What I found interesting is that the indexes of several of the collections were noted as “courtesy of Ancestry.com.” You’ll recall back in November 2011 I found that Ancestry.com published a bunch of vital records they obtained from FamilySearch. (See “Ancestry.com’s Vital-ity.”)
This suggests that perhaps the two exchanged record collections. On the other hand, there was three month difference in the two events so maybe the two are not related. Or maybe Ancestry.com is more agile than FamilySearch.
Another interesting observation made from the press release regards the indexes and images. All the indexed records were from Ancestry.com. All the images had no indexes.
As I’ve previously reported, FamilySearch has stated its intension to publish images as soon as possible after the camera operator clicks the shutter button. If you figure 800 images per microfilm roll, 5.6 million images for the month is the equivalent of 7,000 rolls of microfilm. That’s exciting stuff.
But it reveals a big need. FamilySearch’s indexing work force can’t keep up with the amount of cool stuff coming from the field. Lest anyone misunderstand, I don’t want to decrease the number of camera clicks. I want to increase the number of indexing volunteers.
That requires your help. Visit http://indexing.familysearch.org and volunteer.