Genealogy Chat

I did add the following to an older thread, but I don't think anyone has seen it, so I thought I'd start a new one - hope this is OK!

Does anyone know what has happened to the submitted entries now that they are moving to the new site? Are they still there or have they been filtered out? It used to be obvious which ones were extracted and which were submitted, but now they all look like "genuine" information.

I don't know the answer to this, but for the moment at least you can use the IGI in the old way.

Click on 'What's new' on the top right hand side of the Family Search page.

Then scroll down on the new page , and, under 'more help',
is a link to 'Search the IGI'

That works as it did before.

That's an excellent question, Christine. Anyone know how we can find out? Whilst I appreciate the care that must be taken with submitted entries, sometimes they do give you an idea to search on whilst visiting a records office or ordering a fiche.

I have contacted Familysearch and asked the question - will let you know the answer when I get it. Its important to all of us to know how trustworthy the information is.

Kucinta, I have been doing just as you say, but with trepidation in case it suddenly disappears!

Incidentally, I always thought that the the Hugh Wallis site only contained extracted information, but I have found one or two that I looked up were actually submitted - they were those that have funny batch nos.

Reply now received from Familysearch. The links didn't show in blue, so I have copied and pasted the contents after the wordings.
Maybe it's just been a long day, but none of this makes it any clearer! If anyone can explain how you can tell which is which on looking them up, I'd be very grateful!

as follows:

Thank you for contacting FamilySearch about the IGI. We have attached a couple of documents that might help but when we went to the IGI we also could not find any direct reference to the parish registers, only LDS records. So we do not know if these will help or if they are outdated. If we can come up with additional information we will send it on. Click anywhere on the blue link below for a document that addresses your question.
Sincerely,
FamilySearch
[email protected]
Document Links:
How to view the original source information for entries in the International Genealogical Index :
Go to FamilySearch Internet (www.familysearch.org).
Click the Search tab.
On the left side of the screen, click International Genealogical Index.
Enter at least a name and a region, plus any other essential search criteria (such as birth year, parents, spouse, etc.), and click Search.
In the list of search results, click directly on the name of the person for whom you want to view details.
On the Individual screen, look in the Source area for a batch number or source number.
To view the original source by using the batch or source number:
Write down the batch and source numbers.
Go to a family history center, and order the film (you will have to pay a fee to order it).
Compare the information on the original record to the information on the International Genealogical Index record.

new FamilySearch: How to determine the extraction source of an extracted record
Resolution

To find the source:
1. Select the individual's name on the Family Pedigree with Details view.
2. Select Details in the left column.
3. Next either click on the underlined name of the individual, or click Individual sources.
4. If FamilySearch Extraction program is listed as the contributor, you can find the batch numbers there. The knowledge base document Using "Resource Guide--Finding an IGI Source" to understand batch number codes will help explain how to locate the sources for these batch numbers.
How can I find the source of a batch number from the International Genealogical Index that begins with T9990--?
esolution

The source for the T9990-- batch number is an entry form for people who previously had some but not all LDS ordinances completed, or they were entered on the same entry form as such people.

These entry forms sometimes show additional family information such as the parents' death dates, ages of spouses, or their parents' names. These forms usually list the sources used to compile the data. They always give the name and address of the submitter. You can use this address to try to contact the submitter. Most forms were contributed more than ten years ago, and the addresses may be obsolete. (Nationwide directories on the Internet may provide a more current address for the submitter.)

This source is available on microfilm. For a small handling fee, you can order and view the microfilm at one of our family history centers near your home.

The "Source Call No." mentioned in the International Genealogical Index (IGI) is the microfilm number to order. You can find the submitted form on the source microfilm. Use the batch number and sheet (found on the IGI) as if they were a long page number stamped on the forms on the source microfilm. You may find gaps between some numbers, but they are almost always in order by these numbers.

If the sheet number of the IGI is four digits (such as 0016, rather than a one- or two-digit sheet number such as 98) divide the sheet number by three to calculate the approximate sheet number on the input source microfilm.

For further information, see our publication International Genealogical Index (IGI): Finding a Source Resource Guide (31024). It is available at most family history centers and on FamilySearch Internet (go to www.familysearch.org and clickOrder/Download Products).

Well Christine-it seems everyone has had a long day !!

See if someone picks it up today !

What a load of rubbish. Wasn't it the LDS who set up the IGI?

If so, what do they mean by "When we went on....."

Pure crap.

I don't know exactly how Christine worded the question to FS, but it seems they haven't answered the question she posed here. So how do I get access to the old IGI submitted records on the new site?

The rest makes perfect sense to me - it explains how to find what source was being extracted - on the old IGI site they never did make direct reference to parish records, but referred to a source film # - this was quite appropriate as in a substantial minority of cases, it wasn't parish registers that were being extracted, but bishop's transcripts of those parish registers. You have to click on the source film # link to see exactly what records were being extracted.

mgnv, clicking on the film link has never answered any questions for me - it seems you have to go to an LDS centre to confirm the information- which I have been unable to do. I have always taken it that I should treat the submitted entries with doubt (as advised in previous long-running threads on here). I have replied to Familysearch, as follows:

Thank you for your reply. This does not, however, answer the question! When accessing the entries on the old IGI, it was quite clearly stated, near the bottom of the page, either:

" Extracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the record."

or


"Record submitted by a member of the LDS Church" - in some cases, the submission is by other people.

This indicates, to a searcher, that the extracted record is likely to be accurate, but the submitted record may well be speculative, as it does not contain any indication of it's source. I appreciate that the film record may contain more information, but we are not all able to attend LDS centres - my own local one has been closed for some time!

All I wanted to know, was, are the submitted records included in the new Beta site, and, if so, how to distinguish them from the others?

Well my daughter had a conversation with an elder at Portsmouth Temple.
LDS did debate updating the IGI but decided against it.
The new Beta site states;-
Each entry in this index has a source listed. The index may be a compilation of records from a variety of sources, including the following:
*Family Records
*Church Records
*Civil Registration
So I guess that IF the IGI is deleted then so will the submitted entries.

I wonder what they mean by family records though?

This is their reply to my second communication, and does at least cover the extracted records. I like the idea of them "spending several days studying my request"! With fingers crossed I shall put my trust in the information I get from the new site! Are you with me brothers (and sisters!)?

Thank you for contacting FamilySearch about the listing of Parish registers of extraction records in the IGI. After spending several days studying you request we feel we have found an answer to your question. It appears to us that when they made the updates to the familsearch.org site the extraction records along with the Parrish register film numbers have been moved from the IGI to the new site under the Historical records search. We have not found any document that specifically states this is the case, but that is what we saw as we looked at records of our family that would meet this criteria.
Sincerely, FamilySearch [email protected]

You can still see submitted entries when you search on the old site @ www.familysearch.org.

If it takes you to the new site you can click on the icon at the bottom right hand side of the page to return to the old site.

I was on there this morning and had a submitted entry in my search results. So they are still there.

Thank you Moonbeam

Well, lets take an arbitrary example:

Batch Number: c047501
BETTY AYKROYD - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Christening: 14 OCT 1832 Saint Phillips,Salford, , Lancashire, England

Source Information:
Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type:
C047501 1826 - 1848 0506449 Film 6909475 Film
Sheet: 00

Clicking on the Source Call # gets the link:

Parish registers for St. Phillip's Church, Salford, 1826-1957 Church of England. St. Philip's Church (Salford, Lancashire)

and clicking on this link shows:

Title Parish registers for St. Phillip's Church, Salford, 1826-1957
Authors Church of England. St. Philip's Church (Salford, Lancashire) (Main Author)
Notes Microfilm of original records at the Manchester Public Library (1960), and the Manchester Archives Central Library in Manchester, England.
The parish was also known as the district parish of St. Philip, Salford, Manchester.
Subjects England, Lancashire, Salford - Church records
England, Lancashire, Manchester - Church records
Format Manuscript (On Film)
Language English
Publication Manchester : Filmed by the Manchester Public Libraries, 1960 ; Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 2005
Physical on 4 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.

and clicking on the "view film notes" button at top right shows:

Note Location Film
Baptisms, 1826-1914. Marriages, 1838-January 1866. FHL BRITISH Film 1408660
Marriages, December 1865-1923. (dates on item 5 title board not correct) FHL BRITISH Film 1408661
Marriages, April 1911-1935. Burials, 1834-1888. Banns of marriages, 1869-1957. FHL BRITISH Film 1408727 Items 1 - 7
Baptisms, 1826-1848. Burials, 1834-1888 (only 8 burials between 1867 and 1888). (another filming) FHL BRITISH Film 506449


Now what can I see - firstly, this is an extract of Parish registers for St. Phillip's Church, Salford.
Secondly, the original records were at Manchester Public Library in 1960.

So in addition to viewing an FHL film, this latter info provides another avenue for obtaining an image of the original records.
I can go (or get someone to go) to Manchester PL and get a copy for me.
Alternatively, I can try contacting them and maybe get them to send me an image.


Actually, in this particular case, there's an online transcription available at:
http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Salford/Salford-Central/stphilip/index.html

Baptism: 14 Oct 1832 St Philip, Salford, Lancashire, England
Betty Aykroyd - [Child] of William Aykroyd & Margaret
Abode: Salford
Occupation: Calico Printer
Baptised by: Oswald Sergeant
Register: Baptisms 1826 - 1848, Page 27, Entry 211
Source: LDS Film 506449

and the unindexed images are also available at:
https://www.familysearch.org/s/collection/list#page=1®ion=EUROPE
(see England, Lancashire – Cheshire – Yorkshire Parish Registers, 1603-1992)

Yes, this was what I was getting at when I asked the question. On the old IGI you have access to all this source information on the extracted records, but not on the submitted records (only the film no).

To give another example, there are 2 entries on the old IGI for a marriage between Walter Ewell and Elizabeth Water in Chislet, Kent on 24 Jul 1599.
One is extracted and gives the batch no, through which you can access the source information, as you have, mgnv.

The other is submitted, giving only the film no.

On the new Beta site, I have also found 2 entries for this marriage, under English Marriages 1538-1973. One gives an indexing project no 101381-0
and a film no. The other gives the indexing project no M00846-1 and a film no.

I suspect that the 1st of these entries is the previous IGI submitted record and the second is the extracted record. No amount of clicking on anything, however, gives you access to any source information. You cannot obtain any further information from the batch no as you used to. Both entries appear in the list with no indication that one may carry more weight than the other.

All very well in this case where the information is the same in both cases, but what about the entries which ONLY appeared on the old IGI as submitted, and weren't backed up by an equivalent extracted entry? Do they appear on the new site purporting to be confirmed information? I think they probably do.

Once the old IGI disappears (as I am sure it will, soon), this distinction will be lost to us. I hope I am explaining my point clearly enough - I may go back to Familysearch again, but re-reading their replies, I don't think they can see what I'm getting at, at all!

I did go back to them, giving the same example as above, and got this reply, which I have found very reassuring!

Thank you for contacting FamilySearch about the IGI. In your examples the second record was referenced to a film of the parish registers of Chislet not any submission from a patron. We have located a document that addressed your concern. As far as we can determine the extracted records are migrating over and would be what is refereed to in the document as "Transcribed records" and references to the parish records not a submission to the Temple. At this time they are not anticipating that submissions to Temple as found in the IGI will be borough over. Click anywhere on the blue link below for a document that addresses your question.


Thank you for your question about the IGI and its relationship with Historical Records. The International Genealogical Index will remain on the FamilySearch.org website. You may use the information you find in Historical Records to search within the IGI. Historical Records is a search tool that allows you to look for and validate newly digitized records. Different types of information can be searched in Historical Records:
1. Transcribed records
2. Indexed records with images
3. Images that can be browsed like microfilm
Historical Records allows the records and information that the Church has been gathering for decades to become more accessible to those doing family history work.

So submitted entries won't be brought over. I can see why, but it's a pity. I've had some help from submitted records. One instance was a family sheet which showed 5 daurs for my ggg grandparents (but not my gg gran). All 5 had an exact dod, but only a birth year, so I concluded they likely came from d.certs - I've since gotten 3 of these Scottish d.certs, and all 3 list their parents as my ggg grandparents. My gg gran had 8 sibs (I think) but only her brother was baptized so far as I can see, so this was a helpful record. I've also come across cousins that tie in with the census, but where one is shown as dying in the USA - I've not checked these deaths yet, but it's credible. There's been a couple of more standard finds - my ggg grandad and his bro aren't extracted, just submitted baptisms, but I now have the OPR baptismal entries.

Anyways, my thanks to Christine for clearing this point up.

At least they are seeming to confirm that the old IGI will remain though, which makes me feel better. Thanks for your interest.

There are those who dismiss submitted records out of hand, as being pure fiction, but I believe that this does a great disservice to the submitter, who for all we know has gone to great length to check the accuracy of their submission. The difficulty is that we have no way of knowing. My approach it not to dismiss anything but to try and corroborate as much as you can from as many sources as possible.

So it is refreshing to see that there are members who do find submitted records useful. and special thanks to Christine for the time and effort she has spent on the subject.

I have one instance where the submitted record was correct and the extracted record incorrect. This was the case of a difference of one year for a marriage that took place Dec 1806. So we shouldn't dismiss them all.