How reliable is IGI?

[BourneGooner]

I know IGI is used as a cornerstone for a lot of peoples data and information, especially for older data but I'm now begining to question how reliable and accurate this information actually is!
I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at using data from IGI as a source only to check the parish records to find IGI has errors, which you could just about except as human error but I'm now finding some information is just completely wrong, I'm left scratching my head wondering where and how they come by this information in the first place. A prime example, looking for Andrew Wortley bapt. 1642 Castor, Northampton. When you check the parish records for Castor the date given is for Ann Wortley, there is no Andrew in the Castor records at all and when you check the parish records even further Andrew was bapt. in Gainsborough on a different date in 1642 that IGI doesn't have. This is only one example of many I've found.
Sorry to sound so negative but when you look at other peoples trees on the web you can find they've used IGI data and gone off in completley the wrong direction which leads to another problem, how do you tell someone their beloved family tree and hard work is wrong????
Does anyone know when and more importantly how the data from IGI was actually compiled.
Again sorry to sound so negative about what some people may consider an essential database and for the long winded message but I just thought I'd get this off my chest.
From a slightly less frustrated....
BourneGooner:(

[WendyPusey]

The record you have quoted has been submitted by a member of the LDS so should be treated with caution.

Other records are extracted from the Parish Records and are more reliable.

[taffyfrog]

I'll go along with what Wendy says

This seems to give some explanation as to how the info was compiled

Howell MI  FHC -Understanding the IGI

[Grampa Jim]

Some years ago the LDS Church asked its members to start working on their Family History. Ideally they wanted everyone to produce a Tree showing 4 generations which would have overcome the Problem of "Living People" and take research into the period where the info is in the Public Domain. Unfortunately, humans being what they are, some members were not very diligent, and some were downright imaginative when submitting their info. Equally unfortunately there is no provision within the IGI to correct erroneous information.

Later the LDS Church started a project to photograph as many Parish Registers as possible. Once again, unfortunately a lot of the photography left a lot to be desired and many microfiche pages are either too dark or too light to read.

When doing your Family's Research there is no substitute for looking at the original documents. Anything else should only be used as a guide to help you find out where you could be looking.

Good luck and Happy Hunting.

[KiteRunner]

If an IGI record says "Submitted" then you should be very cautious, especially if the date given is approximate, but if it is "extracted" then it should be taken from the Parish Register or Bishop's Transcript. Even for those, you are still best to check that the entry is correct, though. And especially for such an old entry - often those are hard to read and so more prone to mistranscription.

[Little Nell]

The IGI is the International Genealogical Index and as such is a secondary source. Primary sources should always be checked.

Yes, the submitted records can be wrong - generally if they just give a year or an "abt 1723" they are less reliable than ones with actual dates in.

But sometimes they are OK. I found a marriage for my gt x 3 grandparents with an "abt Apr 1784" which I took to be a guess based on the age of the eldest known child. In fact, when I checked the records, the marriage register was indecipherable but the banns register showed that the banns had been called in March and April. The submitter could have just assumed that the marriage had occurred on the next Sunday, but didn't, though they did assume the marriage happened after the last banns call.

Even extracted records need to be checked. One person's Martha bapt 16 June could easily be someone else's Maria bapt 18 July. Plus there's often other useful info - I found that my gt gt grandmother's baptism and all the others on the page were added by the new curate on the submission of their parents, as the old curate had failed to record them.

[Jessbowbag]

The IGI has really poor coverage of Northamptonshire- apparently who ever it was ( Bish of Brixworth probably) wont/wouldn't allow * something*

I'm a hop & a skip from the CRO if you need anything,


Ok OK slow toddle away !

[Uncle John]

When I was looking through Bedfordshire parish records the other day, the "extracted" IGI records were mostly correctly transcribed but there were a couple of errors. And the register I was looking at (filmed by the Archives) was helpfully a combined baptism and burial register, so infant deaths could be tied to the correct baptism. It did help that there were only 2 families of that surname.

[Christine in Herts]

I have a LANSBURY extracted record from Portsea, which proved - on closer inspection - to be SANSBURY. The older scripts have often defeated the transcribers. The transcriber's open mind when approaching records ought to be an advantage - preventing names being presumed to be what they're not. Unfortunately, in practice, in means that names which could have been recognised by an informed transcriber get garbled.

Christine

[Guy]

To understand the IGI one must first understand why it was created and just what it indexes.

It is not and never has been an index of parish registers.

The IGI is an index of the Ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).
When used as an index of ordinances it is 100% accurate, this is why "errors" cannot be corrected.

The IGI simply reflects the details submitted at the ordinance as a court record reflects the evidence given in court.
If a witness in a court case states I saw Joe Bloggs go in the bank, the court record will state the witness saw Joe Bloggs go in the bank. It does not matter if Joe Bloggs went into a cafe next door to the bank the court record will record what was stated in court.

The same occurs in the IGI if at one of the three ordinances (baptism, endowment, sealing) the details are given as Joe Bloggs that is the "person" who was offered that particular ordinance not William Bloggs or John Bloggs.

If the ordinance was offered to the wrong "person" or if other details are "incorrect" then to correct the situation a new ordinance has to take place with corrected details, that is why there are multiple entries for some "people"
Cheers
Guy

[Penelope]

Redacted

[Olde Crone Holden]

Penelope

some IGI transcribers take it upon themselves to "amend" information.

Example - one lady I know, never transcribes illegitimate baptisms. She simply leaves them out, saying that if anyone REALLY wants to know, they will look at the originals.

Another transcriber changed the baptismal information of my 2 x GGF. When I checked the original, he was the illegitimate son of a sister.

The transcribers for the IGI do fantastic work. But as Nell has said, the IGI is an index, a pointer to where you need to look, not the last word in accuracy and the LDS church has never claimed that it is. As with ANYTHING you find on the internet, you need to check the original document.

OC

[Uncle John]

And as has been said, time and again, the principal (perhaps sole) purpose of the IGI is to enable members of the LDS Church to identify their ancestors to the satisfaction of the church authorities so that they may received a posthumous baptism. It is a bonus for everyone else that the information is publicly available free of charge.

[JayG]

It's a good finding aid but always follow it up with the original source. In my early days I 'assumed' it was ok to just accept what i'd found on the fiche (yes it wasn't on the net & i'm not that old). This didn't pay off & I ended up on completely the wrong track. I found what I thought was my missing link from Lincolnshire to Yorkshire, parents marriage & 2 kids before they appear in Lincolnshire. When I did look the the PR's a few years later the IGI had the mother incorrectly recorded, Mary when it was Jane or something. Luckily this was pre 1837 so I hadn't wasted any money on certs. These records were transcribed not submitted so now I treat them ALL with caution until i've seen the PR's.

Jay

[Nelde]

Ah but what about the second question. How do you tell someone their tree is wrong? I joined GR (which led me to this much better site) in August. Found a link for Francis Thackham on two trees. Two Francises born about the same time in the same town. I told them both that I suspected they were barking up the wrong Francis because of a b and c. One rechecked her data, thanked me and said she was changing her tree. The other got quite huffy. I'm sure there is a polite way to do it. I would welcome someone suspecting an error in my tree since many branches were given to me before the arrival of the internet.

[Margaret in Burton]

Ah but what about the second question. How do you tell someone their tree is wrong? I joined GR (which led me to this much better site) in August. Found a link for Francis Thackham on two trees. Two Francises born about the same time in the same town. I told them both that I suspected they were barking up the wrong Francis because of a b and c. One rechecked her data, thanked me and said she was changing her tree. The other got quite huffy. I'm sure there is a polite way to do it. I would welcome someone suspecting an error in my tree since many branches were given to me before the arrival of the internet.

Agreed

I have recently been allowed to view a tree on Ancestry. The errors are huge. Children born both sides of the Atlantic within 6 months of each other to the same parents.

I did point a couple of these errors out to the tree owner. She gut huffy and stopped my viewing. Now today, I get another request from the same person about another person in my tree, same branch of the family, I have ignored it. Not getting into that arguement again.

Why do folks not remember who they have contacted previously? Mind you, I suppose if you have a huge tree, as she does, then you perhaps lose track of the thousands of contacts you have.

I did start to check the tree she allowed me to view, but gave it up as a bad job.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Nelde

I have given up trying to correct people's trees for them as it was doing my blood pressure no good at all!

If I have a contact who tells me they are descended from our mutual relative and I know that "mutual relative" died aged two, I send them the exact reference and tell them to look it up for themself. Normally I never hear another word and they don't change their tree!

Eleven people on GR have copied wrong information from each other. When I told one of them that Mary had died aged four, so could not possibly be their umpty great grandmother (and here is the exact page on which her burial is recorded) she replied huffily "Well, ten other people on this site have her in their trees, so YOU MUST BE WRONG"

When I had recovered from that stonker, I replied "In that case, you won't be wanting my obviously faulty information about this family, will you" and left it at that.

Oddly, none of the eleven can find mythical Mary's marriage....

OC

[Margaret in Burton]

LOL OC

I have one of those mythical ones. This is a mythical death.

Apparently Emma Hayward nee Smith died very young leaving her four children motherless. (according to at least 5 people on GR)

NO

She left her husband and four children and ran off with her husbands cousin. She had a child by him and married him when her legal husband died.

I am in contact with her great grand daughter from this second marriage and have all the documentary evidence.

Do the decendants of the four children want to know? Of course not.

She died.

When?

Oh we can't find the date.

That's because she didn't die when you think she did.

They cut off all contact. I want my tree to be correct, skeletons included.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Margaret

What makes it even more infuriating...this little girl's burial is transcribed on the IGI, against her baptismal date! I checked the original and it is correct, with the additional information that she died of smallpox, AND her mother's maiden name.

So they didn't even check the baptisms on the IGI, fgs, just blindly copied what some idiot sent them.

Still, I am the one with all the family Wills down the generations, not them!

OC

[Margaret in Burton]

OC

We can't force our knowledge on those with closed minds. Those that think they know how people behaved in past times.
We can't force them to accept what they close their minds to.

They obviously aren't serious about their family tree. If mine were wrong and were proved wrong I would be mortified but I would alter it. I would want the evidence but it would be done.

I have already had to do this with part of OH's tree. I skipped buying a marriage cert of one of his 2x great grandparents. When I finally got it about two years later I found I had been researching the wrong family. I had 200 years of stuff that was of no use to me. Not even close, they were from different parts of the country. I scrapped that part of the tree and started again.