, there should be a number in the DGS column indicating the film has been digitized. So either the film was not digitized, or the custodian/owner has demanded the digitized film be destroyed. I've never seen the latter situation before- even if the record custodian has not given FS permission to publish the digitized film, FS will digitize it anyway so that if they change their mind (or it becomes old enough to not be subject to privacy restrictions), they can post it up on the the website almost immediately. But I can imagine that this would be discourteous or even in violation of the contracts.
1 -
George
You are not alone ...
I have been around for a long time ...
As such ...
Just because, you DO NOT like the 'Answer', there NO need, to be 'snide', towards the respondent.
FYI
Just so that you are aware ...
Contrary to your belief ...
In fact, I DID take a 'look', at the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue', at the "Records", for "St. Jude, Manningham, 1865-1914"; BEFORE, submitting my response.
And, I could quite CLEARLY and easily 'see' that:
(1) There were NO "DGS" references/numbers, for ANY of the FHL Films, indicating "Digitization"; and,
(2) The "Format", for ALL, of the FHL Films, was/were that of a "Film Reel" Icon,
.... which indicates ONLY on "Microfilm"; and, in this case, ONLY available at the Family History Library (FHL)
.... in 'Temple" Square, in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
(3) The "Format", for Three (x3) of the FHL Films, included "Magnifying Glass" Icon,
.... which indicates there were "Indexes" available for those Films.
.... whereas, there was no such icon, for the Other FHL Films; therefore, no "Indexes", for the Other FHL Films
Furthermore ...
As, I generally keep records, of what I respond to ...
[ Often, including such in my responses ... ]
Here is the URL from the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue" for "Parish registers for St. Jude, Manningham, 1865-1914"
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/767494?availability=Family%20History%20Library
And, here is a "Screenshot" of that URL
I DID NOT include either of the aforementioned, in my original 'Comment'; as, I did not think such was warranted/needed - ie. I did not need to prove/validate such.
[ Plus, there is currently a problem/issue with including "Images", in 'Comment', in the Forum ... ]
So ...
That Said ...
I stand by my response ...
Again ...
I am sorry that you DID NOT like the 'Answer ...
But ...
That Said ...
In future, in such cases, there NO need, to be 'snide', towards the respondent.
Please DO NOT be so, derogatory; and/or, mocking; and/or, demeaning, towards OTHERS (Especially, the Users/Patrons), that may respond to any of your future queries, in this Forum; as, they are ONLY trying to help/assist; regardless, if they are incorrect.
Once, again ...
I know that this may not help/assist; but, I certainly hope, that this gives you some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
ps: I have been helping/assisting in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum for a number of Years.
..... And, so, regardless, I will continue to help/assist, where I can.
pps: Bothers me not; but, please be more respectful, of other 'lowly' Users/Patrons - 'Thank You', in advance.
.
0 -
George
You are not alone ...
I have been around for a long time ...
As such ...
Just because, you DO NOT like the 'Answer', there NO need, to be 'snide', towards the respondent.
FYI
Just so that you are aware ...
Contrary to your belief ...
In fact, I DID take a 'look', at the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue', at the "Records", for "St. Jude, Manningham, 1865-1914"; BEFORE, submitting my response.
And, I could quite CLEARLY and easily 'see' that:
(1) There were NO "DGS" references/numbers, for ANY of the FHL Films, indicating "Digitization"; and,
(2) The "Format", for ALL, of the FHL Films, was/were that of a "Film Reel" Icon,
.... which indicates ONLY on "Microfilm"; and, in this case, ONLY available at the Family History Library (FHL)
.... in 'Temple" Square, in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
(3) The "Format", for Three (x3) of the FHL Films, included "Magnifying Glass" Icon,
.... which indicates there were "Indexes" available for those Films.
.... whereas, there was no such icon, for the Other FHL Films; therefore, no "Indexes", for the Other FHL Films
Furthermore ...
As, I generally keep records, of what I respond to ...
[ Often, including such in my responses ... ]
Here is the URL from the 'FamilySearch' "Catalogue" for "Parish registers for St. Jude, Manningham, 1865-1914"
https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/767494?availability=Family%20History%20Library
And, here is a "Screenshot" of that URL
I DID NOT include either of the aforementioned, in my original 'Comment'; as, I did not think such was warranted/needed - ie. I did not need to prove/validate such.
[ Plus, there is currently a problem/issue with including "Images", in 'Comment', in the Forum ... ]
So ...
That Said ...
I stand by my response ...
Again ...
I am sorry that you DID NOT like the 'Answer ...
But ...
That Said ...
In future, in such cases, there NO need, to be 'snide', towards the respondent.
Please DO NOT be so, derogatory; and/or, mocking; and/or, demeaning, towards OTHERS (Especially, the Users/Patrons), that may respond to any of your future queries, in this Forum; as, they are ONLY trying to help/assist; regardless, if they are incorrect.
Once, again ...
I know that this may not help/assist; but, I certainly hope, that this gives you some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
ps: I have been helping/assisting in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum for a number of Years.
..... And, so, regardless, I will continue to help/assist, where I can.
pps: Bothers me not; but, please be more respectful, of other 'lowly' Users/Patrons - 'Thank You', in advance.
[ SECOND attempt, at 'Comment'; as, FIRST attempt, at 'Comment', DISAPPEARED ... ]
.
1 -
My point is still valid.
The Films detailed on the St Jude, Manningham catalog page do not have an equivalent DGS number against them. I am well aware that some authorities have withheld permissions for publication.
What I cannot understand, is why, If all films have been digitised, the St Jude films have not. The first reply I received on this thread was a reasonable and believable. I replied to that post. It should have been left there. No further useful information has been added since.
End the flaming.
0 -
The records have NOT been digitised because they are FICHES, not microfilms.
No fiches to my knowledge have yet been digitised. The blog "FamilySearch Completes Massive Microfilm Digitization Project" https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/familysearch-microfilm-collection-digitized says
"FamilySearch is also working to outsource the digitization of its large microfiche collection, which should be completed several years from now".
[Sorry about the bold formatting which I am unable to alter, which occurred after copying something]
5 -
(No post)
0 -
I understand your frustration, however please be aware that questions and answers can be and are of interest to other members on Community. The facts are FamilySearch just does not have automatic rights to all records out there. What is suggested is that you come back every so often and see if those records have at last been made available. Hopefully they have but there are currently over 4,792,700,500 images that need indexing.
Happy hunting
Best regards
Cedar
P.S. Have you given a thought to helping with indexing? You never know you might come across records relevant to your family.
2 -
My goodness that was one heck of a project. I have just read the blog. It's like the Infinity and Beyond project it just keeps on going. I have to take my hat off to those people who gave their time to get that project finished for us all to use. Now there are the images on search, the 1911 census to finish source linking, parish records to index and ..... Thank you for posting this interesting link.
Cedar
1
