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:

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.

This 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 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.

We Want Tech: OCR Handwriting

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 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.

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

• “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.

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.”

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:

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.

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.

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

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 Mailbox: FamilySearch Discontinuing Microfilm?

Dear 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.

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.

How 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…

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

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…)

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.

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.

Whence 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

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.

When 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 week I address the what, when, whence, why, and where of the IGI.

When was the IGI?

The IGI was originally known as the Computer File Index, according to the book Hearts Turned to the Fathers.¹

According to Elizabeth Nichols, retired FamilySearch employee, it was first published on microfiche in 1973. It contained 20 million entries, consisting of all names gathered since October 1969, and six million of the names gathered before then. About 80% were extracted.^{2, 3}

Microfiche

The 1975 edition contained 34 million names. The fourth edition, published in 1981, was the first to be called “the International Genealogical Index” and contained 81 million names. By 1984, the name count had grown to 108 million and the IGI was offered for sale to the public.¹

Compact Disc

In 1988 it was published on compact disc as part of the FamilySearch DOS computer program and contained 147 million names. Because of computer system changes, some extraction entries from the 1984 edition had to be left out. They were included in a later edition.^{1, 3}

The 1992 edition was published on microfiche and contained 187 million names. About 94.5 million entries (50%) were extracted. Nearly 90% of the 72 million entries for the British Isles came from extraction. The compact disc version took until November 1993, becoming the March 1993 Compact Disc Edition. It contained over 200 million names from over ninety countries. Few, if any, extraction records were added.^{1, 2, 3} 

“Creating a compact-disc version of the IGI became problematic. Amassing the names from the various files created in different databases and by different systems was a technical nightmare,” according to Hearts Turned.¹ This may explain why the 1994 edition—released in July 1995—consisted of an addendum to the previous edition. The addendum held 42 million entries. Many of the additional 5 million extracted names were those dropped from the 1988 edition. Many of the member submitted entries were duplicates, coming from newly digitized pre-1970 submissions and from TempleReady.⁴

The 1997 edition of the IGI, repeating the pattern of the previous edition, was published as an addendum. The number of entries increased from 240 million to 284, of which, about 100 million were from extraction.⁵

Internet

Rumors that a FamilySearch website—without the IGI—started circulating in early 1999.⁶ In early March the Church (of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) issued a statement confirming that a website was in the works⁷ and on the first of April announced the beta test.

The official announcement and release of FamilySearch.org came on 24 May 1999. The press release noted the inclusion of the International Genealogical Index. Not all 285 million entries were available immediately. Said the release, “The IGI will be made available in phases by region.”⁸

Tomorrow: “Whence is the IGI?”

---

Sources

     1. 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). This is a history of FamilySearch as the Genealogical Society of Utah and the family history department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was also published as a hard-cover book.

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

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

     4. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “The International Genealogical Index (IGI) Updated by Addendum—Part I,” Federation of Genealogical Societies Forum, Fall 1995, 5-8.

     5. Elizabeth L. Nichols, “The International Genealogical Index (IGI) Updated by Addendum—Part I,” Federation of Genealogical Societies Forum, Summer 1998, 1,14.

     6. Ryan Taylor, “Routes to Roots,” The Global Gazette : Canada’s Genealogy & Heritage Magazine (www.globalgenealogy.com/gazrt23.htm : 24 February 1999); on Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org : archived 8 May 1999, accessed 2 January 2011).

     7. “FamilySearch^TM Internet Genealogy Service,” The Official Website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (www.lds.org : 4 March 1999), News Updates > Archive; on Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org : archived 31 May 2000, accessed 2 January 2011).

     8. “President Hinckley Launches New genealogy Internet Site,” The Official Website of the Church… (www.lds.org : 24 May 1999), on Internet Archive… (http://web.archive.org : archived 4 June 2000, accessed 2 January 2011); and “Press Kit: FamilySearch Databases,” The Official Website of the Church… (www.lds.org : [24 May 1999?]), on Internet Archive… (http://web.archive.org : archived 22 June 2000). See also, “New Family Tree Internet Service Swamped by Demand” (archived 31 May 2000).

What is the IGI?

With the release of the new FamilySearch.org website (not to be confused with NFS, the new FamilySearch Tree), 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 address the what, when, whence, why, and where of the IGI.

What is the IGI?

The International Genealogical Index is a computer file published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It contains several hundred million entries, each recording one event such as a birth, baptism (christening), marriage, or death.

According to Elizabeth L. Nichols, former FamilySearch employee and IGI expert,

Each entry is a stand-alone record. If a person was born in one [region] and married in another, the entry for each event will be in the [region] where it occurred, with no reference to the other entry (if both entries are in the IGI). The entries in the file are not linked to other records, even when they pertain to the same person or same family.¹

There are basically two types of entries: records of individuals and records of marriages. I think the original, idealized objective of the IGI was the creation of one (and only one) entry for each person who has ever lived and one (and only one) entry for each husband and wife. In practice, duplications were unavoidable and in recent years were even allowed to accelerate.

I’ll address the religious significance and the source of entries in the IGI in upcoming articles.

Tomorrow, “When was the IGI?”

---

Sources

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