Fragmented pages, out of order
It appears that the fragmented pages being indexed were filmed in the wrong order. They were created in 1902 and are in extremely poor condition (torn, holes, etc). Looking at subsequent pages (+1, +2), should I make assumptions, based on the record numbers, as to dates and other missing information? Image #1 has Records 290 and 294 and Image +1 has Record 293 and Records 295/296.
https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/3c7ac8ec-72cf-461f-bafd-af098856b441
MSBN-CJX
Answers
-
When viewing a shared batch we can't see the Reference Images. I was able to see image 1 with records 290 and 294. 290 shows only part year 19... 294 shows part year 19[12] or 19[02] (my guess 1912) ... but without the Reference Images to confirm that I wouldn't enter it until seeing which makes sense.
0 -
In looking at the previous images I am seeing what appears to be document numbers that are way out of sequence. I am not able to read the language but that alone would indicate that the damaged pages are not likely in order by date. If looking at the reference images we cannot tell if the dates on them are in sequence then the date should be marked blank.
Mirevo might have a better idea since she may be able to read the language?
0
