Monday, January 31, 2011

Mailbox Monday: Ancestry.com FHC Edition

Dear Ancestry Insider,

I believe there are quite a few databases hosted on Ancestry.com for which Ancestry.com is not allowed to charge. And I believe this has something to do with the copyrights of each of the databases. Of course, Ancestry.com does NOT publicize that many of their databases can be searched without a paid membership. Nor do they make it easy to figure out how to search these databases. (Hint: on Ancestry.com, navigate to 'Help' and typing in "free databases".)

Please correct me if I'm wrong. It's my theory that these free databases are the databases available through the FHC Edition of Ancestry.com. I think the general public can access these databases from any internet connected computer FREE OF CHARGE on the Ancestry.com website; I don't think users have to be in a FHC to do so.

Signed,
S*

Dear S,

You are essentially correct that legalities require that Ancestry.com offer some databases without charge. To be precise, this is required by contracts, whether the database is copyrighted or not. (See “Can I Freely Copy Public Domain Documents” for a little insight into the difference.)

It was when they introduced New Search 2008 that they started hiding which databases were free. Thanks for the hint about clicking on help and searching for “Free databases.” The help article explains how to use the old card catalog to see a list for free databases. Be careful; not every database listed is free. Only those marked are free.

The number of free databases is not large. Of their nearly 30,000 databases, less than 400 are free.

Per your request, I have one correction. Oddly enough, databases that are free at Ancestry.com are not available in the FHC edition of Ancestry.com. Access the free databases at home; access the free FHC edition databases at a FHC.

Thanks for your insight,
-- The Insider

Friday, January 28, 2011

The Inside Scoop on RootsTech Open Panel Discussions

The Inside scoop on RootsTech open panel discussions
Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Since the RootsTech website doesn't have the skinny, you're lucky you read the Ancestry Insider. Five open discussions or panel discussions are included in the RootsTech schedule. These ought to add some pizazz to your conference experience. Audience participation is a must.

 

Exploring Cemetery Solutions

Thursday 10th 11:00 AM

A panel of companies offering current or future cemetery solutions will take a few minutes to share their offerings. The moderator will then put questions to the panelists, mixing audience questions with his own, such as:

  • How is cemetery data common with genealogical source data?
  • How should volunteers transcribe tomb stones?
  • How can cemetery data be associated with Family Trees?
  • What role should geo-coding play in cemetery surveys?
  • Can smart phones be used to digitize and transcribe tomb stones?

LEVEL: All Levels
TRACK: Interactive Open Discussions
MODERATOR: Gordon Clarke
PANELISTS:

 


 

Value and Use of APIs

Thursday 10th 3:00 PM

A panel of companies offering APIs will take a few minutes to share there API offerings. The totally awesome moderator will then put questions to the panelists, mixing audience questions with his own, such as:

  • What is the value of Application Program Interfaces?
  • Do you have a preferences regarding SOAP, REST, or other protocols?
  • What do you think about XML, JSON, or AMF?
  • What should an API provider offer? ( sample code, discussion boards, support)
  • What structure do you like for API documentation?
  • Whats the difference between proprietary and open APIs?
  • Can the industry benefit from common APIs?

LEVEL: Technical Users and Programmers
TRACK: Interactive Open Discussions
MODERATOR: Ancestry Insider
PANELISTS:

 


 

How Should We Handle Sources

Thursday 10th 4:15 PM

Open discussion is invited from genealogists, software vendors, and users about the value of sources, how to best obtain evidence, and how to best save and share it. Ground-rules for the open-meeting and consensus building will be explained as the discussion begins. Possible discussion questions:

  • What is the definition of and the difference between a source and a citation?
  • What are the pros and cons of source templates and wizards?
  • How should the "Genealogical Proof Standard" be used?
  • What is the value of linking to an online representation of a source?
  • How important is indexing (transcribing) sources?
  • Should source images be made available without indexes?

LEVEL: All Levels
TRACK: Interactive Open Discussions
MODERATOR: Rick Laxman

 


 

How Do We Define a Person

Friday 11th 1:45 PM

Open discussion is invited among genealogists, software vendors, social media advocates and users about how to identity and describe a person, living or dead, and how do you share information and protect privacy. Ground-rules for the open-meeting and consensus building will be explained before the discussion begins. Possible discussion questions:

  • What are the commonalities between the identity of an internet person and a genealogical person?
  • How should we profile a contributor?
  • Can or should Open Connect be used for the genealogical industry?
  • How can you communicate with a person without knowing their identity?
  • What is different about profiling and protecting the identity of a living person and a deceased person?
  • What rights or controls should a person and the descendants have regarding the person’s history ?

LEVEL: Technical Users and Programmers
TRACK: Interactive Open Discussions
MODERATOR: Phil Windley

 


 

Genealogical data standards

Saturday 12th 9:45 AM to 12:00 PM (2 hours)

Open discussion is invited from genealogists, software vendors, and users about the need for standards for saving and sharing genealogical information about persons, families, events, places, citations, sources, unique identifiers, persistent URLs, etc. Focus will be more on the standardization/consensus building process than reaching any detail conclusions. Ground-rules for the open-meeting and consensus building will be explained as the discussion begins. Possible discussion questions:

  • How are standards formed? (popularity or standards bodies)
  • Do we have person focus OR records focus OR both?
  • What's the difference between a data model and a file format?
  • Why do we need standardize file formats?
  • What are the concerns about models for persons? Family relationships? Events? Sources?
  • What are the pros and cons of getting support by major software/website vendors?

LEVEL: All Levels
TRACK: Interactive Open Discussions
MODERATOR: Ancestry Insider

 


I think a casual glance at the moderators will disclose the source of my inside information. These should be fun. I hope to see you there!

Thursday, January 27, 2011

RootsTech Two Weeks from Today

The Insider is an Official RootsTech 2011 Blogger

I’m getting pretty excited! RootsTech is only two weeks away! If you’ve been putting off deciding about the conference, now’s a good time to decide to come.

I mentioned before that one challenge I saw for conference organizers was the combination of classes for the general public and for technology creators (academics, software developers, and product managers). The conference schedule doesn’t appear to indicate which classes are for which audience.

Well I’ve just noticed there is a “course schedule listing option” for listing only the classes for “Tech Users” (the general public) or for “Tech Creators.” I don’t know if the option has always been present. Since links to the schedule scroll this important feature off the top of the page, I suspect it was added after the fact.

Select Tech Users to see classes for the general public

As you work with the listing options, there are some other problems you should be aware of (unless FamilySearch fixes them before you read this).

If you set the listing option to “Keynotes/Luncheons,” you won’t see all the luncheons. Check out the Luncheon page to see them all.

If you set the listing option to tech users or creators, you won’t see the panel discussions:

  • Best Uses of Mobile Devices
  • How Should We Handle Sources
  • Define a Person
  • Genealogical Data Standards

The RootsTech website needs a page about the panel discussions, an indication of the intended audience (users or technology creators), a blurb about the subject, and a list of the panel members. The presenter column in the schedule should say “Discussion Panel” and include a link to the discussions page.

Fortunately, I have Insider information on the panel discussions. Tomorrow I’ll spill the beans. Stay tuned…

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

We Want Tech: Highlight Flagrantly Erroneous Pedigrees

At the 2010 NGS Conference GenTech Luncheon David Rencher presented “The Top 10 Areas Where Technology Can Still Make a Real Difference in Genealogy : Could You Please Hurry?” In “We Want Tech and We Want It Now” I am reviewing Rencher’s requests and the technologies already available. Today I look at:

# 7 Highlight Flagrantly Erroneous Pedigrees

There is a lot of garbage pedigrees floating around the Internet.

Some have subtle mistakes—conclusions that changed over time as more records were discovered. Someone figures out the mistake and publishes an article, proving a new conclusion. In an ideal world, a single, global, common tree would contain all the good conclusions and we would be fine-tuning conclusions such as this kind.

In the real world, the garbage floating around the Internet is pathetic: impossible timelines, inconceivable parent-child relationships, and unimaginable fusions of facts. Decades ago, PAF and other pedigree managers became capable of detecting most of the flagrant fallacies we see online.

David Rencher, FamilySearch Chief Genealogical Officer asked, “Why can’t websites do the same?”

Many websites host online pedigrees: RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, One Great Family, Geni.com, and the new FamilySearch tree (NFS), to name a few. Rencher recommended that these websites take action to highlight erroneous pedigrees:

RootsWeb World Connect flags trees with source citations Automatically evaluate source citations.

Personally, I find it immensely helpful just having RootsWeb World Connect’s icon indicating that source citations are present. I don’t bother looking at trees without the source icon.

Imagine how cool it would be if a website would intelligently assess the source quality!

Let users vote on the quality of the data.

Yahoo Answers Incorporates User RatingsThis is not ground-breaking technology. This is old hat. Dozens of websites outside the genealogy market already allow this. Why not genealogy sites?

Consider the example from Yahoo! Answers, to the left.

Note the “top contributor” badge underneath Ted Pack. So many people have agreed with Ted’s answers, that he’s earned a reputation. Yahoo displays that reputation along with his contributions.

Note that 118 people voted for Ted’s answer and 32 people voted for numbat’s. C-johnson awarded a 5-star rating and left a comment explaining her vote.

If I try to download a bad tree, WARN ME!

I think each tree displayed on the Internet ought to display a count of the number of pedigree errors and warnings present in the tree.

These suggestions seem straightforward to me. I think all of them could be implemented with today’s technology. OK, maybe not the automatic evaluation of source citations. But flagging their presence is within the capability of current technology.

Are these features you’d like to see on websites? What do you think? Leave a comment.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Monday Mailbox: Download Compilation of IGI Articles

Dear Ancestry Insider,

I think you did a tremendously helpful work with your articles on the IGI. Thank you so much for the information. 

I am presently the assistant directory of the Lincoln, Nebraska Stake Family History Center and I have been the creator and instructor for Personal Ancestral File - Lincoln Users Group (PAF-LUG) since the 1990's.  We have a group of about 50 people.

I publish http://paf-lug.blogspot.com in which I link to articles or video presentations that I think my groups (PAF-LUG and Lincoln FHC) would find interesting. I would like to ask your permission to put your IGI series into a PDF and put it on my blog for download.

Thank you,

Howard N Camp
Lincoln, Nebraska

Dear Readers,

I was honored to give Howard permission to post his compilation of my IGI articles on his wonderful blog. You can download it from “IGI – Past – Present – Future.” Thank you, Howard.

-- The Insider

Note: Letters and comments are edited for length, clarity, and editorial style.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

We Want Tech: OCR Handwriting

DoHistory.og invites you to explore the process of piecing together the lives of ordinary people in the pastAt the 2010 NGS Conference GenTech Luncheon David Rencher presented “The Top 10 Areas Where Technology Can Still Make a Real Difference in Genealogy : Could You Please Hurry?” In “We Want Tech and We Want It Now” I review technologies already available, at least in infant form. Today I look at:

# 9 OCR Handwriting

David Rencher would like a viewing lens that would read handwritten documents, like the “magic lens” shown to the right from www.DoHistory.org. Drag the magic lens over a handwritten document and magically the text is shown clearly.

Well, David, let me give you a status report on this technology.

Some limited applications are already available. A2iA can do envelopes and checks. It can classify document types, and it can read form fields.

A2iA FieldReader is designed to read handwritten forms

The now defunct BYU Family History Technology Workshop showcased student research for several years, including free form handwriting recognition. For example,

  • Douglas J Kennard and William A Barret, "Progress with Searchable Indexes for Handwritten Document," PDF, _BYU Family History Technology Workshop_ (fht.byu.edu : accessed 19 Jan 2011). “Progress with Searchable Indexes for Handwritten Documents” (PDF)
  • “Interactive Smoothing of Handwritten Text Images Using a Bilateral filter” (PDF)
  • “Handwriting Recognition for Genealogical Records” (PPT)
  • “Using a Hidden-Markov Model in Semi-Automatic Indexing of Historical Handwritten Records” (PDF)
  • “Towards Searchable Indexes for Handwritten Documents” (PDF)
  • “Thresholding of Text Documents” (PDF)

Sorry, David. Technology is a long way away from providing a “Magic lens.”

Do you know of other work being done to read old handwriting automatically? Share your discoveries here by leaving a comment.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

The World Has Had Enough of Silly Presentisms

In the 22 November 2010 edition of Mailbox Monday I challenged readers to check Ancestry.com’s attempts to correct silly place names in their indexes. Readers sent many examples that show that Ancestry.com’s automated abbreviation expansion still produces silly results because context is not considered.

As I read through reader comments, I wondered if English speaking pairs of FamilySearch indexers would ever misindex obvious abbreviations. I decided that a good test case would be a newborn living in Indiana. The younger the baby, the more likely it was born in Indiana, not Iowa.

I searched the 1850 U.S. Census on Ancestry.com for newborns Ancestry.com thought were in Iowa and enumerated in Indiana. I found one and verified from the image that the birthplace was “Ia.” Then I checked the FamilySearch index.

As I expected, FamilySearch Indexers had correctly indexed “Indiana.”

I searched again and found John Houts, 2 months old, born in Ia, and enumerated in Shawnee, Fountain, Indiana. I was surprised that both on Ancestry.com and on FamilySearch.org this newborn Indiana resident’s birthplace was rendered “Iowa.”

Both FamilySearch and Ancestry.com likely misindexed the birthplace of a newborn in Indiana

Presentism

This may be an example of presentism. “Presentism is … historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are [used for] interpretations of the past. … Historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.”1

Present day indexers know that IA is the present postal code for Iowa. They may be applying present practices to a past that was different.

As Kathy Gunter Sullivan put it in a recent edition of NGS Magazine, “Despite being handicapped by twenty-first century experience, we attempt to time-travel [to] meet these… folks who by their choices and proclivities affect our lives as well as the shape of our noses.”2

Vendors Listen Up

Ancestry.com and FamilySearch would do well to heed the warning of Elizabeth Shown Mills. “When we record our findings, we should not alter the language of the records. If we do, odds are, we will change the original intent and distort our portrayals.”3

With this in mind, here’s how the search result for John Houts, the example above, should be rendered:

Record display should avoid presentism

Best Practices:

  • Indexers key exactly what is seen; any interpretation is secondary.
  • Vendors display exactly what is keyed; any interpretation is secondary.
  • The vendor displays any interpretations (such as birth date calculations and abbreviation expansion) inside square brackets. That is the English language punctuation standard for text inserted into an original.
  • The vendor displays the image at the top; it is the primary result of the search.
  • Keyed information is derivative; the vendor displays it second. To minimize vendor interpretation, it is arranged like the original.
  • The vendor uses the same column headings as the original. Otherwise, vendors provide mouse-over popups that display original headings.
  • The vendor provides links to the enumerator instructions.
  • To avoid interpretation of relationships within a household, the vendor displays the result for a single individual within the context of a household.

As Paul McCartney never put it:

The world has had enough of silly presentisms.
I look around me and I see it’s really so.

Quality conclusions don’t come in a minute.
Sometimes they never come at all.
I only know that when I see ‘em,
Quality conclusions are not silly at all.


Sources

     1. Various contributors, “Presentism (Literary and Historical Analysis),” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org : 6 September 2010, 14:35 UTC).
     2. “Late-night Ruminations of a Tired Genealogist,” October-December 2009, 34.
     3. Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2009), 20.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Where Did the IGI Go?

Most of you have noticed that the International Genealogical Index (IGI) is missing from the new FamilySearch.org website. The old site with its IGI will soon go away. That makes it vitally important to learn the answer to the question, “Where did the IGI go?”

Member Submissions

Member submissions—which are conclusionary information—have been moved to the place where genealogical conclusions should be kept: the new FamilySearch (NFS) conclusion tree. Some of you don’t have access to the NFS tree. Be patient. It is coming. Until then, ask family history center (FHC) staff to perform searches for you. This will search all the conclusions that were in the IGI, plus all those in Ancestral File, and many that were in Pedigree Resource Files.

In instances where submitters are still active genealogists, they have “claimed” their submissions and made their current contact information available. Otherwise, you must still resort to utilizing batch numbers. Regardless, a tree is a much better place to store genealogical conclusions.

Extracted Records

Data extracted from parish and vital records is the other source of data in the IGI. This extracted data has been published as Historical Record Collections (HRC) on FamilySearch.org.

Unlike the IGI, HRC Search is being built for genealogists. There is no need to throw away extracted names. There is no need to check the batch number to distinguish extracted data from member submissions. There is no need to use the batch number as a substitute for a citation. No “batch ugly” workaround is required to search individual towns and parishes. (See “How is the IGI?”)

Remember last week I showed side-by-side search results from the IGI and HRCs of all the individuals named Bull in Shustoke, Warwick, England. (See “Why Was the IGI?”)

For the IGI I searched as shown below on the left to get the results shown on the right. I could not search on “Shustoke” because the IGI Search has no box for entering parish. I had to look up the batch number (essentially a parish code number) for Shustoke and use it.

image

For HRCs, to receive the same results, all I needed to enter was “Bull” and “Shustoke,” as shown below left.

image

Outstanding Concerns

In my opinion, the new tree and the new website offer an improvement over the IGI. Does that mean there is no room for improvement? Of course not. Here’s a quick list of concerns:

  • Lists of search results do not display the same information as the IGI. Compare the images above. The new FamilySearch.org website does not display gender, nor event type, date, and complete location.
  • The film number in search results is not linked to the new catalog as it was in the IGI.
  • I’d like to see an official statement regarding the number of extracted entries moved from the IGI and the number that have not been moved, if any.
  • I’d like to see more obvious identification of collections originating from the IGI.
  • As we saw last week, these collections are missing some of the extracted entries. I believe this continues to be the case in most HRCs. I think the collection wiki articles ought to alert users to this serious limitation. (Insider Hint: I believe IGI entries from batches with missing entries are identified in HRCs by a “system origin” ending with “ODM.” See example.)
  • The Parish and Vital Records Listing (PVRL) fiche gave collection coverage by parish, denomination, and time period. Vital Record collections on the old, classic.familysearch.org provided the same. Wiki articles ought to give the same level of information so users know what is covered and what needs to be searched via other sources.
  • While not a complete citation, the PVRL often gave more information than the catalog entry for the film, allowing creation of an adequate citation.
  • I endorse the source issues GeneJ identified in “Please, Let’s Not Wiki FamilySearch Historical Record Collection Sources,” on the They Came Before blog. What a mess. It’s going to take several articles for me to explain what FamilySearch needs to do to fix their sources.
  • There are other, oft repeated search problems. I won’t bother to reiterate them here.
  • I haven’t considered possible IGI or batch number issues from NFS. Any volunteers?

Well, kind readers, in six articles I have given the long answer to a short question. Let me wrap up with a single sentence summary.

Member submissions went to NFS and extractions went to Historical Record Collections.

That is where the IGI went.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Monday Mailbox: FamilySearch Discontinuing Microfilm?

Family History Centers (FHCs) will continue using microfilmDear Ancestry Insider,

I am reading here and there that some Family History Centers [FHCs] are getting rid of their microfilm, readers, and ceasing to support ordering it, telling patrons that it's all on the internet.

This is appallingly far from the truth. Aside from the vast microfilm and fiche holdings of the Salt Lake City FHL, which will take decades to digitize and index, there are ongoing microfilming efforts taking place because of the uncertainties about actual life of digital media.

One patron who posted recently on a Rootsweb mailing list said she was told that there is an official directive telling FHCs to do this.

Signed,
Geolover *

 

Dear Geolover,

“There is no truth to this rumor,” said Paul Nauta, FamilySearch spokesperson, to the Ancestry Insider. “Microfilm will continue to be distributed to centers and utilized by patrons for many years to come.”

Nauta pointed out that FamilySearch does not own most of its archived records and does not have permission to digitize all the microfilm in its collection. Some parts of FamilySearch’s massive film collection will only be available on microfilm, said Nauta, and therefore only viewable in a family history center.

FamilySearch suggests that centers monitor film and computer usage, said Nauta. “Many centers have seen reduction in the use of microfilm,” he said. “They have reduced the number of readers and installed more computers.”

I can imagine that a memo on disposal policies of broken microfilm equipment might be misunderstood. I can imagine that news of centers getting rid of some microfilm readers could be misreported or misread as getting rid of all microfilm equipment.

I can also imagine that local Church leaders have needed space in Church meetinghouses for other purposes and have taken space away from some family history centers, forcing removal of some or all bulky microfilm readers, copiers, and storage cabinets.

But you are correct. We are going to continue to use microfilm for some time.

Signed,
-- The Insider

 

Note: Letters and comments are edited for length, clarity, and editorial style.

Friday, January 7, 2011

How is the IGI?

With the release of the new FamilySearch.org website, many are asking where the International Genealogical Index (IGI) went. To understand where it went, you first need to understand what it is and where it came from. This week I’ve addressed the what, when, whence, why, and how of the IGI.

FamilySearch.org and the Internet IGI were introduced in 1999How is the IGI?

As we’ve seen, the IGI contains two types of entries:

  1. Extracted records. These are useful to genealogists as indexes to evidentiary information.
  2. Member submissions. These are useful to genealogists when treated as conclusions that must be verified.

While the IGI was useful for these purposes, as we’ve also seen, it wasn’t designed for them and didn’t serve either one perfectly well.

Because it was not designed as a genealogist’s tool, the IGI did not use a conclusion tree to store and present genealogical conclusions.

If designed for genealogists, extracted records would not be thrown away if a conclusion about the person existed.

Specifying Locations

Because it was not designed as a tool for genealogists, locations were indexed only to the U.S. state or U.K. county. Genealogists really needed to search at the city or parish level.

Ugly as it is, I’m glad someone came up with the batch number workaround to allow city and parish searches. Instead of entering city, state, and country (or parish, county, and country) into the computer, you enter IGI Region and Batch Number. But first you had to figure out what batch number matched your desired location and time frame. For example, yesterday I wanted to search in Shustoke, Warwick, England. I looked up the batch numbers for Shustoke and found C022862 covered the desired time frame. I then went back to the IGI, entered the region and batch number and performed the search.

There are several ways to figure out a location’s batch number(s).

  • You can search for websites that list batch numbers for your location. All proficient English researchers know about Hugh Wallis’s website.
  • If you know enough about one person in the desired location to search and find him without a batch number, you can comb through the results hoping one is an extracted record.
  • If you have access to the IGI on fiche, you can look up the location on the PVRL fiche. Back when the PVRL was current, you would even learn if extraction records existed for your location.
  • If a Parish Printout was created for the batch, a Family History Library Catalog search will yield the batch number.

I told you it was ugly.

Mish Mash

Because it was not designed as a tool for genealogists, the IGI osterized conclusions and evidence together in one big mess. I cringe to think of how many cases we have all witnessed of people using the IGI as if every entry was trustworthy. (I doubly cringe to think of the number of times in the 70s that I did it myself. But I digress…)

Once again, the ugly batch number provided a workaround. Check an entry’s batch number and use the first letter to distinguish an extracted entry from a member submission.

Source Citations

If designed for genealogists, the source citations included in member submissions would have been keyed into the computer with the rest of the submission. Without the source citations the information is far less valuable.

The batch number is again the ugly workaround. Use the batch number to determine if a copy of the member submission is available on microfilm. If it is, pay $5.50 to have a copy sent to your family history center and hope the submitter specified a source. Wait for the film to arrive. Examine the member submission to see if the member gave a source and what the source was. Repeat for each applicable member submission.

We’re way past ugly now. No doubt genealogists will start using “Batch Ugly” to describe the truly hideous. (Think Humperdinck after Westley disfigures him “to the pain.”)

Now we’re ready to answer the big question: Where did the IGI go? Sorry I didn’t get it done for today! Stay tuned…

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Why Was the IGI?

With the release of the new FamilySearch.org website, many are asking where the International Genealogical Index (IGI) went. To understand where it went, you first need to understand what it is and where it came from. This whole week I have been addressed the what, when, whence, why, and where of the IGI.

Why was the IGI?

Elizabeth L. Nichols (retired FamilySearch employee and IGI expert) explained that the International Genealogical Index was

…created and published primarily to assist members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) to identify their ancestors and other relatives for the purposes of verifying whether temple ordinances have already been completed for them and to further their research into their ancestral lines.1

As I mentioned previously, I think the original, idealized objective of the IGI was the creation of one individual entry for each person who had ever lived and one marriage entry for each couple that had ever wed. Consequently, it is an index of individuals and couples rather than an index to original records. 

Over time the value of the file to the general public was recognized and in 1981 it was renamed the International Genealogical Index.2 However, the purpose of the IGI did not change. And the Church continued trying to avoid adding duplicates. As you will see momentarily, this compromised its value to the general public.

“Extracted records…that were duplicates of patron-submitted entries [were] not added to the IGI,” wrote Nichols.3 “If an entry was already in the file through another source, the duplicate entry from the extraction program was not added.”4

Let’s look at an example. Twenty people in Batch C 2286-2 named Bull were extracted from the parish records. The detail below from the Parish Printout (dated 1977) shows 12 of them:5

A portion of the Parish Printout for Shustoke, Warwick, England

Search Batch C022862 for surname Bull and it shows the IGI contains but 11 of the 20. (See the illustration on the right. Just for the heck of it, on the left I’ve also shown the results of the same search on the new FamilySearch.org website. And you thought you could no longer do batch number searches! Pish, posh! But I’m getting ahead of myself…)

Historical Records shows the 11 Bulls from batch C022862The IGI contains 11 Bulls in batch C022862

Compare the IGI with the Parish Printout and you will find these are the 9 entries missing in the IGI:

SURNAME   DATES   GIVEN REL PARENTS
BULL CHR 29 SEP 1549   MICHAHELL S*  
BULL CHR 1 SEP 1550   WILLIA S*  
BULL CHR 21 DEC 1559   RAPHE S WILLIA BULL
BULL CHR 29 JAN 1580   ANTHONIE S WM BULL
BULL CHR 29 JAN 1580   ANTHONY S WILLIM BULL
BULL CHR 19 DEC 1581   ANNE D WILLM BULL
BULL CHR 8 JAN 1582   ELIZABETHE D WILLM BULL
BULL CHR 4 JAN 1584   WYLLM S WYLLM BULL
BULL CHR 24 JUN 1593   ANNE D MICHAELL BULL

 

Why are they missing? An IGI search in Warwick County, England for these entries shows matching member submissions already existed. (Click the Given name to see the IGI entry.)

SURNAME   DATES   GIVEN SEX PARENTS
BULL CHR 29 SEP 1549   MYCHAHELL M  
BULL CHR 1 SEP 1550   WILLIAM M  
BULL CHR 21 DEC 1559   RAPHE M WILLIAM
BULL CHR 29 JAN 1581   ANTHONY M WM
   "    " "                 " "    "
BULL CHR 19 DEC 1581   ANNE F WM.
BULL CHR 8 JAN 1583   ELIZABETH F WM.
BULL CHR 4 JAN 1585   WILLIAM M WM
BULL CHR 24 JUN 1593   ANNE F MICHAELL

 

These were all part of member submission batch 7526216, which I think means it was received in 1975. The Parish Printout indicates the extraction batch was not processed until 1977. To avoid adding duplicates to the IGI, these entries from the extraction batch were discarded. And that’s no bull…

(Come on; with that surname, you can’t tell me you didn’t know a bad pun wasn’t coming sometime!)

Tomorrow: “Where is the IGI?” Actually, I’m behind schedule. You may not see the article until next week.


Sources

     1. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “The International Genealogical Index (IGI), 1993 Edition : Part I,” Federation of Genealogical Societies Forum, Spring 1994, 5-10.

     2. James B. Allen, et. al., Hearts Turned to the Father, a special issue of BYU Studies 34:2 (1994-95), pp. 306, 317-9; digital images online (http://byustudies.byu.edu : accessed 28 December 2010).

     3. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “The International Genealogical Index 1992 Edition : Part 2: More about Temple Records,” Genealogists’ Magazine 24 (December 1993): 352.

     4. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “International Genealogical Index (IGI), 1993 Edition—Part IV,” Federation of Genealogical Societies Forum, Fall 1994, 6.

     5. You were probably hoping for a citation to the parish printout here. So was I. But I ran out of time. No matter. How I found it is fodder for a future article. Don’t let me forget.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Whence the IGI?

With the release of the new FamilySearch.org website, many are asking where the International Genealogical Index (IGI) went. To understand where it went, you first need to understand what it is and where it came from. This whole week I address the what, when, whence, why, and where of the IGI.

Title screen from IGI 4.02 on Compact DiscWhence the IGI?

Information in the International Genealogical Index comes from two major sources:

  • Extracted records. Many of the names have been extracted (hand-copied and entered into a computer by [Church of Jesus Christ of] Latter-day Saint volunteers) from civil and church christening, birth, and marriage records. … (Death and burial records are usually not extracted.)
  • Records submitted by Latter-day Saint members.1

Understanding where an entry came from is the key to using the IGI, said Elizabeth L. Nichols, retired FamilySearch employee and IGI expert. “This key is found in the batch number and/or film number.”

For extracted entries, the Parish and Vital Records List (PVRL) identified the locality, time period, and record type of each batch number. The PVRL also provided the means of determining the scope and coverage of extracted records in the IGI.2 (This information is key to using the Historical Record Collections on the new FamilySearch.org. Unfortunately, the information is not included. But I digress…)

Characteristics of member submissions differ according to when the submission occurred. And the quality of submissions varies considerably.

Before 1970

Members submitted the information to the Church’s temples between the 1840s and 1970. Some information was recording by event participants at the time of the event. Other information was provided by second- or third-hand sources many years after the event. The veracity of each entry must be judged individually by examining the circumstances and sources associated with the entry.3 

1970-1990

Most entries submitted from 1970-1990 were on Individual Entry or Marriage Entry forms. Many submissions during this period are almost as trustworthy as extracted records. George H. Fudge was Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Genealogical Society of Utah (the predecessor of FamilySearch) at the time. He explained that the new forms utilized “the concept of submitting an individual entry exactly as it appeared in the original record from which it was taken.” The source was ideally a parish/church record or a vital record. The submission was to include a citation. Unfortunately, exceptions were allowed. Tombstone inscriptions, obituaries, family Bibles, and reliably sourced family histories were acceptable if they contained a full name and the date and place of birth. Conclusions drawn from multiple sources were allowed in submissions about a member’s direct-line ancestors.4

According to Nichols, not every form listed “original sources.” To determine the quality of one of these submissions, consult the microfilm copy of the entry form.3

Starting with the IGI 1992 edition, entries submitted after 1978 were included that did not meet the strict identification requirements used in previous editions. These entries may specify “about”, “of”, or use brackets like “<England>”. Previously, entries required a definite name, date (at least a year), and location (specified to two levels).3

After 1990

Entries submitted after 1990 (until NFS, the New FamilySearch Tree, replaced the IGI) are the infamous, sourceless entries. “These names have no additional information available,” said Nichols. “There was no copy of the record kept. Name and address of the submitter are not available.” This makes it impossible to assess the trustworthiness of the information.3

Next time: “Why Was the IGI?”


Sources

     1. Resource Guide: Finding an IGI Source, 4 p. booklet (Salt Lake City : Family History Library, 1995), 1; digital images, FamilySearch Help Center (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 23 December 2010).

     2. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “International Genealogical Index (IGI), 1993 Edition—Part II,” Federation of Genealogical Societies Forum, Spring 1994, 4.

     3. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “The International Genealogical Index 1992 Edition : Part 1: The Main Changes,” Genealogists’ Magazine 24 (September 1993): 294-7.

     4. George H. Fudge and Frank Smith, LDS Genealogist’s Handbook : Modern Procedures and Systems (Salt Lake City : Bookcraft, 1972), 33-48.

Ancestry Family History Center Edition Update

Logo at the top of the Ancestry Family History Center Edition Some Family History Centers (FHCs) don’t know that all FHCs can have free access to the Ancestry Family History Center Edition of Ancestry.com. The FHC Edition gives access to only a few of the 29,987 collections available in the Family History Library Edition at the Salt Lake City, Riverton, and Los Angeles Family History Libraries (and a few other branches). But the available collections are among the most useful.

Since my last report Ancestry.com has added 1906 and earlier U.S. and Canadian censuses. (Notable census exclusions are shown in the table.) They have added index and images to their English 1916-2005 BMD collections. And they have added index and images for the U.S. Passport Application collection.

Oddly, the 1871 England Census is no longer available. I wonder if that is inadvertent?

The collections available through the Ancestry Family History Center Edition are:

Database Name Images May 2007 May 2009 Nov 2010
1790 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1800 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1810 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1820 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1830 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1840 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1841 Channel Islands Census No Yes Yes* Yes
1841 England Census No Yes Yes* Yes
1841 Isle of Man Census No Yes Yes* Yes
1841 Wales Census No Yes Yes* Yes
1850 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1851 Census of Canada East, Canada West, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia Yes No No Yes
1851 Channel Islands Census No Yes Yes Yes
1851 England Census No Yes Yes* Yes
1851 Isle of Man Census No Yes Yes Yes
1851 Wales Census No Yes Yes* Yes
1860 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1861 Census of Canada Yes No No Yes
1861 Channel Islands Census No Yes Yes Yes
1861 England Census No Yes Yes Yes
1861 Isle of Man Census No Yes Yes Yes
1861 Wales Census No Yes Yes Yes
1870 United States Federal Census Yes No No Yes
1871 Census of Canada Yes No No Yes
1871 Channel Islands Census No Yes Yes Yes
1871 England Census No Yes Yes No
1871 Isle of Man Census No Yes Yes Yes
1871 Wales Census No Yes Yes Yes
1880 United States Federal Census Yes Yes Yes* Yes*
1881 Census of Canada Yes No No Yes
1881 Channel Islands Census No Yes Yes Yes*
1881 England Census No Yes Yes Yes*
1881 Isle of Man Census No Yes Yes Yes*
1881 Wales Census No Yes Yes Yes*
1890 United States Federal Census Fragment Yes No No Yes
1891 Census of Canada Yes No No Yes
1891 Channel Islands Census No Yes Yes Yes
1891 England Census No Yes Yes Yes
1891 Isle of Man Census No Yes Yes Yes
1891 Wales Census No Yes Yes Yes
1900 United States Federal Census Yes Yes Yes* Yes
1901 Census of Canada Yes No No Yes
1901 England, … Census n.a. No No No
1906 Canada Census of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta Yes No No Yes
1910 United States Federal Census n.a. No No No
1911 Census of Canada n.a. No No No
1916 Canada Census of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta Yes No Yes* Yes
1920 United States Federal Census Yes Yes Yes Yes
1930 United States Federal Census n.a. No No No
Atlantic Ports Passenger Lists, 1820-1873 and 1893-1959 No Yes Yes* Yes
Baltimore Passenger Lists, 1820-1948 No Yes Yes Yes
Boston Passenger and Crew Lists, 1820-1943 No Yes Yes Yes
California Passenger and Crew Lists, 1893-1957 No Yes Yes Yes
Detroit Border Crossings and Passenger and Crew Lists, 1905-1957 No Yes Yes Yes
England & Wales, Birth Index: 1916-2005 Yes Yes † No † Yes
England & Wales, Death Index: 1916-2005 Yes Yes † No † Yes
England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1916-2005 Yes Yes † No † Yes
Florida Passenger Lists, 1898-1951 No Yes Yes Yes
Galveston Passenger Lists, 1896-1948 No Yes Yes Yes
New Orleans Passenger Lists, 1820-1945 No Yes Yes Yes
New York Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 No Yes Yes* Yes
Philadelphia Passenger Lists, 1800-1945 No Yes Yes Yes
Seattle Passenger and Crew Lists, 1882-1957 No Yes Yes Yes
U.S. Passport Applications, 1795-1925 Yes No No Yes
U.S. World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942 Yes Yes Yes* Yes
World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 Yes Yes Yes* Yes

Yellow indicates collections whose images are withheld in the FHC Edition; green are available.
New collections are designated in green, yellow those that are no longer available.
* Collection not listed on the Titles Available page.
† Collection originally covered 1837-1983. The index assisted browse, but wasn’t an every-name index.

To see the list “Titles Available at the Family History Center,” go to the Ancestry Family History Center Edition home page and click the link in the box titled “What Can I Search?” The same list is visible outside a center by clicking here.

The URL for the Ancestry Family History Center Edition is www.ancestryinstitution.com.