Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A few years back, LDS (Familysearch.org) was the first place I went to when researching a member of my tree. Nowadays it just seems to be not as helpful. I also get a lot of information from FreeBMD and I like to verifiy and compare it with LDS. Lately with just some names here and there it's been almost impossible and I keep wondering if it's me having a brain cramp or worse.
Example: I'm looking for a Frederick Blakeway who was born in Dudley, Staffordshire, England, around 1928 or 1929. So I go to FreeBMD and my query selects all people with the name "Frederick Blakeway" who were born between 1925 and 1930. Easy as pie, I find my Frederick on the GRO, one of two possibilities, and mine is the one with the mother last name Sadler.
Now I go to Familysearch and look for the same person. Nothing shows up for Frederick so I leave out the last name and just search for all Blakeways born in England between 1925 and 1930. Nothing except these 5 unrelated.
Actually, as I'm typing, this I think I've realized what the problem is! Could it be that the LDS library simply doesn't show anything this recent? That HAS to be it.. the last records that show for Blakeway are 1920. Well, I think I've answered my own question but will post this still, for input and (in case I'm right) to help out others in the same boat.
Actually, as I'm typing, this I think I've realized what the problem is! Could it be that the LDS library simply doesn't show anything this recent? That HAS to be it.. the last records that show for Blakeway are 1920. Well, I think I've answered my own question but will post this still, for input and (in case I'm right) to help out others in the same boat.
Also keep in mind that what is available online at FamilySearch.org is only a portion of the collections they provide on microfilm. Not everything is scanned and indexed. This should be a list of the microfilm they have from Staffordshire, England: https://familysearch.org/search/cata...affordshire%22
the info at family search is up loaded by individuals , so you must take the info with a grain of salt. the site does no research, it just provide an area for the research to be posted.
I agree; I have never liked FamilySearch. I just don't find things there as readily/quickly as I do with a Worldwide subscription to Ancestry.com. At FamilySearch, the navigation/layout is also difficult to manage, and to be really picky, I don't like the color scheme. Everything seems too "light." I want definite dark print! Different strokes, I guess, but Ancestry is worth it to me.
Good point with the OP re: the records not being available yet, as we're not past the 1940 censuses in most places (except city directories and etc.).
I've also answered my own question on this site; sometimes it does help to get indignant and broadcast, "Just look at this mess; can you believe it?" Then, when I take ANOTHER look at it after typing it, I can see my own problem
Last edited by in_newengland; 04-11-2014 at 03:33 AM..
"FamilySearch" includes many things. You can't condemn the whole thing because the family trees are faulty. Name me a website that doesn't have faulty family trees? They all, on whatever website, are only as good as the submitters. And none of them, even the best, should be used as a source.
Limit your use of the FamilySearch website to the indexes and abstracted records, to the Family History Library catalog, and to the digitized books.
Certainly, Ancestry has more records available. But FamilySearch is free, for Pete's sake. I see no reason not to use it for what it has.
I never use their pedigrees, just like I never really use other people's family trees on Ancestry.com. It doesn't mean the records FS provide aren't worth searching.
As for record transcriptions, it's true that FS is mostly transcribed by volunteers and anyone can help transcribe - but they do have a hierarchy where indicies get checked by more experienced transcribers after the initial transcription and before they go live. But mistranscriptions happen all the time, there are plenty of examples of where Ancestry.com's transcriptions are far worse then FamilySearch. I wouldn't stop using a valuable source just because of mistranscriptions - I might be more wary about adding documents which are just an index and no scanned document to back it up, but the amount of records I'd be missing without FamilySearch is quite large. Of course, I could always get them elsewhere but only by spending a lot of time and/or money getting there and doing hours of research or ordering expensive records individually by mail. And sometimes, you have to go beyond the index, for example, the PA Probate Records are not even indexed yet but I've found dozens upon dozens of probate records of my ancestors which has really helped my research. And all for free, from the comfort and convenience of my home. You might be missing out on a lot by not using FS but to each their own, I guess.
Last edited by in_newengland; 04-11-2014 at 03:59 AM..
As for record transcriptions, it's true that FS is mostly transcribed by volunteers and anyone can help transcribe - but they do have a hierarchy where indicies get checked by more experienced transcribers after the initial transcription and before they go live. But mistranscriptions happen all the time, there are plenty of examples of where Ancestry.com's transcriptions are far worse then FamilySearch. I wouldn't stop using a valuable source just because of mistranscriptions - I might be more wary about adding documents which are just an index and no scanned document to back it up, but the amount of records I'd be missing without FamilySearch is quite large. Of course, I could always get them elsewhere but only by spending a lot of time and/or money getting there and doing hours of research or ordering expensive records individually by mail. And sometimes, you have to go beyond the index, for example, the PA Probate Records are not even indexed yet but I've found dozens upon dozens of probate records of my ancestors which has really helped my research. And all for free, from the comfort and convenience of my home. You might be missing out on a lot by not using FS but to each their own, I guess.
I haven't used it in years but at the time I was using it there were entries that anyone could submit and they were accepted as truth. Then there were entries that were actual copies of records and those were the ones that could be considered to be accurate. There were actual copies of parish registers. You could tell because the person entries would just have the name of the submitter--and that could be anyone at all, reliable or not. I was mostly looking for births and deaths. Maybe they have culled those undocumented records, sent in by anyone--that would be a good idea. It was like accepting information off someone's tree in Ancestry, one with absolutely no sources.
It's probably changed since then but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Last edited by in_newengland; 04-11-2014 at 03:50 AM..
I haven't used it in years but at the time I was using it there were entries that anyone could submit and they were accepted as truth. Then there were entries that were actual copies of records and those were the ones that could be considered to be accurate. There were actual copies of parish registers. You could tell because the person entries would just have the name of the submitter--and that could be anyone at all, reliable or not. I was mostly looking for births and deaths. Maybe they have culled those undocumented records, sent in by anyone--that would be a good idea. It was like accepting information off someone's tree in Ancestry, one with absolutely no sources.
It's probably changed since then but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Well, they have definitely separated the pedigrees from the records, they are in two difference sections of the website now. But you do realize that Ancestry.com also has "records" which are actually just data collected from random people's research? This why you always need to understand what ANY data/record/collection actually is and where it's coming from, no matter where you found it. I blogged about this after I learned the US and International Marriage Records on Ancestry.com was just data collected from family trees, group sheets, pedigree charts, etc: Genealogical Musings: Understanding Records - note how in my example, I used actual documents from FamilySearch.org to correct the misinformation provided from Ancestry.com's unreliable marriage collection. It's not the website's responsibility to determine how accurate the data is, that is your job as a family historian or genealogist.
My blog article, if you don't want to open the site:
Quote:
It's really important to understand what a record is and where it's come from before attaching it to your tree. Take, for example, Ancestry.com's collection called "U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900". We all know that information from other genealogist's tree can be inaccurate and that is essentially where this collection comes from. Always be sure to read the collection's description, in this case it says the following:
Original data: This unique collection of records was extracted from a variety of sources including family group sheets and electronic databases. Originally, the information was derived from an array of materials including pedigree charts, family history articles, querie.
All of these sources must be taken with a grain of salt because they are not actual historical records, despite the title of the collection. If you wouldn't trust data from someone else's tree unless it had the records to support it, you shouldn't trust this collection either.
Case in point, the following marriage listing for William H. Wood from this collection:
Name: William H Wood
Gender: Male
Birth Place: AL
Spouse Name: Jane D Bradley
Spouse Birth Year: 1822
Marriage Year: 1853
Number Pages: 1
This is incorrect because William's marriage record from FamilySearch.org is dated to January 3, 1839, which makes much more sense considering the 1850 census shows him already married to Jane and with several children, all born after 1839. Note that the description of this record collection from FamilySearch.org details that it's an index of church records and civil registrations, both reliable sources, although potential indexing errors must be taken into consideration, it is more reliable than a record collected from pedigrees and family group sheets. You'll also note that the indexing batch number on the record refers to an IGI batch number which also tells you about the source of the collection by what letter/number it begins with and provides instructions on how to find the original document.
I believe the incorrect marriage year as 1853 has gotten mixed up with William's death year, since his death record has him dying August 23, 1853 of a congestive chill (shown right). Obviously, somewhere in the process of compiling the data for this "U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900" collection, William's death year has been confused with his marriage year. This is a prime example of why I stopped adding "records" from this collection to my tree, I don't consider it a reliable source. And this is why it's so important to understand what a record is and where it's come from. Before you add it to your tree, always read the description of the collection and judge it's reliability.
None of this means I don't use Ancestry.com (or FamilySearch, if the roles were reversed) as a resource, it just means I always read the information about a collection and understand what it is before I attach it to my tree, like any genealogist should do. It doesn't mean the vast majority of records on the website aren't reliable.
Last edited by in_newengland; 04-11-2014 at 03:56 AM..
The Church of jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is in the process of verifing everything. All of us members far and wide have been asked to help with the work. As you can guess that is a big undertaking from a lot of people that are new to geneology even if they grew up in the church. Realize that the majority of members now did not grow up in the church or even participated in geneology. So for us in the church this is a big deal. Over the years millions upon millions of records have been found and stored. They are available online. still to go thru all of this information will take a long long time.
As I've said, some collections are merely indices, with no actual scanned documents attached, but that doesn't mean they aren't indices of real records that exist somewhere, just not available on FamilySearch.org. The document might be available from other websites, other organizations, or even from FamilySearch's own microfilm that simply hasn't been scanned yet but they do have a digital index for. It would be a real shame to advise people to dismiss these very "real" records.
Additionally, like I say, Ancestry.com uses both practices as well - they also supply "records" of undocumented data compiled from the research of just anybody, so if you're going to dismiss one website for this practice, you'll have to dismiss Ancestry.com too. But they also have records which are only indices of real documents to be found elsewhere and the lack of a scanned document doesn't mean it's not reliable.
It's no reason to not use FreeBMD, because you understand what FreeBMD is an index of, you know they are indices of actual documents available from GRO. Using FamilySearch or Ancestry.com is no different - you learn what the individual collections are and what they are an index of and therefore whether they are reliable information or not. The presence of an actual document available online is not what makes a record reliable, it just makes it easier to confirm as reliable, because you don't have to go to another source to order the full document.
I would advise people that if they come across a record that seems to be just an index with no scanned document available online, to thoroughly investigate what kind of record it is and where it came from before adding it to your tree. And that goes for any website the record is found on, because what you are complaining about is certainly not exclusive to FS. I think it would actually be bad advice to tell someone to dismiss records from a certain website without a scanned document attached because people would not only be potentially missing out on a lot of reliable information but also might assume it applies to other websites too. So if you ask me, you were given some pretty bad advice.
Last edited by in_newengland; 04-11-2014 at 03:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
