Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m frustrated

Please Retain Old Sourcing Info With The New Digital Files

Please retain the old film number sourcing with the new digital files. This is causing chaos with sourcing and locating the correct films while the films are still available. I understand that film will no longer be created and shipped, but there are films still in SLC and elsewhere and people have used those numbers in sourcing over the past 30-40+ years, which, if you do not include them as a merged former source within the newly scanned records, will become meaningless in the future and cause great turmoil in trying to re-source everything to the new system. I understand and appreciate the need to go digital with the costs and unavailability of film now, but I don't see why we need to turn our backs on the old information, which, even after all of the films are scanned and are no longer available, will still be relevant information. Why not add that info in with the new? All you'd need is add one new field in the source box below the image (it is already partially transferred...why not just complete it fully)...Old/former LDS Number. Not a super big deal, yet it will be most helpful for everyone to retain that. Films that are new and have no film numbers (but instead digital file numbers) will not be affected as those will be their proper source info. Completely cutting out the old information is the wrong path to follow as it should be retained to maintain, as they call it in the police/legal profession, the "chain of evidence". Some of the early scanning at least put the film number in the #1 position but I have seen that they are moving away from that, and I believe that is a very bad idea. I still don't understand why they can't use the original numbers as the digital ones. I understand that they are breaking up whole films to make it easier to get around, but instead of making a brand new digital number, why not use 12345-1 (or _1) for item 1, 12345-2 for item 2 and so forth, in the url, and/or as the digital file number. That is a very simple and effective solution that retains the sourcing info at the same time and doesn't create so much havoc with the current film sourcing. It would also allow you to maintain the current numbering system by just adding new numbers in order from where the highest actually filmed number was and move forward, just as if it had been filmed, which gives it continuity. No need to scrap the old numbers to continue with digital at all. Thanks!
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • To be honest, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

    First, the indexes come from at least two different sources --

    1) Extracted records from which temple work is/was performed.

    As far as I understand, those extracted records are still in the system and will remain in the system. In many instances, you can use the information in the index to locate, where the original film has been digitized and permitted by contractual clauses, the images.

    If the images are not currently available and no contractual obligations prohibit distribution of the images, then eventually the film will be digitized and made available. It may take some time before the images are actually linked to the original extracted indexes and films.

    2) Indexing done by two indexers and arbitrated by a third person. Any indexes always carry the original film number with them and, where possible (again controlled by contract terms) will include links to the indexes. In some cases, the images are available for browsing while the indexes are being prepared. In other instances, there will be no indexes produced, but the images are of a hand-written or published index.

    3) Indexing done by machine algorithms using OCR technology. These indexes also carry the means for corrections to be made to the index. Again, the original film numbers are retained.

    However, there may be films, such as those of newspapers and funeral homes or other repositories, that were not produced by the Church and have never been distributed by the Church or its affiliates. Any copies of those non-Church-produced films do not and have never carried any catalog film number.

    Any indexes or image sets that do not carry film numbers, but only digital folder numbers, are new "filmings" of original records. There are no original actual films involved, but there may have been an original filming done at one time. In those instance, any indexes (extracted or otherwise) are still valid.

    Keep in mind that some computer-produced indexes that appeared on microforms of some kind, including fiche, are not the product of a Church-sponsored effort and such "filmings" are not the result of a Church project. The A.I.S. indexes on fiche are a good example. Any sources to those are sources that are external to the church. Good examples of similar situations are the mircoforms (often films) of United States government records, which include U.S. Federal Census returns and draft cards.

    Finally, if you know of sources that are of or reference Church-produced (meaning the Church actually microfilmed the original records) films, where you believe the old sources or sourcing is being ignored, it would be helpful if you could provide the film number.

    Thank you.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m even more frustrated
    Hi Tom,

    Not sure why it is so hard to understand my concern. I am specifically concerned about current microfilms that are being digitized. Many of then do NOT have the original microfilm number attached/mentioned with the newly digitized record. That is a problem.

    For instance, this record:
    https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3...

    It has a digital file number, 4144450, attached to it, but nowhere is the original microfilm number, 1444455, found with it. So go to the index and easily find the film that this digital file number corresponds to. If I had not given it to you, you couldn't. This is my concern.

    Danny
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I've noticed this similar 'discrepancy.' It appears the "digital" film is a compilation of several films.

    Searching for either number in the catalog results in the same page:
    https://familysearch.org/search/catal...
    which lists all the 108 films (e.g. 1444455) contained therein. It also shows that many are indexed and all(?) are digitized.

    So it appears it is all retained.
    ====================================
    Yesterday, I made a suggestion to this post on a similar issue, and similar film number issue:
    https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

    FS has many 'sources' available as "Indexed Information" and cited similar to this:
    "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1... : 30 December 2014), Thos. Weekes, 06 Apr 1742; citing Cowfold, Sussex, England, reference item 1; FHL microfilm 1,041,578."

    While it does provide a link, it is to the index, which IS helpful, BUT, it would be INCREDIBLY more helpful to also include the link to the actual microfilmed record.
    While it is 'relatively easy' to find that record from the microfilm number (which are often available online to view digitally), I believe many patrons may not be aware of how to do this.

    It would seem a computer algorithm could easily identify FHL microfilm 1,041,578. with a link to https://familysearch.org/search/catal... or to the actual film itself, even better link to the actual page.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • I’m frustrated
    Hi Robert,

    Yes, going directly from the catalog to the digital images, you can see the original film # in the catalog page, but not if you go via the link that takes you to the menu of digital images (all Pernambuco Civil Registrations for instance) you don't. In addition, if you only have the link as the source, there is no way to tell which of the many films is the correct one on the catalog page without loading each one that covers 1918 deaths until you find it (there are several in this series). And yes, you can put the digital image # into the film # slot on the catalog search and it will pull up the series, but you are still left with the same problem after that....which of the 108 films applies. Putting the original film number in with the source box (a really, really simple thing to do) would easily alleviate all of that.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • If you look at the title on the digitized image in the catalog, you come across this entry:

    Brazil, Pernambuco, civil registration = Brasil, Pernambuco, registro civil, 1804-2014
    Title Also Known As:
    Brasil, Pernambuco, registro civil
    Format:
    Manuscript/Manuscript on Digital Images
    Language:
    Portuguese
    Publication:
    Salt Lake City, Utah : Digitized by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 2011

    Followed by this

    Microfilm Records in this Collection:

    Escrituras de compra e venda dos escravos, 1882-1895 / Passira (Pernambuco). Registro Civil
    Escrituras de escravos, 1863-1890 / Pombos (Pernambuco). Registro Civil
    Escrituras de venda dos escravos, 1866-1882 / Altinho (Pernambuco). Registro Civil

    etc.

    If you click on one of those, you are taken to:

    Escrituras de compra e venda dos escravos, 1882-1895
    Authors:

    Passira (Pernambuco). Registro Civil (Main Author)
    Cartório Distrital de Passira (Repository)

    Format:
    Manuscript/Manuscript on Film
    Language:
    Portuguese
    Publication:
    Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmados pela Sociedade Genealógica de Utah, 1989
    Physical:
    em 1 rolo de microfilme ; 16 mm.

    Notes

    Records of Brazil, Pernambuco, Civil Registration are available online, click here.

    Microfilme de redução 42x. Use leitora de alta magnitude.

    Microfilmagem de originais no Cartório Distrital de Passira.

    A antiga vila de Pedra Tapada hoje se denomina Passira.

    Registers of buying and selling of slaves from Passira (formerly known as Pedra Tapada), Pernambuco, Brazil.

    ---

    Note, the only thing missing when you pick up one of these is the old 16mm high density (42x) film number, but that does not invalidate any entries that source the old films. If anything, the catalog cross references the old film number with the digitized versions.

    If you go down toward the bottom where the film is listed, you'll note that a camera appears at the right end of the film, indicating that it is now in digital format and that it can no longer be ordered for viewing with a link to the order page.

    To find the old film number, use the title on the digital image (at the top) and copy it, then paste it into the Search... Catalog... Title. That will bring up the catalog entry and the film number.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • Admittedly this is not the easiest way to get to the image (hence my suggestion for indexed record having a direct link.

    Hopefully,to clarify (an image is worth a thousand characters):.

    As I mentioned above either film # goes to this page: https://familysearch.org/search/catal...
    Ctrl-F for the film number goes to this:


    Clicking on the Camera icon goes directly to THAT FHL film # (1444455) in the digital film #4144450.

    It would definitely facilitate the entire process to have the indexed name got directly to the page - but I'll readily settle for getting to the film itself than this rigamarole.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • So the film number is still there when you have the whole film available (__ of 2551) (not sectioned out), but when it is sectioned apart into the digital file, you don't ( ___ of 210).

    Here is the link to the image I saved:
    https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3...

    Here is what I see when you open up to the thumbnails view:


    No old film source number!

    And the Sourcebox: Where it shows "Item number" in the "Information" box below the image, why not add the old film number here?


    And even though I got to the original image via the whole film (531 of 2551), the source link in the "Information" box only brings you the the sectioned off screen (79 of 210) and no old film source number as shown above.



    This is where the problem lies. Putting the old film source info within the "Information" box would be necessary here as it does not show up at the beginning like it does when you have the whole film as Robert showed above.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • It also appears that history is repeating itself, as back in the 70's or 80's, they made the mistake of renumbering all of the films and now if you you have an old source #, you have to go find the "film cross-reference" binders and look up what the corresponding "new" number is. Why make that same mistake again? I see no reason to have to renumber them at all. Use the existing structure and build on it. Why make it more complicated and harder than necessary?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • It appears to me that you want to be able to reference the original film number in your source. Since the source linker does not create a "Source" citation from images like this, you have to create one, yourself.

    That means that you need to set up something like the following:

    Citation
    Escrituras de compra e venda dos escravos; https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3... : captured 17 December 2016), [the name of the person in the tree to which this is going to be attached]; citing [the place - Passira, Pernambuco, Brazil]; [author - Cartório Distrital de Passira] ; FHL microfilm 1,614,984 Item 10

    I grabbed the first image from the set to use in this example and clicked on "Attach to Family Tree", which created most of the title. I added "https://familysearch.org/" to produce the entire URL. I was then able to create what I believe to be an accurate citation of the screen. There are a couple of items that you would need to enter, such as the name of the person to whom the image is being attached. The name of the place and author would vary, depending upon the situation. The date was added when I captured the image from the film.

    Others may offer suggestions on how to improve the citation. Regardless, the FHL film number is preserved. I just needed to obtain it during the process I original outlined.

    I think what you want is for a citation with the film number of be created for you. Where there is no index currently available, you have to create the citation yourself. At some future date, there will be an index and the images involved will be attached. I suspect that at that time, the original film number will also be part of the citation that gets created.

    I really think you are getting ahead of the process of digitizing, making them available (which is a nice to have feature), indexing (either in process or scheduled at some future date), and being able to generate an accurate citation.

    Robert may be able to shed more light on this with his experience.

    At least you have the films to look through on line and do not have to order them in to look at them at some Family History Center or affiliate facility.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Oh, so now I have to be grateful to you, the infallible, all-knowing God-engineer Tom, for being so benevolent as to provide us images, huh? Your type of engineer at familysearch has been the root of ALL of the problems we have seen in the online familysearch from the beginning (self-conceit and a lack of listening). Your callousness and arrogance by someone who is clearly an engineer but not a genealogist is painfully abundant. Why don't you get off of your self-glorified engineer perch and start listening to us for a change? I didn't ask you to change the whole thing, just add one VERY small detail to what you are doing already that would VERY helpful for us. But apparently that is too much trouble for you. In all of the time you've spent arguing with me on this, you could have already written the code and implemented it 10 times over. I guess you haven't noticed the url for this site-getsatisfaction.com. You clearly have no desire to give anyone satisfaction except yourself by glorifying yourself and your importance and how only your opinion counts and that the rest of us non-engineer heathens are just imbeciles. Just so you know, I have been doing genealogy for over 25 years and over 100K hours, so I think I might know a thing or two too. Maybe you might do a Ken Garff and start listening to us and think of implementing a co-operative and thoughtful stance instead of a combative and argumentative one? You've been closed minded about my concern from moment one, never even considering that it might be valid (which it is), let alone understanding my concern. If this is the position of everyone there, why even bother creating and maintaining a site like this to share, unless it is just a PR move to show outsiders that you are "listening". Just kill this website as it is just a farce.
    • I do not work for and have never worked for FamilySearch. I am retired and have watched the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints make available vast genealogical resources for over fifty years. I am a FamilyHistory Consultant and have attempted to let you know the situation by reporting what is published by FamilySearch. I even provided the links to the articles.

      That you are unsatisfied is apparent, but there is nothing anyone can do and likely (my opinion) nothing anyone in FamilySearch will do. The reasoning is that eventually the material will be indexed and the index published.

      At that time, the microfilm number for each image will be included with the index and be part of the index record that is attached via the source linker to a person's record.

      Many of us are thankful that FamilySearch (and I had nothing to do with this, either) has made available the digitized images, even though the indexes are not yet published.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana)

    You need to remember in the 'computer' world, it seems change equals progress. So throwing out the old and bringing in the new is the wave of the future. (film numbers variances, old "newFamilySearch," vs FSTree, Family History vs Genealogy, EASY search vs in-depth research, accurate primary sources vs indexes, 35 vs 70, etc.) FStree needs more emphasis on adding primary source images!! So .....

    I certainly AGREE WITH YOUR IDEA of "Putting the old film source info within the "Information" box" - It should be there WITH a direct link!!

    I imagine you are aware of the Source Box and attach feature, which is not exactly intuitive, IMO, but it does get the job done of "Attach to Family Tree" and directly to the appropriate image.

    Also clicking on the film titleopens up a multitude of other locations for research in the area.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I noted your "reply above" and it appears that perhaps, as a new particpant, you do not understand what this forum IS.

    It was set up by FamilySearch for users to discuss issues, ask questions, etc. It IS monitored by FS employees, who also participate. It is a helpful place to get the attention of some of those who DO make the decision and are the "engineers" who are developing the system. (They identify themselves as employees when posting, and are listed in the right columns as "official" - NONE at this time participating)

    Most posts are done by your fellow users. e.g. Tom Huber and I are simply people who are trying to help - voluntarily - by answering questions, posting comments and offering suggestions, etc.

    I would suggest your comments to Tom Huber were inappropriate, at least.

    Some comments in your posts seem to indicate there might be a bit of personal bias. "You clearly have no desire to give anyone satisfaction except yourself by glorifying yourself and your importance and how only your opinion counts and that the rest of us non-engineer heathens are just imbeciles."

    "I don't use family tree, nor will I ever for reasons personal to me, so why . . . ?"

    You are certainly welcome to use the free services provided by FamilySearch, and your suggestions also are welcomed, but you want to redirect your frustrations and read some of the other topics in this forum for a better understanding.

    Best regards, and I hope your suggestion is adopted. Merry Christmas!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I appreciate all the comments that contribute to all of us becoming better at family history. We each have our unique perspectives, contributions and approaches. I believe we are all here to help each other. We don't always agree with each other but that's ok.

    If we can focus on the problem at hand and help each other we all win. It's encouraged to discuss and push back on ideas and keep the personal characterizations minimal.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned