tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post3793178910763973128..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Where Did the IGI Go?The Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-11960104125970628232011-03-21T13:45:36.088-06:002011-03-21T13:45:36.088-06:00So why are the parish records for Bishops Cannings...So why are the parish records for Bishops Cannings in Wiltshire totally absent from the new site?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-26813080296428255942011-02-03T10:10:44.894-07:002011-02-03T10:10:44.894-07:00great information, thanks.
Where can I find a lis...great information, thanks.<br /><br />Where can I find a listing of films that have NOT been extracted?<br /><br />jbairdHouse of Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15939281130974036128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-74064594125540569802011-01-17T05:58:25.227-07:002011-01-17T05:58:25.227-07:00I, too, loved doing a Batch number seach on the IG...I, too, loved doing a Batch number seach on the IGI, for a single surname. Exa: McAulay in Portnahaven, Argyll, Scotland. I would download the results of 36 names and put them into their own PAF File. Producing a "comma delimmited" file from the PAF file became a spreadsheet file that I could then organize into familes. Very Cool, but I digress.<br />In the new Familysearch, if you do a search for McAulay in Portnahaven, Argyll, Scotland, you get thousands of hits instead of 36! Narrow the seach to 100's of hits by finding the database for Scotland births. Still I digress.<br />After much fiddling around, I discovered how to get the families I wanted. Actually I like it better than the old way...Here's how: Do a marriage search. Exa: John McAulay and Ann McArthur in Portnahaven, Argyll, Scotland. Narrow the search by selecting Scotland BIRTHS. All the names come up as John and Ann as the parents. <br />Hooray! Now, we just need a way to select and download the names we want.Karl and Sandra Jarvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10806159967774388453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-89845854281149580992011-01-11T22:57:28.110-07:002011-01-11T22:57:28.110-07:00Hello. I discovered your blog due to a post on twi...Hello. I discovered your blog due to a post on twitter about this article. Glad to have found you.Katihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10920666964718705819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-30789981322920962762011-01-11T20:08:24.049-07:002011-01-11T20:08:24.049-07:00I do miss the Parish and Vital Records Index, also...I do miss the Parish and Vital Records Index, also Batch IDs.DearMYRTLEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15684472865240981715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-5641289027215068592011-01-11T16:03:34.744-07:002011-01-11T16:03:34.744-07:00As above, "... endorse the source issues ... ...As above, "... endorse the source issues ... identified in 'Please, Let’s Not Wiki FamilySearch Historical Record Collection Sources,' on the They Came Before blog."<br /> <br />Thank you for signaling the "we've got a problem" alarm. <br /><br />Going on several weeks--the sources are still not listed correctly for this single database. <br /><br />I've continued to dialog with FamilySearch volunteers about the problem on the New Hampshire State Deaths wiki discussion page. <br />https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Talk:New_Hampshire_Statewide_Deaths_%28FamilySearch_Historical_Records%29<br /><br />Oh, and yes, the Historical Record Collection sources are still subject to, more-or-less, public editing.GeneJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02627640410669978708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-21911074541589999152011-01-11T09:48:04.331-07:002011-01-11T09:48:04.331-07:00"*Where* in the Historical Record Collections..."*Where* in the Historical Record Collections?"<br /><br />I'm not going to go through more than a couple to check but,<br /> - elements of batch C040147 from the IGI appear in HR Collection "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975"<br /> - elements of batch C112821 appear in HR Collection Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950<br /> - elements of batch C112823 appear in HR Collection Scotland Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950<br /> - elements of batch M112825 appear in HR Collection Scotland Marriages, 1561-1910<br /><br />So from this it appears they have been split up into different HR Collections and put into one appropriate to the data. Personally, I think it's rather more useful than just one collection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-75500912362543457322011-01-11T09:38:17.899-07:002011-01-11T09:38:17.899-07:00Thanks AI for such an informed series of articles ...Thanks AI for such an informed series of articles on the IGI. I had no idea of the complexity involved with the history of the records, their structure and presentation.<br /><br />The new FamilySearch is obviously a step forward but needs some refinement. Thanks must go to the LDS, its members and transcribers for their dedication and making the index available to the outside world. Just how difficult would research be without FamilySearch.<br /><br />One area I found most useful in the old IGI was the GEDCOM download facilty. I have used this on several occasions to "reconstruct" families which in turn enabled that wall to falldown! The 50 record limit on downloads was always a hinderance, but one that I could live with. I do hope that this facility is not lost in the new FamilySearch?ancestralwormholehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03669093257942210516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-67008946036989953972011-01-11T09:08:52.695-07:002011-01-11T09:08:52.695-07:00This series of articles has been well worth your e...This series of articles has been well worth your effort. Thank you.<br /><br />It's good to know that I don't have to worry about member submissions in the HRC. I went to the catalog with the source film number to get the appropriate name for the source. I hope that is just a temporary workaround.Grandma Shirleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03826836436719529255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-67270198750105289042011-01-11T06:38:33.816-07:002011-01-11T06:38:33.816-07:00"This extracted data has been published as Hi..."This extracted data has been published as Historical Record Collections (HRC) on FamilySearch.org."<br /><br />*Where* in the Historical Record Collections? Searching the entire HRC produces results from hundreds of record collections (520), not just from the extracted records. As people commenting on this blog before have said, the extracted records need to be in their *own* separate collection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-58840031000108413282011-01-11T05:48:58.980-07:002011-01-11T05:48:58.980-07:00Regarding the New FamilySearch, you mention: "...Regarding the New FamilySearch, you mention: "Until then, ask family history center (FHC) staff to perform searches for you."<br /><br />However, many of the FHC staff members are volunteers who are not LDS members and, therefore, have no access to New Family Search. <br /><br />So, please be patient with the FHC staff members too!Cathy-0https://www.blogger.com/profile/05695630105094440018noreply@blogger.com