LDS Web site - where is the old one please?

[Olde Crone Holden]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.