PDA

View Full Version : LDS Web site - where is the old one please?



Linda from Murton
03-07-12, 15:00
I have been researching family history online since 2000. At the start the web site of the Church of the Latter Day Saints was about the only one available. I really got to know my way around that web site and how to use different methods of search.

My problem is I can't find the site I grew accustomed too. Whenever I try clicking on my favorites it comes up with a new site format. Can anyone please show me a link to the old site.

Thank you for your help.

Elaine ..Spain
03-07-12, 15:08
Tis gone! :(

http://ancestryinsider.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/classic-familysearch-is-no-more.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+AncestryInsider+(The+Ancestry+I nsider)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

herky
03-07-12, 15:09
I have a feeling it is no longer available.
I really liked the old version and got on well with it but can't make anything of the new version.
Just checked the Lost cousins news letter and, yes, the old version is no longer available,

Linda from Murton
03-07-12, 15:18
:( Not a happy pixie. Why oh why can they not leave things alone, instead of always trying to "improve" things. It will give me a real headache trying to get my head around this new site.

Thank you all for responding.

Val wish Id never started
03-07-12, 15:27
so glad its not just me I hate it always get far too many hits

Elaine ..Spain
03-07-12, 15:39
so glad its not just me I hate it always get far too many hits
You can prune them down to country/county and decade which does help (a bit!)

Elaine ..Spain
03-07-12, 15:40
If you just want the IGI part of FamilySearch then you can use this link
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/igi

.. but of course you may be missing something which is on the main site.

WendyPusey
03-07-12, 16:01
I used to like how you could search for all children with parents names. I can't seem to get any results with this new search.

Linda from Murton
03-07-12, 16:07
Hello Wendy - I have been playing around with the site doing searches for facts I already know and did find a way of searching for children with parents names within a certain time span. Its just a case of getting used to the format and drop down sections.

I have yet to figure out how you know its an IGI and not submitted by a member. Shall probably find that out in due course.

Elderflower
03-07-12, 18:19
This link used to be in my favourites and took me straight to the search page of the old Familysearch site. https://familysearch.org/search/collection/igi If you click on it, it should now take you to a page on the new site which shows the different collections available, those that have been extracted (transcribed) and those whish are member contributions. The latter ones are the records which used to show on the IGI as submitted by a member of the Church researching their family history. You will see that these latter records are not currently available. All the records on the new site are of extractions or transcriptions of actual records. Most of the collections show a batch number and source film number on each of the results found, but I have found some without this information - one being the Glamorgan parish records 1558 to 1900.

Hope this helps.

Pat

WendyPusey
03-07-12, 18:27
Hello Wendy - I have been playing around with the site doing searches for facts I already know and did find a way of searching for children with parents names within a certain time span. Its just a case of getting used to the format and drop down sections.

I have yet to figure out how you know its an IGI and not submitted by a member. Shall probably find that out in due course.

I'd be interested to know how you managed to do a search Linda.

Elderflower
03-07-12, 18:56
Perhaps this will help Wendy.

Use this link to get to the search page: https://www.familysearch.org/

Type in just the surname then click on Birth. Type in the Country you want to concentrate on e.g. England. Then click on Parents. Type in the Father's first name and surname and just the Mother's first name. You can also enter a time frame in the dates boxes if you wish. If you have a very common surname, you can enter the County as well as the Country. I often leave this blank as less is more when searching. If I find too many results but can see some I might want, I just re-do the search adding a bit more info in the search boxes. You can also refine you search in the boxes on the left of the results page.

Click on either the down arrow on each result or the name in blue, to get further details of the person that result refers to. It will become clear if you try it as it is always easier to demonstarte than to describe!

PhotoFamily
03-07-12, 20:56
...different collections available, those that have been extracted (transcribed) and those whish are member contributions. The latter ones are the records which used to show on the IGI as submitted by a member of the Church researching their family history. You will see that these latter records are not currently available. Pat

Yes, I had noticed that ancestors on my tree that used to appear in the IGI on the old familysearch had disappeared. I hope they will reappear in this: "Community Contributed IGI"

Val, you can choose the record set that you are searching thru, by going to the "collection" list.

I miss the "pilot" or "beta" that was in use about a year ago. It had a very smart search engine.

Olde Crone Holden
03-07-12, 22:09
Pat

It isn't strictly true, unfortunately, that all the "extracted records" are what we think they are. Those which have the prefix C, M or P are extracted from the original registers, in a controlled manner. Others (beginning with I, for example) are extractions taken in an uncontrolled manner by anyone who happened to do them and then offered them to the IGI.

My experience of these "I" batches is that they are generally accurate as far as they go, but that not all the records in that set were extracted...and in one case that I personally know of, a fictitious entry was made up to cover illegitimacy. Looking at the original filmed record showed that no such entry existed.

OC

grumpy
04-07-12, 00:14
Well I am on the other side. I gave away the old one ├žause I thought it was rubbish but totally love the newy, much less untidy.

Alleycat
04-07-12, 01:01
the new LDS site is absolute rubbish, can't make head or tail of it - have you seen what they've done to Friendsreunited, they've completely spoilt it, and I've been a member there for years, don't bother even looking now. At least when Genesreunited messed up their site they did leave the option of using your "Old Tree" as the new one is completely unfathomable!

Linda from Murton
04-07-12, 10:55
Good morning everyone, especially Wendy. The way I searched was the same way that Elderflower outlined. Off to do some blind searches, i.e. I don't know what the answer should be. Shall see how I get on.

I am fortunate in that nearly all of my research is for Co. Durham and although slow I can browse the Bishops Transcripts for Co. Durham.

Anne in Carlisle
04-07-12, 11:48
I am beginning to prefer the new searches. At least you can search on just a surname - the old site would never let you do that.

If you use the drop down bits beneath where you put the name you can narrow it down a lot. Then the results are divided into those which match and those "you may find helpful" NOT!!! those are just random faintly similar results. The ones above the yellow line are good though. You can do searches for children of a particular couple in that way.
Anne

Caroline
04-07-12, 12:17
I agree with Anne. It's great to be able to search by couple's names again. You can even search just for one surname (with its variants) in a single parish now.

Darksecretz
04-07-12, 12:21
Hello Wendy - I have been playing around with the site doing searches for facts I already know and did find a way of searching for children with parents names within a certain time span. Its just a case of getting used to the format and drop down sections.

I have yet to figure out how you know its an IGI and not submitted by a member. Shall probably find that out in due course.

the new familysearch has extracted records only

Olde Crone Holden
04-07-12, 13:19
Julie

But see my post #14 above - what the LDS call extracted and what we the researchers might call extracted, are two different things.

OC

Darksecretz
04-07-12, 13:21
Julie

But see my post #14 above - what the LDS call extracted and what we the researchers might call extracted, are two different things.

OC

true, which is why we should use it carefully as a finding aid and then verify the records personally if at all possible. :smilee:

PhotoFamily
04-07-12, 19:01
One bit of information that may help distinguish the source:
Look for the film number on the detailed record. You can take that film number back to the familysearch catalog, and then look up the film. That will give you the actual source of the index.

You could (usually) order the film to your nearest FHC and look at the actual record.

And now you can search the batch without having to go to hugh wallis.

OC - someone in the modern era actually created a fictitious baptism back in the past century(/ies) to cover up a illegitimate birth??? Is it possible that they were just lost, and made an assumption to break thru a brick wall?

Olde Crone Holden
04-07-12, 19:15
Photofamily

Yup, a modern transcriber made up a fictitious baptism for my 2 x GGF, making him the legitimate child of his parents. In fact, when I got around to looking at the original parisah register, there was no such entry. What there was, though, was his baptism as the illegitimate child of a family member.

The transcription was an "I" batch number and when I asked about this at my local Family History Centre, they said that these "I" batches were generally extracted by church members and could have been done any time in the past 100 years - they didn't originally keep records of who submitted what and why!

What's more, the Centre Manager was unapologetic and said that she herself never transcribed illegitimate entries - they would be there on the originals to find, but would not be on the internet for all and sundry to gawp at.

OC

Darksecretz
04-07-12, 22:21
Photofamily

Yup, a modern transcriber made up a fictitious baptism for my 2 x GGF, making him the legitimate child of his parents. In fact, when I got around to looking at the original parisah register, there was no such entry. What there was, though, was his baptism as the illegitimate child of a family member.

The transcription was an "I" batch number and when I asked about this at my local Family History Centre, they said that these "I" batches were generally extracted by church members and could have been done any time in the past 100 years - they didn't originally keep records of who submitted what and why!

What's more, the Centre Manager was unapologetic and said that she herself never transcribed illegitimate entries - they would be there on the originals to find, but would not be on the internet for all and sundry to gawp at.

OC

so whats the point in transcribing half of a register then??? jeez.. pretty pointless me thinks! [if you gonna do a job, do it right for heavens sake!!]

Olde Crone Holden
04-07-12, 22:40
Yes, exactly and it's why I've always said it is so important to check the original, even if you get a transcription from a reliable source.

To be fair to the LDS, I think their extraction programme is now very tight and they use double keying. However, they still accept transcriptions from ANYONE and these are not checked, how could they be?

Incidentally, in the case of my 2 x GGF, I should have said that he wasn't even baptised in the same church as his supposed siblings, so the transcriber had deliberately and knowingly "falsified" the record, presumably because they are a relative and did't want the stigma of illegitimacy in the family! (It didn't half muck up my very careful research as well!).

OC

PhotoFamily
05-07-12, 05:10
One of my ancestors' marriages wasn't indexed for the parish on familysearch. It was in the IGI as coming from a member contribution. Their child (also in my direct line) was baptized in the same parish, and that was indexed on FS. The marriage was, however, in the parish record. I was told that, back in the day, if a record was included in someone's ancestral work, then it wasn't transcribed again from the film. That was confusing, too.

I have been transcribing for fs for nearly two years. I think accuracy is the name of the game. Yes, it is volunteer efforts, but I think it's as good (better?) than what's transcribed in foreign places where the language of the record is not the transcriber's first language. I just spent 15 minutes or so trying to figure out what an enumerator wrote for someone's name, including examining the previous page for that particular configuration of two letters and checking the 1930 census to see if I could find the person. No way would that time be given by an employee. From the blog, I know I'm not the only one going back and checking.

Yes, the current system is two independent transcriptions of a record, then a third independent arbitration for any discrepancies between the two. Additionally, an indexer gets feedback about the fields that were - and were not - "in agreement". Reviewing them has made me a better indexer.

Volunteers are welcome to start anytime. There are UK, Canada, US, South Africa records still being transcribed, not to mention various other nations' (and languages') records. You can work from a Mac or a PC. I've used fs resources extensively, it's one way for me to give back.