Two Techniques for Healing Broken Links

Last Friday I presented two citations composed solely of broken URLs and I challenged you to write full citations for them. (See “Darned Image Citations.”) The two can be used to illustrate two different techniques for recovering from broken URLs.

Internet Archive

When you have a URL for a page that no longer exists, sometimes you can find an archived copy of the page. Use the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive has made copies of many freely accessible pages that are not from the “dark web.” Copy a broken URL, go to https://archive.org/, and paste it into the Wayback Machine. Select the desired year and then select the date on the calendar. Sometimes the page is intelligible and sometimes it is not.

The first citation in last week’s challenge consisted of this naked URL: http://www.mocavo.com/1910-United-States-Census/126211/004973415/607. The Mocavo website was deleted when Findmypast bought Mocavo. Mocavo was a free site, so the Wayback Machine might have archived it. But as part of a database, the Wayback Machine almost certainly did not archive it.

In fact, we find the page was archived twice. Neither one displays the image, but they display enough index data that we can search for and locate an image on another website. It is obvious from the URL that the page was from the 1910 U.S. Census. (As an aside, I’ve noticed that early FamilySearch DGS numbers all had nine digits beginning with 004 so the ID in the URL looks suspiciously like a FamilySearch DGS number.) The first three names on the page are

Name	Relation to Head of Household	Gender	Race	Birth Year	Birthplace	Father's Birthplace	Mother's Birthplace
Blanche Black	Daughter	Female	White	1884	Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania
Robert Black	Son	Male	White	1892	Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania
Mildred Cornelus	Niece	Female	White	1890	Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania

With this information, I can do an exact search of the 1910 census on FamilySearch.org for Robert Black, son, born 1892 in Pennsylvania with Blanche Black in the household. This matches only one person (who, by the way, appears on an image in digital folder number 004973415):

     1. 1910 U.S. census, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, population schedule, Huntingdon Borough, 2nd ward, enumeration district 67, sheet 6-A, family [124], line 2, Robert [Black]; digital image, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9RVF-13K : 11 November 2015), Pennsylvania > Huntingdon > Huntingdon Ward 2 > ED 67 > image 11 of 34.

Some notes:

• I don’t often cite line number, but this is one of those odd ducks where the family is divided across two pages. This child appears near the top of the page and is not identified by family name. Citing the line number removes ambiguity.
• I didn’t include the NARA publication number and roll number. I’m feeling that no one will use my citation to go look at microfilm. If they want to, there are multiple ways to determine roll number. As microfilm census access evaporates, microfilm information becomes unnecessary and census citations will evolve accordingly.
• I didn’t include the FamilySearch collection name. I figure most people can find the 1910 U.S. census on FamilySearch.org without knowing the exact name. Besides, the URL will take them directly to the image within the collection.
• I cited the URL of the image because it has “ark:” in it. That means FamilySearch intends to keep that URL from breaking.
• I cited the publication date rather than the access date. As a general rule, cite publication date when available and access date when not.

 

URL Poking

When a URL breaks, sometimes looking at the URL gives useful information. One URL convention specifies the main address of a page before a question mark, followed by options separated by the ampersand (&) character.

The second URL in last week’s challenge was a broken URL from Ancestry.com: http://www.ancestry.com/search/io/browse.asp?c=8 & state=Vermont & county=Addison & township=Bristol & ed= & roll=M33_126 & STAbrv=VT & startimg=30 & endimg=42 & rp=42 & hash=1670352374 & width=2877 & height=5089 & levels=5 & colorspace=Grayscale

We see among the options, these values:

• state=Vermont
• county=Addison
• township=Bristol
• ed=
• roll=M33_126
• STAbrv=VT
• startimg=30
• endimg=42
• rp=42

Census microfilm junkies will recognize M33 as a NARA microfilm publication number. Google indicates that [nara microfilm publication m33] is the 1820 U.S. Federal census. The challenge was to cite Pearis Raymond. I can do an exact search of the 1820 census on Ancestry.com for Pearis Raymond living in Bristol, Addison, Vermont. This matches only one person:

     2. 1820 U.S. census, Addison County, Vermont, population schedule, Bristol, page 69-B, 3rd name from bottom, Pearis Raymond; digital image, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7734 : updated 31 May 2013), Vermont > Addison > Bristol > image 9 of 9.

Notes:

• For the same reasons as the FamilySearch.org citation, I left off the microfilm information and exact database title.
• I went out on a limb and cited the URL of the database rather than the home page. Ancestry has never made any public commitment to make any of their URLs persistent. If it works, it’s an added convenience. If it doesn’t, most people can still get to Ancestry.com.
• I questioned whether to specify an access date or a publication date since most people don’t know how to find publication dates of Ancestry’s databases. (Look up the database in the catalog and hover over the title.) In the end I figured the publication (update) date was still more useful than an access date.

The final challenge was to adapt what was essentially a microfilm citation to reference Lewis Rapp on FamilySearch.org. There was a wrinkle. FamilySearch uses a bad index of that page that they obtained from Fold3. Fold3 had the illegible image, so Lewis Rapp was indexed as “[illegible Rapp].” Good image; bad index. Until just a few weeks ago, Ancestry had the opposite: bad image, good index. Now they have the superior offering.

     3.  1860 U.S. census, Jackson County, Ohio, population schedule, Scioto Township, p. 62, family 426, Lewis Rapp; NARA microfilm publication M634, roll 992; digital image, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GBSD-9PGS : 8 April 2016), Ohio > Jackson > Scioto Township > image 27 of 38.

Of course, these are not the only acceptable citations. I’ve noted some of my judgement calls; you may have made different ones. Just keep in mind: Citations communicate concisely, with clarity and consistency.

Darned Image Citations

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Let me briefly talk about two aspects of citations to online images.

I have seen citations that consisted of a URL only. I’m guilty of it myself (at least in my working notes). Is a URL sufficient? Consider the following two examples, taken from actual source references to the U.S. census. Neither one still works! A naked URL is insufficient because links rot.

     1.  http://www.mocavo.com/1910-United-States-Census/126211/004973415/607
     2. http://www.ancestry.com/search/io/browse.asp?c=8&state=Vermont&county=Addison&township=Bristol&ed=&roll=M33_126&STAbrv=VT&startimg=30&endimg=42&rp=42&hash=1670352374&width=2877&height=5089&levels=5&colorspace=Grayscale

The U.S. Federal census is now ubiquitously available on major genealogy websites. If you viewed it online, is it necessary to specify the one you used? Consider the following example.

     3.  1860 U.S. census, Jackson County, Ohio, population schedule, Scioto Township, p. 62; NARA microfilm publication M634, roll 992.

Depending on which website you go to, you might see this

or this

or this

.

If you don’t specify the website, others may not be able to see what you saw!

Darned image citations!

P.S. For extra credit, create complete citations for these three sources. For citation 1, cite Robert Black; for 2, cite Pearis Raymond; for 3, cite Lewis Rapp on FamilySearch.org.

Full URLs in Citations?

When citing a web page, one must decide whether or not to use a full URL or a URL to the home page. One usually cites the website home page and includes the additional information necessary to guide users to the target page. Citing the full URL is a good alternative under two conditions: 1. The URL is long lived. 2. The URL is not too long. The longer the URL, the harder it is for a user to enter it without making a typographical error.¹

How do you know if a URL is long lived?

URLs suffer from a process called link rot. For various reasons, they cease to work. Companies cease to exist or rename or reorganize websites. Some URLs are set to expire within minutes. Others never work anywhere but on your computer in your current browser. How might you know? Try copying and pasting the URL into a different browser. If it fails, you know right away it is not long lived.

For example, NARA included descriptive pamphlets at the beginning of their microfilm publications that sometimes contain rich information. Some are available online only through the NARA microfilm store. In the store, the product page for each microfilm contains a link (“View Important Publication Details”) to download the pamphlet. Unfortunately, the URL of the pamphlet (such as the one for M1328) is nearly impossible to obtain, is seven lines long, and won’t work again. And the URL of a product page expires immediately; even refreshing the page sends you back to the welcome page. The only way to access a pamphlet in the store is through a lengthy set of instructions.

Another class of URLs that fails to work are URLs of records found using databases at your public library or through their website.

Some publishers provide URLs that they intend to work for a considerable amount of time. How long? Let’s say they will work almost to eternity. However, remember that “Internet time” runs much faster than regular time. “Eeternity” is no more than 30 years away.

What are some of the systems and websites providing long lived URLs?

PURL and the GPO

The U.S. Government Publishing Office utilizes a system called PURL (persistent uniform resource locator) for some online publications.

As part of the online dissemination of Federal information, the FDLP uses persistent uniform resource locators (PURLs) to provide stable URLs to online Federal information. When a user clicks on a PURL, the request is routed to the Federal publication. As Federal agencies redesign and remove information from their sites, GPO staff reroute PURL entries to the appropriate location.²

For example, the PURL for the tri-fold brochure, USCIS Genealogy Program, is http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo64668. When you enter that URL into your browser, the GPO server reroutes you to the current location of the brochure, where ever that might be. Similarly, http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo26239 sends you to Guide to Tracing Your American Indian Ancestry. Apparently, GPO even supports some government publications on non-government websites. http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo43102 sends you to a poster, National Atlas of the United States of America. Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, on the University of Iowa’s website.

The GPO PURL system will work if resources haven’t been altogether removed from the Internet and if GPO personnel have the time to update the links. I would use PURL links in a citation unless they were too long.

ARK and FamilySearch

FamilySearch provides long-lived URLs for its historical records, record images, IGI, and personal genealogies. Any URL containing “ark:” (archival resource key) or “pal:” (persistent archival link) is expected to work for a long time. I consider these safe to use in citations. Also, I think it is safe to remove the question mark and everything past it.

URLs to collections, persons in Family Tree, photos, user uploaded documents, wiki articles, and other pages don’t contain the “ark:” characters so I don’t consider them long lived.

LOC DIGITAL IDS and Handles

Online items on the Library of Congress website often have a permanent URL containing a digital ID.

To find a permanent URL for an item first look at the bottom of the item record. In some collections, you will find shorter permanent addresses in the "Digital ID" field of the item record. The URLs begin with "http://hdl..." and are called "handles" or "handle addresses."³

The URL https://www.loc.gov/item/mfd.45004/ currently leads to three death certificates from the Frederick Douglass family. But that URL may not work in the future. On that page one can find a digital ID in URL form: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mfd.45004. If you use the digital ID URL, the LOC computers will interpret it and generate a URL that currently works. Go to it and you find yourself back at https://www.loc.gov/resource/mfd.45004. LOC has the latitude of changing the latter URL, but the digital ID URL is longer lived. I consider it safe to use in a citation.

The URL https://www.loc.gov/item/fsa1998021539/PP/ used to point to an instance of a famous Dorothea Lange photograph (shown at the top of this article).⁴ That link is broken now and I don’t know the digital ID, so I am unable to return to that webpage. You can see the original, unretouched photograph using digital ID URL http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.12883.

CONTENTdm and Reference URLs

CONTENTdm is software many universities use to display their digital collections. It has a reputation for links that fail. Let’s say I search the Robert Hawley Milne papers from Lewis University on the CARLI digital collections website and find the birth certificate of Flora Jane Putnam. The URL displayed by my browser is http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/lew_rhm/id/311/rec/4. It is not guaranteed to work if I change browsers or clear my cookies or use it tomorrow. If I poke around, I find a link labeled “Reference URL.” I click it and am rewarded with this URL: http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/cdm/ref/collection/lew_rhm/id/311. If you wish to share a URL to Flora’s birth certificate, shre this one. But I wouldn’t use it in a citation. Why?

If an institution switches from CONTENTdm to another software solution, CONTENTdm reference links will break. This is true for the software systems employed by most universities and small- to medium-sized archives. That brings us full circle.

Conclusion

It is often better to cite a homepage and include information inherent to a digital artifact—information that is likely to survive a switch from one software solution to another. That information can then be used with the search function. Digital identifiers, titles, and author/creators are information likely to survive.

In the Flora Jane Putnam example, the digital artifact title is “Birth Certificate for Flora Jane Putnam” and the identifier is “Flora Jane Putnam Birth Certificate 1893.tif.” One or both of these are likely to survive. I could cite the certificate and the digital artifact like this:

Illinois Department of Public Health, certified copy of delayed record of birth no. 201472, Flora Jane Putnam (1893); Robert Hawley Milne Papers; Canal and Regional History Collection; Lewis University Library, Romeoville, IL; digital image, (http://www.lewisu.edu : accessed 18 March 2016), search the library’s Milne digital collection for "Flora Jane Putnam Birth Certificate 1893".

My personal practice is to use complete URLs sparingly and, if there is any doubt as to their persistence, include enough other information that a user can find the webpage even after the URL has rotted. 

 

---

Portions of this article were adapted, with permission, from a post made on the BCG ACTION mailing list.

SOURCES

     1.  Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, third edition, Adobe Digital Edition, (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing, 2015), 59, 269, 283, 597, 626, 767.
     2.  Federal Depository Library Program Persistent URL Home Page (http://purl.access.gpo.gov : accessed 19 March 2016).
     3.  “Frequently Asked Questions,” The Library of Congress: American Memory (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem : accessed 19 March 2016), Bookmarking [and] Linking.
     4.  Dorothea Lange, “Destitute pea pickers in California. Mother of seven children. Age thirty-two. Nipomo, California,” 1936; retouched photograph of Florence Thompson with left thumb removed, LC-USF34-T01-009058-C (b&w film dup. neg.); Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives collection; Prints and Photographs Division; Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; digital image (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsa.8b29516 : accessed 19 March 2016).

Artifact Citations

I came across a beautiful sampler on the Smithsonian’s website. I thought it would make a great example for an artifact citation. One possible format for an artifact reference note^a is

     1.  Creator, title or description, artifact type, creation date, archival identification; archive name, archive location. Optional explanatory notes.

For the Smithsonian sampler the corresponding citation is

     2.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” sampler, 1835, id number 1983.0617.03, American Samplers collection; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C. Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

One principle of citation writing is that redundant information can be eliminated if the citation remains clear. Notice in note 2 that the title identifies the artifact as a sampler. There is no need to repeat it as the artifact type.

      3.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” 1835, id number 1983.0617.03, American Samplers collection; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C. Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

But this sampler is not available for public examination at the Smithsonian. Most of us can access it only via the high quality image on the Smithsonian website. Derivative copies (be they images or textual) of artifacts accessed via a website require a layered citation.^b In the case of a textual derivative, the citation layer for the online item proceeds the citation layer of the original. In the case of a high-quality image derivative, the citation layer for the original typically proceeds that of the derivative:

     4.  Citation to the original; citation to the online item.

The citation to the online item—devoid of provenance—would follow the pattern for a separately-authored chapter of a published book.^c

     5.  Item creator, item title, item type, website title (URL : accessed date), navigation instructions.

For our sampler in particular, the citation to the online item could look like this:

     6.  Smithsonian Museum of American History, “Sarah A. Skillen’s Sampler,” digital image, Smithsonian: The National Museum of American History (http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1096007 : accessed 22 August 2015), click the thumbnail.

Put together, the citation looks as follows. I’ve color coded the layer containing the citation to the online item.

     7.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” 1835, id number 1983.0617.03, American Samplers collection; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; Smithsonian Museum of American History, “Sarah A. Skillen’s Sampler,” digital image, Smithsonian: The National Museum of American History (http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1096007 : accessed 22 August 2015), click the thumbnail. Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

Here we again invoke the principle of eliminating redundancy, again. The title of the artifact and the title of the online item are both “Sarah A. Skillin’s Sampler.” The latter can be dropped. The item creator, Smithsonian Museum of American History, is redundant with the title of the website, so the former can be dropped. That leaves:

     8.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” 1835, id number 1983.0617.03, American Samplers collection; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; digital image, Smithsonian: The National Museum of American History (http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1096007 : accessed 22 August 2015), click the thumbnail. Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

You’ll notice I didn’t drop the name of the artifact creator, Sarah A. Skillen, even though it appears in the artifact title. That was a judgment call. Does “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler” mean Sarah created the sampler or merely owned it? I thought it ambiguous enough to warrant leaving Sarah’s name as artifact creator.

Reference note 8 uses the complete URL of the sampler. Citing the URL of the item versus citing the home page URL is another judgment call. Item URLs are often short lived. Home page URLs are typically valid longer. Another way to cite the image is to use the home page and instructions on how to navigate from the stated URL to the image. Here are some alternatives:

     9.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” 1835, id number 1983.0617.03, American Samplers collection; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; digital image, Smithsonian: The National Museum of American History (http://americanhistory.si.edu/ : accessed 22 August 2015), search for “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler.” Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

   10.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” 1835, id number 1983.0617.03; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; digital image, Smithsonian: The National Museum of American History (http://americanhistory.si.edu/ : accessed 22 August 2015), path: Collections > Object Groups > American Samplers > Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler.” Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

   11.  Sarah A. Skillen, “Sarah A. Skillin's Sampler,” 1835, id number 1983.0617.0; Smithsonian National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; digital image, Smithsonian: Seriously Amazing (http://www.si.edu/ : accessed 22 August 2015), search for “American Samplers.” Gift of Mrs. Robert B. Stephens.

Note 9 cites the home page of the National Museum of American History and navigates via a search. Note 11 navigates from that same page, but using a click path. Note 11 cites the home page of the Smithsonian itself and navigates via a search. In this last case, interestingly, the title of the website changes. In all three notes, I dropped the instruction to “click the thumbnail.” This is another judgment call. Another principle of citation creation allows you to leave out information that is common knowledge. I decided that everyone knows that you click a thumbnail to get the full-size image.

One of the lessons to be learned here is that there is leeway in citation format.

What if this sampler was in a private collection? The basic citation format of note 1 can be adapted for private ownership. Without archival identification, the item must be described in greater detail. And describing the provenance is at least as important as an artifact under the control of a trusted archive. Since artifacts under private ownership are transitory, it is helpful to know what year the artifact was at the stated location.^d

   12.  Creator, generic description, artifact type, creation date, collection identification; privately held by owner, owner’s location, access year. Explanatory notes including greater description and provenance.

If I owned the sampler and gave you access to it sometime in 2015, the note could look like this:

   13.  Sarah A. Skillen, Simeon and Nancy (Adams) Skillen family sampler, 1835, artifact collection; privately held by Ancestry Insider, [address for private use,] Salt Lake City, Utah, 2015. The names and birth dates of Simeon, Nancy, and children, and the death date of Silas are embroidered, framed by flowering vines wrapped around columns, on a linen cloth measuring 21 1/8 x 17 5/8 inches. The present owner obtained the sampler under dubious circumstances from the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, which received it as a gift in 1982 from Mrs. Robert B. Stephens, Potomac, Maryland. It is unknown how Mrs. Stephens obtained it.

So, what do you think? Questions? Comments? How would you have cited it?

---

Sources

     a.  Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, 3d ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing, 2015), 124-5.
     b.  Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources, 58. Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 19: Layered Citations Work like Layered Clothing,” Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-19-layered-citations-work-layered-clothing : accessed 22 August 2015).
     c.  Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources, 57.
     d.  Ibid., 138-9.

FamilySearch Breaks, Fixes Image URLs

Several weeks ago users of the FamilySearch.org website reported that bookmarked URLs to images on FamilySearch.org stopped working. Users received this error:

A year ago Robert Kehrer, FamilySearch product manager explained that “[links to] FamilySearch person records and their associated images are built on a technology called Persistent Archival Links [PALs]. That is what the pal portion of the record URL means (ex. https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X79S-N78). This is a technology that makes it so that the links should not change.”

In reporting the error above, “GeneJ” complained about “PALs that aren't PALs for long.” Users were angry and fearful.

Randy Wilson, rock star and FamilySearch Information Architect, responded to the report. He said, “This looks like a bug. I will get some engineers working on it.” A couple days later the bug was fixed and old URLs worked as expected.

Wilson explained why the URLs stopped working. FamilySearch had just switched the system it uses to hold records. This caused the URLs of all its images to change. An image that used to be

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-36329-6301-93?cc=2106411&wc=M9QJ-NDD:n306540615

became

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-36329-6301-93?cc=2106411&wc=MCBG-FW5:361613201,361916501

and the old URL stopped working.

Trouble was, the old URLs were supposed to continue to work. The guts of the PAL (the part before the question mark) didn’t change, so an old URL was supposed to still work. It didn’t. FamilySearch fixed it. Everyone’s (mostly) happy now.

Wilson also revealed that this change won’t be the last. In the coming months FamilySearch will switch from PALs to industry standard ARKs: Archival Resource Keys. He said old PALs will continue to work.

Citation Goobledeegook This makes me think about some citation principles and why you should always copy and paste the FamilySearch suggested image citation rather than just the URL. Persistent identifiers are not persistent. Redundant information in citations is sometimes a good thing. I have a family group sheet that lists one source: a Family History Library film number. The problem is, the FHL changed its numbering scheme since that sheet was authored. I have a PAF file that lists a single source: a Pedigree Resource File (PRF) submission identification number. The problem is, FamilySearch changed its numbering scheme when it republished the PRF on the current website. There are citations consisting of nothing more than Dewey call numbers for libraries now using LOC call numbers. Today’s ISBN numbers will be replaced by tomorrow’s ID du jour. Using a lone identification number (or URL) in lieu of a full citation is short sighted. Redundancy in citations is generally avoided to avoid overly long citations. But in its suggested image citations, FamilySearch is redundant. Consider this citation: "Massachusetts, Land Records, 1620-1986", images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-36329-6301-93 : accessed 12 Apr 2014), Essex > Deeds 1728-1731 vol 56-58 > image 554 of 792. It has both the PAL URL and the bread crumb trail. If the image is moved from "Massachusetts, Land Records, 1620-1986" to another collection, the PAL will get you to the image no matter what collection it is in. If the PAL breaks, the bread crumb trail will still get you to the image. If the bread crumb trail is changed, the PAL will still work. If several of these change, there is enough raw metadata that with some effort you will be able to relocate the image. FamilySearch has made copying the image citation convenient. Click Show Citation and Copy Citation. You can then paste the citation where ever it is needed. One day you will be glad you did.

Attaching Records to FamilySearch Family Tree

From the tree side of FamilySearch, it is possible to launch a search on the records side. Click on “Search Records” in the Research Help box. It is located on the right hand side below the Print box and above the change history. The feature apparently fills in first name, last name, birth year, and birth place, and launches the search.

Conversely, from the record side it is possible to add a source on the tree side.

At the 2013 BYU Conference on Family History and Genealogy, Robert Kehrer of FamilySearch talked about attaching records to FamilySearch Family Tree. If you are logged in when viewing a record detail page there is a button on the right labeled “Attach to Family Tree.”

When selected, FamilySearch.org searches Family Tree for possible matches. If correct, select one of the possible matches.

If the correct person is not listed, there are several options for finding them. You can click “Search Family Tree” and specify your own search parameters. Or you can click History List and select the person from among recently viewed persons. Or you can enter the person’s ID.

Once a person is selected, FamilySearch.org displays the information from the tree for comparison with the record:

This popup also allows you to specify the reason for attaching the source.

Once the record is attached to the tree, the attach button is replaced with a link which takes you directly to the person in the tree.

The Attach to Family Tree button is not available for images. However, images can be saved to the source box and subsequently attached to a person.

External Sources

Kehrer also demonstrated attaching a source from another website, He used a record from Ancestry.com. What I found most interesting was the concept of copying and pasting the four fields directly from the page.

I’m not certain I’ve presented number 4 the way he did. Another approach would be to divide what I’ve marked as number 3 on the Ancestry.com, placing the original data source into number 3 and the first part of the citation into number 4.

The URL (number 2) can be pretty hairy. To simplify it, save the record to your shoebox, then click on the record in the shoebox. The resulting URL is much, much simpler.

A severe limitation of FamilySearch sources is the lack of italics. When the citation is copied and pasted from Ancestry.com, the italics are lost.

As a class member pointed out, only those with an Ancestry.com subscription will be able to see the source on Ancestry.com. You may wish to make a note to that effect in either section 3 or 4. Kehrer pointed out that Ancestry.com is available in family history centers, the Family History Library, and some local libraries. Be prepared to edit the URL to adapt it from one to another. Here’s the way the first part of the URL will look.

• www.ancestry.com – Use this form for personal subscriptions. I don’t know if still the case, but I think it is also used on the BYU campus wireless.
• www.ancestrylibrary.com – Use at participating libraries and institutions.
• www.ancestryinstitution.com – Use at the Family History Library. I think this is also the address used at a Family History Center.

FamilySearch is working on several features that will make saving source citations easier, according to Kehrer. Soon it will be possible to link an uploaded image of a source to the citation. FamilySearch is working on a bookmarklet that would simplify creating a source citation for another website page. FamilySearch is working on a way to easily create sources for all the members of a census household.

Having sources and citing them is fundamental to genealogy. In a shared tree like FamilySearch Family Tree, it is absolutely essential. FamilySearch has made it much easier with the latest features on FamilySearch.org.

Capturing Ancestry.com Sources in FamilySearch Family Tree

Remember the Ancestry Toolbar? It was an add-on for Internet Explorer and Firefox that allowed easy linking of a web page to a person in your Ancestry tree. Last November, Ancestry.com deactivated the service. I was sorry to see it go. I loved that thing.

Now a company has introduced a similar tool for attaching a web source to a person in your FamilySearch tree. RecordSeek a browser add in (bookmarklet) that adds the address of a webpage, record, or document as a source in the FamilySearch Family Tree source box.

Installation is a drag… er, I mean easy. Go to www.recordseek.com. Drag the Tree Connect button to your bookmark bar. (After installation it changes from a big green button, to a regular looking bookmark.)

To create a source from a web page, visit the webpage. Highlight any text you wish to appear in the source notes. Click the bookmark. A window pops up that allows you to login to FamilySearch. Tree connect then creates a source and fills in the title, citation, and description. Select a source box folder, click Save and you’re ready to attach the source from your source box to someone in your tree.

In the notes (record description) is a Tree Connection advertisement. It is safe to delete it and enter a description of your own.

I have a concern about the citation. This is more than a nitpick. The URL is enclosed in angle brackets (< and >). Because these symbols have a special meaning on the web, they can cause problems in some situations and their use in a citation has been discontinued by the Chicago Manual of Style. Evidence Style also discourages their use. If it were me, I’d delete them. I could nitpick on the rest of the citation, but I won’t.

OK. Maybe I will nit a little bit. I encourage the use of Evidence Style for genealogists. Say what you will but it is the only citation style that addresses derivative sources, that cites both online derivative and offline original, and that characterizes the strength of the source. In Evidence Style, cite webpages like a book. (See “Citation Principles: Websites are Like a Book.”) OK. Enough said.

Now about saving Ancestry.com records…

Citing a subscription website as a source is problematic; there is no way around it. People without a subscription won’t be able to see it. Tough. Just cite it. Of course, if a record is available on a free website as well, it might be worth the extra effort to cite the free source. After all, the day may come when you yourself won’t have access.

If you are at the Family History Library or a participating library it may be possible to take an Ancestry.com URL someone saved in a source and view it without a subscription. Look near the beginning of the address, the part just before the .com. Change it as follows to indicate where you are trying to view the record:

• .ancestry.com – for viewing with a subscription
• .ancestryinstitution.com – for viewing at the Family History Library (or FHC, once properly connected)
• .ancestrylibrary.com – for viewing at a participating library or institution.

An Ancestry.com web address of a record can also be shortened quite a bit. Save the record to your shoebox. Click on the record in the shoebox. Now the URL is much shorter.

For example, http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?ti=0&indiv=try&db=nypl&h=4025251781 is the shortened form of

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?ssrc=pt_t842291_p-1821419946_kpgz0q3d32799_m1&srchb=r&gss=angs-c&rank=1&tid=842291&pid=-1821419946&gsfn=Albert&gsln=Einstein&msbdy=1879&msddy=1955&msbpn__ftp=Ulm%2c+Donaukreis%2c+W%C3%BCrttemberg%2c+Germany&msdpn__ftp=Princeton%2c+Mercer%2c+New+Jersey%2c+USA&cp=0&cpxt=0&msrpn__ftp=Berlin%2c+Germany&msrpn1__ftp=Princeton%2c+Mercer%2c+New+Jersey%2c+USA&msrpn2__ftp=Germany&msgdy=1903&msfng=Hermann&msfns=Einstein&msmng=Pauline&msmns=Koch&mssng0=Mileva&mssns0=Mari%C4%87&mssng1=Elsa+Einstein&mssns1=L%C3%B6wenthal&pcat=40&h=4025251781&recoff=8+9&db=nypl&indiv=1

Do this before using RecordSeek or copying the address to paste into another tree program.

RecordSeek is a definite addition to my toolbox. Go out and give it (and FamilySearch Family Tree) a try.

RecordSeek is a FamilySearch certified product from Real-Time Collaboration. Thank you, James Tanner, for alerting me to this tool.

Monday Mailbox: More Mythology

In response to my article, “FamilySearch Values Sources,” I received this comment.

Dear Ancestry Insider,

I Googled “world population vital records” and came across an interesting chart on page 3 of: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/WhoCounts2.pdf (inadequate source - - right?) The chart indicates that 70 (100-30) percent of the countries in the world have inadequate or no birth records. Americas 47 percent, Africa 95 percent, and in South-East Asia 99 percent of the countries have inadequate or no birth records.

Should we stop attempting to build a one-world tree where so many of the branches will, by some, be considered “Mythology”? Obviously the answer is a resounding “No”. Will accredited genealogists need to get used to seeing a high percentage of the branches in the tree unsourced? They will have to answer that for themselves.

Perhaps we need to consider replacing the statement, “Genealogy without sources is Mythology” with a statement such as “Genealogy without sources is 100 percent better than No Genealogy”. At least there will be a tree where the tree decorators can come along and hang on a source ornament (if one exists).

Signed,
Demer *
Logan FamilySearch Library

Dear Demer,

I’m sure I must be misunderstanding your comments in some regard. Let me address each point in turn and you can leave a comment explaining where I’ve misunderstood.

I Googled “world population vital records” and came across an interesting chart on page 3 of: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/WhoCounts2.pdf (inadequate source - - right?) The chart indicates that 70 (100-30) percent of the countries in the world have inadequate or no birth records. Americas 47 percent, Africa 95 percent, and in South-East Asia 99 percent of the countries have inadequate or no birth records.

I assume you are aware that other sources exist besides vital records. You probably know how recently vital record laws were enacted in this country and have research strategies you teach patrons of the Logan FamilySearch Library for ancestors born before then.

I concede your point that some people lived but were never recorded in any source. I trust you are not suggesting that we try to account for them. That is exactly what Abigail did. (I’ll leave off her last name, even though you can look it up in New FamilySearch.) Her submission, father to son, is given below. Birth and death years are in parentheses.

• Salvador Chaparro (1002-)
• Jacinto Chaparro (1025-)
• Manuel Chaparro (1050-)
• Paublino Chaparro (1075-)
• Moroni Chaparro (1001-) [Oops. Perhaps Abigail intended “1100.”]
• Alma Chaparro (1125-)
• Abinadi Chaparro (1150-)
• Joseph Chaparro (1175-)
• Laban Chaparro (1200-)
• Christopher Chaparro (1225-)
• Ishmael Chaparro (1250-)
• Bethuel Chaparro (1277-)
• Abel Chaparro (1301-)
• Jesus Chaparro (1326-)
• Jacobo Chaparro (1351-)
• Elohim Chaparro (1375-)
• Aron Chaparro (1301-) [Another typo. “1401.”]
• Adan Chaparro (1426-)
• Christopher Chaparro (1451-)
• Oriel Orlando Chaparro (1477-)
• Joselin Chaparro (1500-)
• Portillo Chaparro (1525-)
• Nahor Chaparro (1550-)
• Jacinto Chaparro (1574-)
• Marbolin Chaparro (1599-)
• Kabul Chaparro (1725-) [Dates start to get strange here.]
• Gery Chaparro (1750-)
• Elohim Chaparro (1700-)
• Nicoldemus Chaparro (1725-)
• Juan Jose Chaparro (1750-1825 or 1825-1892)
• Gorge Chaparro (1775-1850 or 1814-)
• Marcos Chaparro (1837-1890)
• Tomasa Chaparro (1867-1914)
• Paublino Chaparro (1895-1981)

One can argue that each of the people in this tree really did exist because every son had to have a father. However, notice that each generation is separated by 25 years and some names are inexplicably from the Book of Mormon. It is not surprising that no sources are provided, as no records exist for some of these time periods. One must assume that this information is fraudulent.

Should we stop attempting to build a one-world tree where so many of the branches will, by some, be considered “Mythology”? Obviously the answer is a resounding “No”.

You are certainly right that some will consider Abigail’s branch to be mythology. I hope you are part of that group. Let’s attempt to build a one-world tree, but let’s do it with sources, not mythology.

Will accredited genealogists need to get used to seeing a high percentage of the branches in the tree unsourced? They will have to answer that for themselves.

Slamming accredited genealogists does nothing to advance your argument.

Perhaps we need to consider replacing the statement, “Genealogy without sources is Mythology” with a statement such as “Genealogy without sources is 100 percent better than No Genealogy”.

I respectfully disagree. Abigail’s genealogy is not 100 percent better. It is 100 percent worse.

At least there will be a tree where the tree decorators can come along and hang on a source ornament (if one exists).

You’ve missed one of the most important, driving factors for the creation of the tree: eliminating the duplication of research. Why make someone else duplicate your research to find the source you used? If you didn’t make up your information, why wouldn’t you specify your sources?

Some people will argue that Abigail’s submission is an aberration, that most people aren’t fabricating genealogies. More pernicious than Abigail’s submission is the wrong information that isn’t obviously wrong. Most are innocent mistakes, but the intent of the submitter doesn’t change the effort necessary to detect and correct the errors.

Help me out here Demer. I know you don’t want a tree with fabricated information. I know you don’t want people to withhold the sources of their information. I hope you know that vital records are not the only sources that can be specified. I know you don’t want to force others to duplicate research just to specify the sources that the submitter could have specified themselves. What am I missing?

Signed,
--The Insider

FamilySearch Values Sources?

I mentioned Monday that FamilySearch has a dubious past when it comes to sources. Fortunately, FamilySearch’s current product managers get it.

• One major design goal of Family Tree is source-centricity.
• Citations have been added to records.
• Source Box has been added to Family Tree.
• Family Tree sources can be linked to records.

I’m an incrementalist, so I’m happy with this constant stream of improvements. Kudos to FamilySearch.

It has not always been so. Consider FamilySearch’s historical disregard for sources:

• Early Family group sheets: had no space for citations.
• Four generation program: family group sheets had miniscule space for citations.
• Individual and marriage entry forms: The source information listed on these forms was discarded when these forms were keyed into the Community Contributed IGI.
• The Parish and Vital Records List (PVRL): published on fiche, listed all the sources in the Community Indexed IGI. This information has been discarded.
• Early PAF: contained no structured citation support. Citations had to be typed into the notes.
• GEDCOM: doesn’t support transfer of structured citations without loss. (Maybe Randy Seaver can leave a comment with a link to the tests he ran.) Even though most of today’s family tree products support citations for dozens of source types, FamilySearch has gone years without adding support to the GEDCOM standard.
• Ancestral File: source information was discarded from patron submissions.
• TempleReady: no longer required sources for temple submissions. Worse, any source information present was discarded.
• Record collections: are published without coverage information. Records from multiple archives are stuck together into single collections and the source citations don’t identify the archives that particular records come from. Volume names are no where to be found. Images are displayed on screen and saved to disk without citations. Records are copied to the clipboard without citations. (Fortunately, enough information is given to get back to the online record.) Images are printed without citations. (Fortunately, enough information is given to get back to the online images, though not the offline originals.)
• new FamilySearch Tree (NFS): source lists do not use standard citation formats. If you’ve ever viewed an NFS source list report you can see the illegible consequences. Family Tree doesn’t support source list reports at all.
• NFS and Family Tree: do not require sources, even though the tree is intended for collaboration. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, NFS and Family Tree do not cite sources for information about temple work, presenting this all-important information without proof.
• Family Tree: doesn’t have the structured citation entry that desktop programs have.

And Suzanne’s complaint from Monday’s mailbox:

• NFS and Family Tree: do not support the transfer of sources to and from desktop programs.

Much still needs to be done. Some of these past mistakes will take years to overcome. Some are uncorrectable. Here’s hoping FamilySearch will never revert to its historical behavior because “genealogy without sources is mythology.”¹

---

¹ It is more than a little ironic that I don’t know the source for that quote.

Book Review: Evidence Explained, 2nd Edition

Has it been years since Genealogical Publishing provided me a review copy of Evidence Explained? I use it more than any other book they’ve sent, and I’ve neglected to write the review? Time to fix that.

Let me start by saying I don’t understand how anyone would hold onto another citation style instead of adopting Mills. Chapters 12-14 are equivalent to alternative styles. Chapters 3-11 cover new source types not handled by the other guys. Even chapters 12-14 cover new ground: derivative publications.

You could stick with your old citation style, the equivalent of chapters 12-14. But then you would have to spend hundreds of hours and talk to the dozens of experts Mills acknowledges in the book’s forward, experts familiar with the source types of chapters 3-11. They could tell you the minimum amount of citation information necessary for each new source type. Goldilocks wants these citations. You don’t want bloated citations. And you don’t want anemic ones either. But I digress…

You could do all that. But, why? Mills has already done it. Why would you not buy Evidence Explained?

Sure it’s big. Duh; it’s an encyclopedia. You’re not supposed to read it cover to cover. For citation basics, read chapter 2. Then refer to the remainder of the book on an as-need basis.

Chapter 1 is different. Read it beginning to end. Then reread it. Its information on evidence analysis is top notch.

Second Edition

As in any book of this size and complexity, there will have been many small errors. I’m not asking the publisher and they’re not telling the scope of those corrections. (Who knows. Maybe yours truly supplied one of the corrections. Perhaps one of my ancestor’s names is now immortalized in this valuable tome. But I digress…)

With advances in technology, even in the few years between the editions, Mills has had to tweak things. In section 2.33 (p. 57) Mills has added Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. In section 3.42 (pp. 154-5), instant messaging. Section 3.44 (pp. 156-8), Second Life. Section 10.6 (pp. 500-1), FamilySearch.org historical record collections. Section 14.25 (pp. 811-3), Twitter.

Care has been taken to minimize shifting of the page numbers of chapters and sections. The only one I noticed was Section 3.39; the title slipped from p. 152 back to 151.

To add the mention of FamilySearch’s publication of digitized microfilm on p. 53, a less important sentence was dropped. (Private note to the publisher: There is a small space between the 5 and the 3 that you should remove.)

For other changes, dropping text was avoided. Words were packed tighter on nearby pages and unused space at the end of the chapter was utilized.

The Past

This new edition preserves good things from the first. The gray-colored QuickCheck pages visually separate the various chapters when viewing the book edge-on.

As in the previous edition, Mills professionalism shows through in her reliance on experts to supply source materials. I love the instant messaging example from Pat Richley to Gordon Erickson on page. 155. Classy and fun.

There are some things I imagine this edition will not fix.

I worry some view the QuickCheck Models with an undeserved air of completeness. The models are a starting place, not an end-all. I find the QuickCheck Models are not always the ones I need the most. Of necessary, the models cover the breadth of representative citations.

I worry that most people think there is one and only one right citation. I think they don’t realize how much variability is allowed. Somehow the whole “Source List Arrangements” set of sections (2.47 to 2.52) goes over some people’s heads. And they don’t understand what Mills means when she gives alternatives like “If listed by family name” and “If listed by title of sampler.” (See 3.38 on p. 151.)

The Future

Further changes will be called for in future editions. For example, the imminent demise of the classic FamilySearch.org will precipitate several of the changes necessary in the next edition. The International Genealogical Index and Vital Records Indexes are going away. Their extracted records have been reorganized into separate geographic collections. For privacy protection, submitter information for Ancestral File and Pedigree Resource File has been replaced with pseudonymic identifiers. (Future submitters will be able to specify how much or little of their contact information is visible.)

More and more, change has become unchanging, unavoidable aspects of life. Like death and taxes.

If you want to keep up, upgrade to the second edition.

Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace Second Edition  6.0" x 9-ish", 885 pp., hardback. 2009. ISBN  978-0-8063-1806-6 Genealogical Publishing Company 1-800-296-6687, www.genealogical.com $59.95 (list)

Monday Mailbox: URL Citation Principles

I received the following in response to my article, “It’s Not My Fault! URL Citation Principles.”

Dear Ancestry Insider,

OK - some of us are OLD ladies, who have been grinding microfilm readers since before some of you geeks or nerds [whatever] were born.  What will those numbers tell us?  Yes, indeed, I have been missing some of *sources* of my printouts for quite a time now.  I have had to school myself to grab a pencil real fast.  I found a suspect English born great-aunt's christening in the right county in England, but being familiar with the IGI (even though it is generally a poor source) I deduce the source is the IGI.  Give us old ladies (and a few elderly gentlemen) some clues as to what we do with the numbers.  Is this in Mrs. Mills' book on Evidence (items from the internet)?

E.W.Wallace

Dear Evelyn,

You said “What will those numbers tell us?”  I guess turnabout is fair play because you’ve lost me. I don’t know what you are asking.

I hope your question is not about the section titled “Don’t Try This at Home” I make the statement “If you aren’t technically savvy, skip now to the conclusion.” This is not a question of intelligence or ability to learn. This is a practical matter of prerequisite knowledge.

Perhaps you are wondering what the “right” citations would look like, or maybe even what the “wrong” citations might look like. But don’t miss the point. The article was not about Mills Standard. Yes, Mills’s book, Evidence Explained, can alert you to issues you might not have thought about. Yes, you can probably write shorter citations after reading her book. But what the article talked about was principles you use whether you use Mills of make up your own. The point is that if you want to get back to the source latter, you need more than a URL.

Bad URL, Bad Citation:

https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/show#uri=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.familysearch.org%2Frecords%2Fpal%3A%2FMM9.3.1%2FTH-267-11055-4062-64%3Fcc%3D1438024

Good URL, but still a bad Citation:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11055-4062-64?cc=1438024&wc=1588358

Assuming the URL will break (which it will), what information will you need to get back to the record? Here’s a citation that works. I’ve not compared it to Mills, so I wouldn’t publish it in an article or a book. But, hey, it gets you back to the original even if the URL breaks:

The source was an image I found on 30 September 2011 at www.familysearch.org, United States Census, 1870 > New York > New York > New York City, ward 01. Image 396 of 792 was page 2 of the 1st enumeration.

This citation doesn’t fit any particular standard, but it will get you back to the online source even if the website changes somewhat and it indicates the source was digital images.

Does that help? If I still haven’t answered your question, post a comment to this article.

Signed,
-- The Insider

It’s Not My Fault! URL Citation Principles

I apologize about the broken FamilySearch image links in last Friday’s article, “Darned Second Enumerations.” But I must say, IT WAS NOT MY FAULT! At the time I wrote the article, the links worked. Today, they don’t.

Long time Ancestry.com users will recall Ancestry.com has broken links to their images on several occasions. In particular, when Ancestry.com switched image viewers (they used to use a 3rd party viewer called MrSID), all links, favorites, and bookmarks to their census images broke.

The same seems to be true for FamilySearch.org. Since I wrote the article before FamilySearch.org released a new image viewer. The old links still bring up the old viewer—with a message that says, “The image is currently unavailable. Please try again later.” That confused me for several minutes. The message is misleading and should be reworded.

Here are the images from Friday’s article, with the links repaired.

1870 Census, 1st enumeration of New York City 1st Ward, 1st District, page 2
(Links to image: FamilySearch.org, Ancestry.com ($), Internet Archives)

1870 Census, 2nd enumeration of New York City 1st Ward, 1st District, page 2
(Links to image: FamilySearch.org, Ancestry.com ($), Internet Archives)

Citation Principles

This situation is illustrative of a couple of citation principles.

1. When you print a record, make certain you write a complete citation in the margin. Write it on the front so it isn’t lost when photocopying. The website should do this for you. But if you’re using a lame website, add it when you print it.

2. A web address or URL is never a sufficient citation. Addresses change. And they change more frequently than vendors would like to admit.

I included full citational information in Friday’s article and it certainly saved my bacon.

Repairing Broken FamilySearch Image Links

If you have old links and you didn’t save enough citation information to easily relocate the record, there is an easy way to find it. But you may have to work fast. I fully expect FamilySearch will inadvertently break this workaround when they “fix” the aforesaid misleading message.

When you get to the page with the misleading message, look at the breadcrumb trail and image number. It contains the citational information. Add the information to your citation. To view the record and get the new URL, use the breadcrumb information.

In the example above, it is “United States Census, 1870 > New York > New York > New York City, ward 01 > Image 396 of 792.”

Don’t Try This at Home

For the technically savvy, it is possible to directly edit the URL. If you aren’t technically savvy, skip now to the conclusion.

Being able to fix addresses is rare, but in this case it is possible. Consider this a temporary fix to get you to the record. Again, you ought to act fast. Once you’ve found the record, capture the citation. It is only a matter of time before something else changes and this method no longer works.

Follow these steps:

1. Click the link or otherwise paste the old address into your browser. You will see the error message above (until FamilySearch fixes it).
2. Delete this part, starting with the slash before search and ending with the word records:
   
   /search/image/show#uri=https%3A//api.familysearch.org/records
   
3. Replace “pal%3A” with “pal:”
4. Replace “%3Fcc%3D” with “?cc=”
5. Replace “%26wc%3D” with “&wc=”

For example, the old address of the second image above is

https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/show#uri=https%3A//api.familysearch.org/records/pal%3A/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11929-100221-22%3Fcc%3D1438024%26wc%3D1588358

Deleting this part:

/search/image/show#uri=https%3A//api.familysearch.org/records

leaves

https://www.familysearch.org/pal%3A/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11929-100221-22%3Fcc%3D1438024%26wc%3D1588358

Replacing “pal%3A” with “pal:” gives

https://www.familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11929-100221-22%3Fcc%3D1438024%26wc%3D1588358

Replacing “%3Fcc%3D” with “?cc=” gives

https://www.familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11929-100221-22?cc=1438024%26wc%3D1588358

Replacing “%26wc%3D” with “&wc=” gives the address you can use temporarily to see the image and record the necessary citation information.

https://www.familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11929-100221-22?cc=1438024&wc=1588358

Conclusion

Standards and best practices exist so each of us don’t have to learn the hard way (or should I say, relearn) the mistakes of the past. A web address or URL is never sufficient. If you don’t create a full citation, it is just a matter of time before you regret it.