Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Show Microfilm Roll # on Browse Records list (vs. just "description" of data)

When planning to browse images and there's yet to be an index AND many of the names of the data collection are VERY similar - e.g. Berkshire, Massachusett Deed Records: "Deeds 1816-1817 vol 54" is quite similar to "Deeds 1814-1816 vol 54-55" - it would help if the microfilm ROLL # were actually included. This helps if one has, in the past, recorded the roll # and now look at the wonderful online image.
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • 1
    The requirement to include the microfilm number, the item number on that microfilm, and an accurate description of that item with the images, index entries, personal microfilm orders, the catalogue, and all related entries on FamilySearch has been mentioned many times on this forum.

    Yes, there is some rework involved in satisfying this requirement, but it needs to be done. As the Historical Record Collections grow in number and scope, keeping track of where things are, both for the customers and the staff, will become increasingly difficult unless some sort of standardization is imposed. It could be a simple as a checklist of the information that needs to be included, and the other objects to be updated (catalogue entries, for example), whenever a collection is to be rolled out.

    The way these collections are organized now is best described as ad hoc or not at all. Everyone has a favorite example. There are huge collections where the hundreds of image groups are organized by the first name of a notary, hardly a robust organizing principle! (In this case, the solution is to add another level of waypoints — the name of the notary, last name first, with inclusive dates — and then at the bottom level, all of the registers of that notary.) There are collections where an entire microfilm, consisting of half a dozen different items, has been dumped into a single image group, with a label that does not reveal the contents, while other image groups in the same collection contain parts of a single logical item (a baptismal register) without any indication where the other parts of the same item have been hidden. Fixing these problems before each collection is turned loose on the public would not be difficult!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I had concerns about the digital browse before, but your comments are chilling.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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