New Developments to the LDS site

[suemalings]

As you may already be aware they are in the process of digitizing all 2.5 million rolls of film, this will be a 10 year project.

If you go to their website , then to search records, second item down is Record Search pilot, this takes you into new data.

Data is being updated all the time so it's worth checking.

In the new year we will be able to order films for viewing on line and paying by credit card and nominating where you want to go to view film.

[sue2white]

I was at my local LDS this week and the volunteers were really excited about this!

The downside of my visit was that I could no longer order a film just for 4 weeks, I had to order it for 3 months. I only have one record to confirm and have no need to search the whole film. I was very disappointed.
Even more so when I discovered that I could have ordered a copy of that single record from the county archives at half the cost!!

Has anybody else found this?

Sue :o

[MythicalMarian]

In the new year we will be able to order films for viewing on line and paying by credit card and nominating where you want to go to view film.

This is wonderful news, Sue. I've still got my Lincolnshire trip on hold and I know the IGI have extracted records for the parish I want, so if I could download the film for a fee I'll bet it would cost less than the fare to Lincoln.

[Beebee]

I was at my local LDS this week and the volunteers were really excited about this!

The downside of my visit was that I could no longer order a film just for 4 weeks, I had to order it for 3 months. I only have one record to confirm and have no need to search the whole film. I was very disappointed.
Even more so when I discovered that I could have ordered a copy of that single record from the county archives at half the cost!!

Has anybody else found this?

Sue :o

I was also disappointed to find I had to order the film for 3 months, although I have a few records to find, it certainly won't take me 3 months to find them, I preferred the previous way of ordering for 1 month and being able to extend the time if needed, not to mention the big price increase. :(

[LindaJ]

I guess this new move could be the reason why ordering a film from them has risen from £2.50 to £7.50!

Is there anyway we can see which new records have been included?

[v.wells]

I also see problems with this - people will forget to return the film and/or not re-submit back for circulation, much like library books and others will be kept waiting (unless there are multiple copies available). I have yet to order a film but I do have one that I might have a look into . It will be interesting to see what the procedure is here in Canada expecially in my semi-large city.

[benny1982]

Hi

That website is brilliant. I hope they release more Pennsylvania records so I can find out more on my ggggrandfather after he emigrated there later in life and his childrens full marriage details.

Ben

[Brian Turnbull]

suemalings, I may be wrong here but it was my impression that whilst you can order and pay for films online you still need to go to a Family History Library to view them, they will not be viewable online. It would be fantastic for me if it were so as it saves me a 1 1/4 hour each way trip to view the film.

Brian

[MarkJ]

That is what I think Sue meant -


In the new year we will be able to order films for viewing on line and paying by credit card and nominating where you want to go to view film.

Only the ordering and paying will be online as I understand it - you still have to head to the local LDS place to view.

Mark

[Jan65]

I was about to post information on the new development, but on searching the forum I noticed this thread, so thought I'd add to it rather than posting a new one.

Through the FamilySearch.org site I've just been able to access, online, FOR FREE, quite a lot of Bishops Transcripts with baptisms, marriages and burials for my ancestors.

These are not transcriptions but the original images of the Bishops Transcripts themselves. I'm amazed to have found at least ten relevant records, with lots more to search for.

Go to the home page, then Search Records, Record Search Pilot; this takes you to a search page. You can either search by your ancestor's name, or if you click on Browse our Record Collections, you can choose an area of the world that you're interested in and follow the links to narrow down the area.

The records I've been searching for were for the Durham and Northumberland counties of England. I'm so excited to have found these, it's brilliant! Just thought I'd share this for anyone interested, it's defintely worth a look.

[mandyjf]

I am new at this and have been using this website and find it really good, but my cousin is disputing some of the information I found on there: how reliable is the site?

[v.wells]

If it is user submitted be suspect. If it is a Batch/Source File anotated then it is in all likelihood fact. Seeing the original image is the best way to verify as often there are transcription errors due to the handwriting interpretation.

[MarkJ]

Where on the LDS site were you looking? If you mean the IGI specifically, then from a genealogical viewpoint it is a bit unreliable - there are basically two types of entries - submitted and extracted records. Extracted records are, as you may expect, extracted from the films of the parish records and are as reliable as any other transcribed record - i.e they may contain errors caused by human error or the image being unclear for example.
Submitted records need to be treated with extreme caution - some of the entries are "guesstimates" of ages, based on such things as people marrying will be 25 years old...
Some of the submitted records are good, but in the main, treat them at best as a guide to finding a more reliable source.

They *are* totally correct as far as the LDS are concerned for their purposes and thus you have to accept the errors (rather than complaining to them - they won't "correct" them) if you want to use the IGI or other LDS records.

There have been several threads about the IGI and submitted/extracted records, as well as the reasons for the existance of the IGI etc on the forum - well worth having a look around some of the old threads for details and having a read.

Mark

[Jan1954]

Hello Mandy,

Have a read of this sticky (http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?35183-The-IGI-some-clarification-please-read) about the IGI/LDS Family Search.

It should only ever be used as a guide or index and not as a replacement for checking Parish Records. There are also a fair number of entries that have been submitted by people that are without noted sources, and need careful checking.

[mandyjf]

Thank you to everyone who offered advice on the reliability of LDS records. I have used both IGI and PRF for the same relative; basically, Samuel Rawson b.1802 Sheffield- parents John Rawson and Ann Sellars. It's the parentage I'm trying to prove as this would make him my GGGGranddad's brother, rather than a translation/ transcription error.

[emeltee]

The new Family Records Search and the search pages at beta.familysearch.org have a lot of information but my question is, is it all extracted info or has some of it been submitted. The records don't tell you either way.
Emeltee

[Pam Downes]

The new Family Records Search and the search pages at beta.familysearch.org have a lot of information but my question is, is it all extracted info or has some of it been submitted. The records don't tell you either way.
Emeltee
No, but read the first paragraph on the home page. :smile5:
The site is headed 'Familysearch Record Search'.
Find your ancestors with Record Search.
Search millions of indexed records for your ancestors.
Browse through images of records waiting to be indexed.

Pam

[emeltee]

Does "indexed" mean extracted or are they just a lot of records which have been indexed in a database? Personally I'd like something to tell me where they came from.

Emeltee

[Pam Downes]

Does "indexed" mean extracted or are they just a lot of records which have been indexed in a database? Personally I'd like something to tell me where they came from.

Emeltee
I'm pretty certain that it means indexed as in 'extracted', because after 'Search millions of indexed records for your ancestors' it then says 'Browse through images of records waiting to be indexed'.

The next paragraph goes on to ask for more indexers and if you follow the link through to the next page there's a list of completed projects which ties in with the entries on the Familysearch pilot site.
Pam

[BeeE586]

I have used the BETA extension to the LDS site and from what I can see and understand it is the beginning of the new digitization process of the millions of records held by LDS. AT the moment I am particularly interested in Irish records and in one case found both the birth registration and a corresponding entry from a parish register.

I am also interested in emigration and was directed here

ellisisland.org/sign/index.asp?login_targ=%2Fsearch%2FshipManifest.asp% 3FpID%3D604031130854&ACT=LL&section=3 (put www. in front)

a site new to me but where you can see copies of the actual ships' manifests with all sorts of details about the people arriving. It is searchable and free. It was good to know that the people I was looking for were neither Polygamists nor Anarchists - two of the questions asked. Would you admit it if you were ?

Eileen

[emeltee]

In order to answer my query as to whether the new Record Search and the beta site records are extracted records or include submitted records, I e-mailed the LDS. They have assured me that they are all extracted records and that no submitted records are to be included. So what you get is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Emeltee

[Pam Downes]

In order to answer my query as to whether the new Record Search and the beta site records are extracted records or include submitted records, I e-mailed the LDS. They have assured me that they are all extracted records and that no submitted records are to be included. So what you get is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Transcription errors permitting. :smile5:
I have one vicar and even after blowing up the images to the max and studying them intensely I still don't know whether he's written Packer or Parker, Barker or Barber, and Buxton or Baxter, to give just three examples. I know that sometimes I've looked for people on the census to try and help me decide, but I can't always find them on the census either!
Pam

[emeltee]

Sorry, should have said what you get is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth according to the transcriber.
Emelte

[warncoort]

Recently i used beta search for the first time and upon completion filled in the feedback section.Since then i have received a reply which in part says:
We are moving to unite all of our historical records on one site at familysearch.org. As part of this process, we have now located all of our collections on the FamilySearch beta test site and invite you to test this as we move to close down the previous engineering and developmental FamilySearch Labs site known as Record Search. We are adding new features and refinements to the Beta site in the next 60 days.
FSbeta may be found at: http://fsbeta.familysearch.org
We will be posting announcements about the eventual closure date in future on the Record Search Home page.


Sincerely,
FamilySearch
[email protected]


As Emeltee has posted, this will take out the dross of submitted entries and clean up the whole process.

[Mitch in Notts]

In order to answer my query as to whether the new Record Search and the beta site records are extracted records or include submitted records, I e-mailed the LDS. They have assured me that they are all extracted records and that no submitted records are to be included. So what you get is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Emeltee

If so (and I presume you refer to the familysearch pilot site) I challenge you to find:
Mary Hovell marrying Philip Parfrement on 13 November 1781 at Weasenham All Saints, Norfolk, England.

The parish registers for this church are on the family search site & I can`t find it there, nor in the copy in the Norfolk Record Office nor in the ATs & BTs.
Someone who transcribed this register states:
"I indexed the registers of the two Weasenhams in the early days of my researches from 1977-83 (1983 was when I got married!!!) and there are no Parfrement entries in the following registers. I did my indexing with the original registers too!" (I have also searched St Peter).
So WHERE did this record come from??

I love a good mystery...

But I also like them solved.... so basically beware statements from the LDS??

Mitch

[LittleSpark]

Hi Mitch,
Go to new site - Beta, advanced search where you can put in spouse's name/marriage date and the marriage you're after is first on the list.

Sheila

[Mitch in Notts]

Exactly Sheila - but it isn`t in the actual Parish Register, ATs or BTs!!!

So WHERE did they source it from??

Mitch

[Pam Downes]

Exactly Sheila - but it isn`t in the actual Parish Register, ATs or BTs!!!

So WHERE did they source it from??

Mitch
It's written somewhere on film number 1702653. :biggrin:Presumably in item 10 which allegedly is Weasenham St. Peter parish register indexes, 1721-1846.
If you hover your cursor over Philip's name on the beta search result it tells you things like film number and item number. Then it's an easy matter to go to the LDS catalogue and find what's on that film. Who wrote that index you'll only find out by ordering in the film. Unless of course, that's the index you're referring to :smile5: in which case :confused5:
Pam

[Kerrywood]

So WHERE did they source it from??
It's easy enough to find out.

On the results page on FamilySearch (whichever version you're using) look for the Source Film Number, in this case 1702653, item 10.

Go to the LDS Library Catalogue (http://www.familysearch.org/eng/Library/FHLC/frameset_fhlc.asp)
Select Film/Fiche Search (far right)
Enter the Film Number 1702653 and search
Scroll down to Item 10.

EDIT: Pam types faster :smile5:

[Pam Downes]

EDIT: Pam types faster :smile5:
For probably the first and only time. :biggrin: And then only by a matter of seconds. :smile5:
Plus you gave the link to the catalogue, which is the sort of thing I usually do but didn't this time, so it could be said that you gave a more complete reply. On t'other hand, I said how I sussed out where the LDS got their info from, so we'll call it
a draw. :smile5:
Pam

[Mitch in Notts]

Thank you both - I thought someone would try and tell me I needed to go to a Family Record Centre.
Pam I have another question (sorry). If I hover over Philip name on the Beta site I can`t get anything to display but can see the film number when I click on his name.
But can you tell me WHERE this came from QUOTE: "Presumably in item 10 which allegedly is Weasenham St. Peter parish register indexes, 1721-1846." as that doesn`t tally with the suggested church in the search result (and I have also viewed St Peters registers). If it is merely an index I`m going to be at square one with regard to the actual Parish Register aren`t I??

Thanks

Mitch

[Pam Downes]

Thank you both - I thought someone would try and tell me I needed to go to a Family Record Centre.
Which you will do if you want to get to the bottom of this mystery, though Norfolk Record Office also have a copy of the index.

Pam I have another question (sorry). If I hover over Philip name on the Beta site I can`t get anything to display but can see the film number when I click on his name.
But can you tell me WHERE this came from QUOTE: "Presumably in item 10 which allegedly is Weasenham St. Peter parish register indexes, 1721-1846." as that doesn`t tally with the suggested church in the search result (and I have also viewed St Peters registers).
|doh| |dunce2| More haste, less speed, and I need to go to Specsavers. You're right, it does say Weasenham All Saints as the marriage church when you hover over Philip's name. But item 10 on the film says Weasenham St Peters.

If it is merely an index I`m going to be at square one with regard to the actual Parish Register aren`t I??
Thanks
Mitch
Yep. :smile5:
Like you, I've just looked at the actual Weasenham All Saints PRs on the beta site. And there is something slightly suspicious to my mind. Image 101 has marriages for 1777, 1778, 1779, and one in August 1781, with two blank entries. Numbered in the register as pages 19 and 21.
Image 102, numbered page 20, has two marriages for 1779 and one for 1780, and on the righthand side of the image is a note referring to 1789.
Image 103 has the PR page numbered 1, with the first marriage in 1784.
Although it's a small church there does seem to be an average of at least one marriage a year, so why none in 1782 and 1783? When they did the filming were two pages turned over at once?

Does
Someone who transcribed this register states:
"I indexed the registers of the two Weasenhams in the early days of my researches from 1977-83 (1983 was when I got married!!!) and there are no Parfrement entries in the following registers. I did my indexing with the original registers too!" (I have also searched St Peter). refer to the index that's on the LDS film and is presumably the index held at NRO, or is it a different index/transcription?
And somewhere along the line is there a case of someone entering a false marriage so that if their work is copied there's an easy way of telling?

I do think you need to either get the film from the LDS and/or ask the NRO if they could supply say three pages of the index with the Parfrement marriage on the middle one and then compare the index to the PRs for both All Saints and St Peters. You could also ask NRO if they could possibly check the original PR. If you give them details of the page numbers etc from the LDS images.
Pam

[Mitch in Notts]

Which you will do if you want to get to the bottom of this mystery, though Norfolk Record Office also have a copy of the index.

|doh| |dunce2| More haste, less speed, and I need to go to Specsavers. You're right, it does say Weasenham All Saints as the marriage church when you hover over Philip's name. But item 10 on the film says Weasenham St Peters.

Pam

I have just viewed the 1778-1782 marriage images on the ST PETER website and in 1782 Thomas MARTIN marries Mary WHITBY at ST PETER on the images site.
When you look at this marriage on the pilot site it clearly states the marriage is at ALL SAINTS!
So no wonder I am even more confused than normal!
Yet again ST PETER has a four year gap 1778-1782 with no marriages recorded.
Funny two neighbouring parishes with notable gaps in the marriages recorded just when mine should be!
Oh to get to the bottom of this!

[sue2white]

Is it just me, or is the new beta site not easy to search. There are not enough boxes to fill and it throws up irrelevant information.

[Mitch in Notts]

It`s not easiest - use the `Advanced Search and `remember to click the `exact match only boxes` and when you get the results narrow it down by the `category` you want (which is tucked away in the left margin near the bottom).

[Pam Downes]

I have just viewed the 1778-1782 marriage images on the ST PETER website and in 1782 Thomas MARTIN marries Mary WHITBY at ST PETER on the images site.
When you look at this marriage on the pilot site it clearly states the marriage is at ALL SAINTS!
So no wonder I am even more confused than normal!
Yet again ST PETER has a four year gap 1778-1782 with no marriages recorded.
Funny two neighbouring parishes with notable gaps in the marriages recorded just when mine should be!
Oh to get to the bottom of this!
You and me both re the confusion. :biggrin:
And the logic completely fails me when you look at where the Martin/Whitby marriage information came from. Film number 1702653, item 9 P. Item 9 (minus the P) on that film is allegedly an index to baptisms for Weasenham All Saints 1720-1812.

.......several hours later......
I've done some more investigating, i.e. worked my way through the images for St Peters' baptisms, marriages, and burials 1748-1783. There's not many marriages listed in that register, but there's plenty of burials one of which was William Taylor on 22 Sept 1767. If you check the transcribed records on the pilot site, William's burial is there but it allegedly took place at All Saints, and has exactly the same film source as the Martin/Whitby marriage. No help to you with your original Parfrement marriage query, but it does prove that somewhere along the line there is something strange happening with the Weasenham records. :smile5:
As the films of the PRs are available online and are not proving helpful, I think your next port of call is Norfolk Record Office. They have a modern transcript of the All Saints marriages 1568-1812, and a index of St Peter's marriages 1749-1835. A nice email explaining your plight might save you a visit. I do think the clue is in the index for St Peter's and just who did it, and when.
Pam

[Pam Downes]

Is it just me, or is the new beta site not easy to search. There are not enough boxes to fill and it throws up irrelevant information.
Hi Sue,
I'll admit that it's taken me a bit of time to get used to it (and I'm still not that brilliant at it), but I found that searching for records that people on BG have already found helped. And if you select a place it often helps to list it as, say, Boston, Lincolnshire, England rather than just Boston.
Pam

[Mitch in Notts]

.As the films of the PRs are available online and are not proving helpful, I think your next port of call is Norfolk Record Office. They have a modern transcript of the All Saints marriages 1568-1812, and a index of St Peter's marriages 1749-1835. A nice email explaining your plight might save you a visit. I do think the clue is in the index for St Peter's and just who did it, and when.
Pam

Thank you so much for your time Pam - I fear something is greatly amiss. The person who originally transcribed the register in 1980 is hopefully going to Norfolk Record Office on Wednesday and is going to investigate further for me.

I do think this little experience is a big warning for us all NOT to trust what you find on the LDS sites even if they are `extracted` records.
Mitch

[Mitch in Notts]

Great News.

I have now discovered that (SOME OF) the parish records on the LDS site for Weasenham ACTUALLY belong to WENDLING. On the 14th November 1781 Philip Parfrement married Mary Hovell at Wendling and not at Weasenham.

I rest my case on the accuracy of the `new` accurate familysearch site.

Mitch

[Geoffers]

I have now discovered that (SOME OF) the parish records on the LDS site for Weasenham ACTUALLY belong to WENDLING. On the 14th November 1781 Philip Parfrement married Mary Hovell at Wendling and not at Weasenham.

At least you have now forund the marriage. Is this a case of a transcriber noting down the wrong parish, or was the record you originally mentioned from the banns register rather than marriages?



I rest my case on the accuracy of the `new` accurate familysearch site.

To be fair to them, they may just be using a transcription they have been given. Presumably they don't bother with any form of quality control? It is another example of needing to check information.

All that glitters is not Gold....................

[Mitch in Notts]

Hi Geoffers,

The Weasenham marriage `appeared` to be from an `index` of Marriages at Weasenham - there are no surviving Banns for that year. So who knows where the original `error` was made!

What I will say is that the Norfolk IMAGES on the familysearch are true Gold. Without them I would still be in Weasenham instead of Wendling!

Mitch

PS for reference there is an INDEX to baptisms 1678-1787 (about image page 27onwards) and a A-H index to Baptisms for 1788-1812 (on image page 2) within the Wendling registers.
Most useful to confirm my couple didn`t have any children baptised their. And that the bride, Mary Hovell, who died in 1848 aged 96, was baptised in Wendling in 1752!

[sandiep]

I guess I am alone in preferring the old Familysearch site..........I liked the facility to click on batch number and find other family members..........still I will persivere and keep trying new one just takes me a bit longer to get used to new things these days, cant undestand why!!................Trouble is you just get used to things and they go and change it.

sandie

[LittleSpark]

I guess I am alone in preferring the old Familysearch site..........I liked the facility to click on batch number and find other family members..........still I will persivere and keep trying new one just takes me a bit longer to get used to new things these days, cant undestand why!!................Trouble is you just get used to things and they go and change it.

sandie

I'm with you Sandie - much prefer the old site, as you say clicking on batch numbers to help find siblings was a good thing.
The new beta site has helped me in some ways but get annoyed when I ask for somewhere in the UK and all other countries come up too! Takes longer to search too.

Sheila

[grisel]

At the moment if you click on 'What's New' on the new site and then scroll down the page it takes you to, there is an option 'Go to Prior version of FamilySearch.org' and there is the old IGI and the pilot site too.

[v.wells]

I have to admit I much like the old site better too! This new beta site is a pain and not as good as the pilot project - But then I haven't tried to use it for a week or so, so maybe it has been tweaked better :)

[AnjaliUK]

Go to the home page, then Search Records, Record Search Pilot; this takes you to a search page. You can either search by your ancestor's name, or if you click on Browse our Record Collections, you can choose an area of the world that you're interested in and follow the links to narrow down the area.


Oh brilliant, some things I've found when using search said there was no image available but when you browse through the sources the parish registers are on there. Fantastic stuff!

[AnjaliUK]

I guess I am alone in preferring the old Familysearch site..........I liked the facility to click on batch number and find other family members..........still I will persivere and keep trying new one just takes me a bit longer to get used to new things these days, cant undestand why!!................Trouble is you just get used to things and they go and change it.

There are some problems with the search, I agree, but they've improved it a lot recently and they ask for feedback so send suggestions for improvement and I'm sure they'll be considered.