IGI Submitted Records

[Ken Boyce]

I'm posting this here because after several mins of searching I could not locate a slot for the iGI ( having a long senior moment or.....)

I need to write a footnote regarding an IGI Submitted Record I'm placing on record

It reads

"A Submitted Birth Event investigated and recorded by an undisclosed researcher and submitted to the LDS by an undisclosed church member. The event is transcribed, compiled and added to the IGI by the Family Search Library Utah without verification. The IGI record was accessed via the via Family Search Library Web Site, Utah at http://www.familysearch.org/. The IGI is published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah"

I'm not 100% sure thst I have my facts correct regarding the process outlined could sks comment

Please ignore the jerky word flow but the paragraph is generated by software from a number of structured field inputs

Thanks

[Geoffers]

"A Submitted Birth Event investigated and recorded by an undisclosed researcher......."

It might be going a little far to say that a submitted event has undergone any form of investigation, few of them bear any resemblance to reality. The entries submitted by members also include equally unreliable baptisms and marriages.

Perhaps, "an unverified record submitted by an unknown researcher........"

might be a better start.


Also, I don't know about the process under which these things go, but

"The event is transcribed, compiled and added to the IGI by the Family Search Library Utah "

I don't think the alleged event would have been transcribed or compiled by the mormons.

Perhaps more accurate might be "The record was added to the IGI (by/at?) the Family Saerch Library, Utah."

Be very wary of including these dubious entries

[Mary Anne]

Ken

Are you going to put this as a note into your family tree software, as part of the source description? Usually what I do is just say I got the info from the IGI, and it is "Patron submitted" (as opposed to "Transcription of microfilm of original document"). This to me means "questionable", versus the actual transcriptions that LDS publishes, which are verified a couple of times (but still may be fallible as all transcriptions are). I then record my confidence in the source as "unknown", although I am now switching to a new family tree software that will actually allow me to assign numeric values to the confidence I have in the original source as well as the transcription or other secondary source, to account for how reliable I think they are likely to be. Up to now, these are all kind of *notes-to-self" to let me know I must look for the original.

On the other hand, your more fullsome description would be more informative to a fellow researcher, if you were planning to use it in a published version of your tree (on the web or in paper). For that purpose, I think it does the trick.

[Peter_uk_can]

I tend to treat the LDS Church records a little like the signpost at the southern end of the M1 thats says merely "NORTH"


LDS. A sort of guide, but unlike the M1 sign it is best to closely consult the compass, you could be heading in totally the wrong direction.

[Alan Welsford]

Ken
.............versus the actual transcriptions that LDS publishes, which are verified a couple of times (but still may be fallible as all transcriptions are).
For the records in the IGI based on Parish Register transcriptions, I have so far found them to be a fairly accurate copy, when compared to the originals, but only for the data that the IGI can actually support.

What you don't get is the extra detail from the original record that may make all the difference. (The IGI only has certain data 'boxes' available, and if it will not go in those, it's left out.)

I've had a very good example this week. I found in the IGI what might just be an adult baptism for my great great grandmother.

06 DEC 1818 Cholesbury, Buckingham
Susanna BARBER Father Thomas BARBER, Mother Mary

The problem with this was that I knew Susanna should already be married to William COCK (or COX) by this stage.

The original record shows....

Dec 6th 1818 Susannah (Wife of Wm COCK) Daughter of Thomas & Mary BARBER. Abode Tring, Herts (Wm COCK of Choulesbury) Occupation Labourer (Wm COCK Pot Carrier).

I couldn't have asked for much more, other than perhaps her age. The parents abode matched her known place of birth, and marriage, and now I could confirm her parents.

The beauty of the IGI here, was that it told me where to look. Which parish, what date ?

Personally for user submitted entries on the IGI, at least as many are fiction, as are fact. So whilst they might set me thinking, I'd never record such data against my tree, without further verification.

[Mary Anne]

I agree, Peter, for the patron-submitted records. As I understand it, from talking to the librarians at Salt Lake City, these submission undergo absolutely NO verification whatever, and are accepted for recording *as is* from the patrons. This is because they are really of interest for religious purposes. So, like you, I take them as the "north" pointer in the cemetery!

However, the LDS DOES have a formal transcription program, in which records they have microfilmed are systematically being transcribed, usually by trained volunteers, and these submissions actually undergo several reviews and verifications. So, although they are still subject to the vagaries of the normal transcription process, they are a lot more reliable than the patron-submitted records.

And probably at least as reliable as the transcriptions that are done by and for commerical enterprises through off-shore contracts, where the transcribers are very often working in a language which is not their first, and with locations they are unfamiliar with. ;)

Mary Anne

Alan -- I agree absolutely that, having found a record on the IGI, even it is a parish record, properly transcribed, I still want to go and look at the original, myself, with my own eyes. Some of my friends and fellow researchers think this is overkill on my part (not to say an indication of my level of obsession!). But what a wonderful example you have just given as a reason to do that!! A fantastic find!

[joette]

Yes & there are researchers being paid by the LDS(Mormon Church) who are at present working on various Family History programmes throughout the World.That's how important Genealogy is to us.
The Church is funded through the Tithes & Offerings of the Church members & thus the researchers are in a way paying themselves.
As to submissions lots of them were made pre-computer & with perhaps a lot of guess work eg guessing a parent's age from the birth-date of the child etc.

The Church did not verify this as the importance was not when BUT that somebody Had been born to a particular family so that the family could be sealed to one another.

I have a friend who is employed by a well known Family History Site a sixth generation LDS
his family tree was complete.When he went to investigate & verify he found so many holes in it he could have used it for a sieve. Easy now to check with Internet access & cheap & relatively easy travel to look at original documents.As the info on the IGI can not at present be corrected he has added the more accurate info to it.

[Peter_uk_can]

As Joette has pointed out, and something that perhaps not all those new to genealogy are aware. The connection of families, or "sealing" is a desire of the LDS Church. I have absolutely no criticism of theirs or anyone elses religous beliefs, but the sealing and the keeping of records came first, genealogy came after. Fueled in the early days because their records were easily accessible and free, many people built their genealogy on what they could find during a Saturday morning visit to the nearest LDS records.

Things have changed, there is more access to more original records. It doesn't rest easy with me, that the LDS Church should have such a hold over what I view as public information, e.g Census on line via our good friends at Anns Nest Tree, however their funds and resources have enabled thousands of actual documents to be available on line. I am not keen on the price they charge, but then I am not too keen on paying taxes either.

I believe that web sites and forums like the one we have here (Brit-Gen) provide an excellent service in informing and guiding people in what has become a very popular hobby. By allowing every point of view to be expressed I hope that all newcomers and those not so new can make better and balanced judgements.

It matters not what pen we use, but rather what we write with it.


|soapbox|


OK I will get down now.

[Alan Welsford]

Wouldn't it be great if the LDS IGI search engine allowed you to check a box that said (something like) "Ignore all user submitted data".

By that I mean I'd like to be able to see what has been extracted from Parish Registers, and nothing else.

I think the one thing to stress over, and over, (and over!) to beginners is how very different the two classes of data are.

Clearly this forum, and threads like this, do just that.

I'll freely admit, I'm not sure I was that aware when I started out, and probably took a few wrong turns because I didn't know what was probably trustworthy, and what had a very high chance of being fantasy.

[Peter_uk_can]

Alan. Perhaps we are all guilty of writing our version of genealogy, and do we quote sources enough when recording Great Aunt Mable and Great Great Uncle Joe.

Only in recent years have I become aware that without reference to the source, the genealogy will be little more than our humble opinion, when viewed by others in years to come.

[Mutley]

However.....

Some patron-submitted records are based on a foundation of sorts.

I found one that mentioned an ancestor with an unusual name. The parish given was one that did not exist in real life. The dates were way out.

I checked the Parish Records for all the local churches in the area and finally found a possible one and then found him. Without that patron-submitted record I doubt I would have ever found him. In all truth, I did not even know of his existence, he was an uncle of the one I was actually looking for with the same name.

LDS, Ancestry and other paid sites, FBMD, Parish Records, GRO - they have all been known to get it wrong. At the end of the day it is up to us to to verify our facts.

[MarkJ]

Alan. Perhaps we are all guilty of writing our version of genealogy, and do we quote sources enough when recording Great Aunt Mable and Great Great Uncle Joe.

Only in recent years have I become aware that without reference to the source, the genealogy will be little more than our humble opinion, when viewed by others in years to come.

A very valid point Peter. I, like most people when they first develop an interest in their ancestry, made copious notes and grabbed information wherever I could. As my understanding of the subject increased, I started to revisit much of this early information but discovered that, a few years down the line, I had no idea where I got the details from!
It is vital to keep a note of the source of all information so that any discrepancies can be checked and sorted out later. It also demonstrates that you - as a researcher - have taken the trouble to do your research in a logical manner. If at all possible, it is good to cross check details in as many different sources as possible and note down those checks to show that the information is accurate.
All sources, be it the IGI, transcribed census records or even the original parish record books can and will contain errors - either transcription mistakes or simple spelling issues which can mean you may miss something vital. Sometimes we can only get a lead from a submitted IGI record, but if that is noted as such in our own records, we can hopefully use the information as a pointer to another source which may help to clarify things.
I won't try to claim my research is terribly good, but I do try to "prove" the information using a couple of different sources if at all possible these days.

Mark

[Ken Boyce]

Thanks for the replies

In my software I've started to cite two kinds of IGI records extracted and submitted the latter only when there is something of possible interest that I wish to make note of for follow-up at some later time (a to do thing) - not all IGI submitted records are bad. Some are well researched and one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater! - In any event I always check and cross-check where possible all primary documents irrespective of the source - IGI or what-have-you

If one follows the cryptic references attached to the IGI submitted records one may find a record that is nothing to do with church rituals but is a deposited item dedicated to the library by a researcher and may include such goodies as an extract from a one name or place study, or a transcript of some useful document, etc. I usually do not wish to get side tracked by a record of possible (dubious) interest in another vain whilst browsing looking for say a particular family’s missing siblings - I can just tell the software to make a pre-formatted note - it was my brief generalized wording (the software has limits) on how submitted data ends up in the IGI that I wasn’t sure of – I now have some choices to think about

[Ken Boyce]

My comment on some specific replies

Geoffers – I fought the software for some time to get the wording I described - some of the field entries are used for other things - going to try and make your suggested changes or as close as I can get

Re unknown vs. undisclosed ALL submitters are known to the LDS hierarchy some early ones are named later ones are not released outside the LDS. It seems one can tell by the ref numbers which is which

I’m trying to keep the Footnote concise for an IGI record that will NOT be used until the details have been verified and possibly some part used in its own right (eg one family member may be proven real and connected to my family line and the rest junked) or the whole record is debunked but maybe left recorded as such in the software depending on how close it appears to belong but doesn’t (The often debated subject does one in certain cases record who is proven not to be family as well as who is)

Mary Ann - yes it is to be used for a source the surety will be zero and as such the record will not print or form part of any other family except for those members included. The thing going for these submissions is that unlike extracted records which I believe are limited to LDS filmed registers they may include extractions from registers not filmed by the LDS By collecting some of these in a database I can check them against the parish record next time I or one of the family visit the UK (or if I’m onto something hot hire someone to check for me)

Peter et al – any transcript and - some more than others - need to be verified Those of us that live off-shore of the UK cannot afford to disregard the fact that there may be some lovely petunias hiding in the onion patch but we have to have the where-with-all to discern the difference

I have nothing but praise for a non genealogical organization that shares so much, warts and all, for so little in return.

[Peter_uk_can]

This has surely been a fascinating and informative thread. If only it had been possible for me to tap into such a wealth of knowledge when I first shook the family tree to see what might fall out.

I am sure that there are many of us here who can recall the surly responses and shocked disbelief when enquring of a librarian if it was possible to view some archival information. I can remember when the new Kew buildings opened and the reaction of some "professional" reseachers who were horrified at the thought of everyone having access to what they mistakenly thought was theirs.

Attitudes have certainly changed as described in a thread "Death of Family History Societies"