A lot of "retired" records are being replaced by substandard copies lacking the same information
This record: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F6SB-FSJ
was "replaced" by this record: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F64P-25P
…which not only doesn't list the parents, but doesn't even include any surnames.
Here are a few more whose replacements don't include nearly the same information:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HW3T-JCT2
Best Answer
-
@RTorchia Just for the "record", a record on FamilySearch is an historical document or image of the same. An index is key information extracted from the record for the purpose of making it searchable. What is being retired in this discussion are duplicate "indexes". I concede, that often indexes are referred to as records and I make the point just to maintain a true perspective. An index with less information is not necessarily substandard and an index alone is not a primary source.
All of your examples came from Legacy Collections—extractions made decades ago that are no longer updated, and were often the cause of massive index and persona duplication in Family Tree. Merging multiplied the indexes. I do not know what formula is being used to determine what to retire to relieve the duplication, but in the case of Mabel the extraction that remained was the one used to create her in the tree so probably not the most current. I doubt that human eyes looked at the two extractions and concluded that one was more valid than the other. Coming back to my first point, both fulfil their intended purpose of pointing to the location (film #) of the true source. Most of these Legacy original extractions were not linked to images and, although FamilySearch is attempting to provide the links, I believe it will be AI (some time in the near future) that finally allows extraction sources to be replaced with record images.
0
Answers
-
I wonder if these retired records relate to recent action by FamilySearch, or if you have just encountered them recently? From a previous post on the subject I was led to understand that FamilySearch were putting a hold on this practice, due to the acceptance that, on too many occasions, it was the more detailed item that had been retired. I can't see any indication of the dates on which the examples you reference were "retired", so hope this was a "historical" action, which - as I suggest - is no longer FamilySearch prctice.
In FamilySearch's "defence", I believe the action itself followed many complaints from users who were fed up of the clutter being caused by having multiple "identical" records in their Sources sections. I believe the problem probably lies in FamilySearch just not having enough resources to: (1) Prevent multiple indexing of records of the exact same source (and with exact same items indexed). (2) To provide an employee / team (or even use a machine) that is able to make a quick, accurate assessment of which of two, or more, of differently indexed records (maybe from the same source - parish register, etc.) should be the one "suitable" for retirement.
I think most of us get exasperated to see - as can be the case - up to six truly identical (in all but URL reference) sources attached to IDs on which we are working. When the situation was raised (probably around ten years ago, when FS employees played an active part in these forums) a FamilySearch manager spelled out the exact dangers of retiring such records, but someone else at FamilySearch obviously didn't heed the warning and such a programme went ahead.
In summary, I believe the problem is all about resources: does FamilySearch really have the personnel (or would that be an AI resource, here in 2025?) that can deal with the genuine problems created by duplication, whilst ensuring the situation being illustrated here does not arise in future?
4 -
Since much of the work done on FS is crowd-sourced by FS users, perhaps whatever identifies potential duplicates could ask volunteer users to review, keep correct information, discarding the rest and merge the duplicates much like we do with duplicate profiles. That way we get to have eyes on these and get rid of unneeded stuff without losing vital information. I guess the hard part would be how to get attached tree profiles to attach the new merged source without it getting lost.
0 -
@SerraNola said:
"... An index with less information is not necessarily substandard and an index alone is not a primary source.
"… both fulfil their intended purpose of pointing to the location (film #) of the true source. "
Yes and no. I have probably said exactly that myself, while I do know that certain well respected members of this community have said that. Unfortunately, there are two issues messing up our idea where withdrawal is concerned.
Firstly, I have seen at least one user of FamilySearch be quite adamant that they didn't see why they should look at the original, claiming, if I recall correctly, that they didn't have the time. (Sigh…)
Secondly, and this applies particularly to UK parish records, the accessibility of the image of the source can be restricted and the index(es) are all many of us have.
So yes, I can understand the impulse behind withdrawal of so-called duplicate indexes but I remain to be convinced that the cure isn't worse than the disease.
3 -
To expand a bit on Adrian's valid comments, I've seen issues - specifically in Cook County, Illinois records -where the index being withdrawn is for the birth CERTIFICATE, while the remaining index is for the birth REGISTER, a derivative source, with less information on the original image. And, as we know, any time a record is copied, the chance for error increases.
Both of those are restricted to view at an affiliate or FSC.
2 -
@Adrian Bruce1 I wondered if I would get some flack on that statement when I posted. You make valid points and I agree that errors are being made in the removal of duplicates. Also, Aine's example of keeping a register over a certificate is patently wrong. I think, however that we might be talking apples and oranges. Indexes quite often are far from the truth of the actual event. That is especially evident in some of the AI indexing that leads to false data when, as you say the user has no access to the image or doesn't take the time to examine it. Italian records come to mind and I could show examples but I'm sure you have seen them yourself. The quality of one index over another is not always readily apparent, but the more important point is that no index "by itself", can be counted as evidence of the data.
3 -
@SerraNola said:
"… the more important point is that no index "by itself", can be counted as evidence of the data. …"
Indeed. You know that; I know that; most people here know that but…
Just as an aside, a further risk from Áine's example of keeping a register over a certificate is that while many would go looking for the image of the more detailed source, those of us whose experience is confined to British and Irish records are liable to miss the implications of "keeping a register over a certificate" because on our side of the pond, registers and certificates of vital events are fundamentally the same thing.
1 -
I'm not asking for FS to stop retiring duplicate records. I'm pointing out specific instances where the replacement copy lacks vital information included in the retired records, and asking that those cases be fixed. This seems to be the only place to report these since the records don't have a Feedback button.
Just for the "record", a record on FamilySearch is an historical document or image of the same.
The message literally says "this record has been retired", not "this index of the record".
When viewing sources on a profile's Sources page, there's a URL that's labeled "Link to the Record"; clicking on it opens the the FS source page with the info extracted and indexed from the source, not an image of the source itself. Just below that link is a section labeled "Where The Record Is Found (Citation)", which includes the collection name and the source page URL, but not the film number, folder number, or geographic location of the physical object the information came from.
The Save button at the top of a source page has options for "Copy Full Record", which copies the extracted text from that page, or "Print Record", which prints a copy of the source page itself, not of an image of the original item.
But the section of that page that actually does include those numeric pointers to the "true source" is labeled "Document Information", not "Record information". If an image of it is available, the button to view it says "View Original Document", not "View Original Record".
The point of all that is this: FamilySearch itself consistently uses the term "Record" to refer to the page of extracted information and "Document" for the physical (well, photocopied) artifact where that information originated. So when FS users do the same thing, maybe just go along with it instead of veering off into semantics?
An index with less information is not necessarily substandard. […] Coming back to my first point, both fulfil their intended purpose of pointing to the location (film #) of the true source
The purpose of an FS source page cannot just be to point to a film number, otherwise there would be no point in indexing anything. The page has to communicate what information is found on the source to researchers sufficiently for researchers to determine whether the record is or isn't relevant to to the people they're researching. If the original has information that enables researchers to determine exactly which person or family the record belongs to, and the FS sourced page does not include that information, then the page has failed its purpose. If the original source includes information we use in FS profiles, like parents' names, exact dates rather than just years, residences, occupations, etc., an FS source page that omits that information is absolutely substandard.
and an index alone is not a primary source.
I'm not exactly sure how you mean that. If you're saying that labeling something as a primary source requires knowing its origins, that's probably true. If you're saying that an FS source page cannot be a primary source, that's not really accurate. A source is 'primary' if it was created contemporaneously with the events it documents, and the information recorded is presented without interpretation or analysis, not that it is presented on the original physical artifact that it was recorded on. A photocopy or transcription of a primary source is still a primary source, and the FS source page is essentially just a transcription. Adding linkable index points to names doesn't meaningfully alter the information.
The entire FS Family Tree is designed around the FS source page being a proxy of the source itself; if the content on the FS source page wasn't reliably equivalent to the original source, we wouldn't be able to build much of a tree or put much faith in the veracity of what we did build. So FS source pages derived from primary sources, (even with the occasional unintentional transcription error or omission,) are still primary sources.
Not that source authenticity matters all that much to the average editor, given how so many people seem to hold the least reputable sites in the highest regards, embracing genealogical trash heaps like GENI, Geneanet and Ancestry Trees as gold standards of sources. They're too busy uploading screenshots of Find a Grave from their mobile devices as Memories to contemplate the subtle nuances of source authenticity and reliability.
0
