Recording the Image Number from LDS online records, for my own records... Bad Idea ?
Online Status
By serna_david |
I have been reconcidering my practice of recording page numbers, entry number for the person (If given), and also the IMAGE NUMBER. I have started to wonder if this a bad idea due to the fact that there may be online updates which may move the entry to a different image Number.. your thoughts ?
I have been recording image numbers on all my entries for the past year when I started my genealogy research. I have found it extremely useful whenever I needed to go back to locate and review a record. Downloading and or printing all these records just seems like an arduous task. There have been many times that I have found a record that was not in correct chronological order. Sometimes the parish records alternate dates between the main church and an auxiliary location. And of course sometimes the date recorded is inaccurate (for example Jan 2013 is recorded as Jan 2012).
Well in fact the Jalisco parish records I research were updated on Feb 25. To my surprise I noticed that my entries for marriages for Juchitlan 1860-1878 records no longer point to the correct image! Upon further inspection I discovered that they added about 50-80 images to this particular collection, which makes absolutely no sense since the new images added were for marriages from 1922. I do not yet know if any other collection records now have new image numbers. Now I am torn between updating the image numbers or just deleting them altogether. Either way, it will be a lot of work since I have almost 3,000 people in my tree. How frustrating!
Juan J
I too have found some recent changes to online files where the total number of images has been increased. I still see value in recording the image numbers.
When they started putting the microfilms online, every single image had a code number which appeared as you downloaded it. Later they got rid of it. Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea to write down both the microfilm number and the image number, even if either becomes useless in the future. Some records are relatively easy to find without image number since all the records in the series follow a chronological order. But if you have a section with 3000 images and no strict chronological order (as with some of the Dispensas), then an image number becomes a must.
Victoriano Navarro
I would not go so far as to say this is a bad idea, but you need to know the issues with such a citation.
The FHL is simply a repository of a copy of these records. The film number, image number are simply from their system of cataloging and presenting the record. The url of the source is simply the current electronic repository, which (1) may change as systems are updated or (2) could simply go away if the system becomes unfunded or unsupported (for the FHL this is highly unlikely).
I think the proper citation for the record (for church or civil records) should be:
author (Catholic Church or Civil Authorities)
Parish (for church only) and location
record type (baptisms, marriages, etc)
volume number or year(s) covered
page or folio number (if used)
record number if used
Along with this information, you should note the repository (FHL), their film and image number, as well as the date you extracted the information.
Family Search does provide some guidance on citing records; here are a couple of examples. Personally, I think their citations are incomplete: if you were look at the 1930 census for the Jose Lara record from a different source, how would you find this record?
From the indexed (and image linked) church records
"México, Distrito Federal, registros parroquiales y diocesanos, 1514-1970," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/F32V-2DK : accessed 02 Mar 2013), Alonso García and Matilde Pontones, 1924.
I think that the main thing to keep in mind is that the FHL is simply a repository of a copy of these records, and not the author.
David Serna Thank you for the guidance ... I do note the parish, book number and page no. but i have never noted the LDS film source numbers. It is always nice to have others to bounce ideas off . thanks for the help.
I have a minor disagreement with George on this issue. First, let me say that I agree completely that all of the information George lists is important, including the FHL film and image numbers; but I think the film and image numbers are extremely important for the reason that, for many of the early years, the films contain not only mixed dates, but also mixed events—that is, baptisms, marriages, confirmations, and burials may be mixed within one film number.
I have taken great pains to generate an index of the contents of the films I have accessed over the past year and a half, which has proven invaluable to me, especially when I return to a particular film again and again.
Here is one, almost comical, example of how a film can contain mixed information; it is FHL Film 280854 from Ocotlán. The FHL catalogue says that this film is "Bautismos 1610-1723 (incluye algunos matrimonios)", but this is the 'true' catalogue of this film (as accurately as I have been able to define it):
So why do I bother to go to all this trouble to catalogue more than 220 films so far (and counting)? Because if I find a reference in FamilySearch that says that a marriage took place in, say, Ocotlán on a particular date in 1672, I know that is can be found on FHL film 280854 between images 377 and 396, and I don't have to search the entire film to locate the record. Yes, the online images may be changed or go away entirely; but I suspect the likelihood of that's happening is small, and in the meantime, my documentation points me to the specific image on the particular film, and that, after all, is the purpose of documentation—to allow others to replicate your source material directly without their having to reproduce your search.
One further comment on why I catalogue the FHL Films I use and use image numbers in my citations: some—perhaps many—of the FHL film descriptions are incorrect; for example, this is the FHL online catalogue description of FHL Film 221879 (Lagos de Moreno): "Confirmaciones 1728 -- Bautismos 1607-1640 -- Matrimonios 1638 -- Confirmaciones 1680 -- Casamientos 1605-1637 -- Confirmaciones 1634 -- ? 1612-1634 -- Defunciones, Matrimonios 1638-1634 -- Bautismos 1647-1649, 1627-1628, 1615-1620 -- Matrimonios 1612-1635 -- Defunciones 1681, 1659-1673". Well, in cataloging this film, I discovered that, between images 324 and 329, there are marriages that date from 1586! Incredibly, I found a marriage record that I needed from 1588, which I would never have found had I not had my catalogue; it is the earliest record I have found online thus far on any FHL film ...
Word of Caution!
I have been recording image numbers on all my entries for the past year when I started my genealogy research. I have found it extremely useful whenever I needed to go back to locate and review a record. Downloading and or printing all these records just seems like an arduous task. There have been many times that I have found a record that was not in correct chronological order. Sometimes the parish records alternate dates between the main church and an auxiliary location. And of course sometimes the date recorded is inaccurate (for example Jan 2013 is recorded as Jan 2012).
Well in fact the Jalisco parish records I research were updated on Feb 25. To my surprise I noticed that my entries for marriages for Juchitlan 1860-1878 records no longer point to the correct image! Upon further inspection I discovered that they added about 50-80 images to this particular collection, which makes absolutely no sense since the new images added were for marriages from 1922. I do not yet know if any other collection records now have new image numbers. Now I am torn between updating the image numbers or just deleting them altogether. Either way, it will be a lot of work since I have almost 3,000 people in my tree. How frustrating!
Juan J
Updated online films
David Serna
I too have found some recent changes to online files where the total number of images has been increased. I still see value in recording the image numbers.
Recording the Image Number
When they started putting the microfilms online, every single image had a code number which appeared as you downloaded it. Later they got rid of it. Nevertheless, I think it is a good idea to write down both the microfilm number and the image number, even if either becomes useless in the future. Some records are relatively easy to find without image number since all the records in the series follow a chronological order. But if you have a section with 3000 images and no strict chronological order (as with some of the Dispensas), then an image number becomes a must.
Victoriano Navarro
Bad idea? Probably not, but ...
David
I would not go so far as to say this is a bad idea, but you need to know the issues with such a citation.
The FHL is simply a repository of a copy of these records. The film number, image number are simply from their system of cataloging and presenting the record. The url of the source is simply the current electronic repository, which (1) may change as systems are updated or (2) could simply go away if the system becomes unfunded or unsupported (for the FHL this is highly unlikely).
I think the proper citation for the record (for church or civil records) should be:
author (Catholic Church or Civil Authorities)
Parish (for church only) and location
record type (baptisms, marriages, etc)
volume number or year(s) covered
page or folio number (if used)
record number if used
Along with this information, you should note the repository (FHL), their film and image number, as well as the date you extracted the information.
Family Search does provide some guidance on citing records; here are a couple of examples. Personally, I think their citations are incomplete: if you were look at the 1930 census for the Jose Lara record from a different source, how would you find this record?
From the 1930 Mexico National Census
"México, censo nacional, 1930," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M2H9-LC7 : accessed 02 Mar 2013), José Lara in entry for Luz Lara, 1930.
From the indexed (and image linked) church records
"México, Distrito Federal, registros parroquiales y diocesanos, 1514-1970," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/F32V-2DK : accessed 02 Mar 2013), Alonso García and Matilde Pontones, 1924.
I think that the main thing to keep in mind is that the FHL is simply a repository of a copy of these records, and not the author.
George Fulton
Pleasanton, CA
reference notations..
David Serna Thank you for the guidance ... I do note the parish, book number and page no. but i have never noted the LDS film source numbers. It is always nice to have others to bounce ideas off . thanks for the help.
FHL Film image number as a part of the citation
I have a minor disagreement with George on this issue. First, let me say that I agree completely that all of the information George lists is important, including the FHL film and image numbers; but I think the film and image numbers are extremely important for the reason that, for many of the early years, the films contain not only mixed dates, but also mixed events—that is, baptisms, marriages, confirmations, and burials may be mixed within one film number.
I have taken great pains to generate an index of the contents of the films I have accessed over the past year and a half, which has proven invaluable to me, especially when I return to a particular film again and again.
Here is one, almost comical, example of how a film can contain mixed information; it is FHL Film 280854 from Ocotlán. The FHL catalogue says that this film is "Bautismos 1610-1723 (incluye algunos matrimonios)", but this is the 'true' catalogue of this film (as accurately as I have been able to define it):
@i005: vol. 1, bautismos, 1610–1623
@i044: matrimonios, 1610—1630
@i048: bautismos, 1634
@i049: matrimonial tables (I haven't quite figured this one out yet)
@i052: bautismos y matrimonios, mixed, 1636–1639
@i055: bautismos, 1636
@i064: vol. 2, bautismos, 1639–1664
@i138: matrimonios, 1639–1664
@i169: bautismos (españoles), 1639–1664
@i180: matrimonios, 1648–1651
@i184: entierros, 1651–1655
@i188: vol. 3, bautismos, 1664–1684
@i269: casamientos, 1664–1684
@i335: casamientos y bautismos (images are upside-down), 1694–1669
@i338: vol. 4, bautismos, 1667–1694
@i377: casamientos (upside-down), 1694–1669
@i396: bautismos, 1652–1695
@i401: bautismos, 1694 (entries are mixed)
@i403: matrimonios, 1694–1723
@i406: vol. 5, bautismos, 1695–1723
@i523: matrimonios (upside-down), 1723–1694
So why do I bother to go to all this trouble to catalogue more than 220 films so far (and counting)? Because if I find a reference in FamilySearch that says that a marriage took place in, say, Ocotlán on a particular date in 1672, I know that is can be found on FHL film 280854 between images 377 and 396, and I don't have to search the entire film to locate the record. Yes, the online images may be changed or go away entirely; but I suspect the likelihood of that's happening is small, and in the meantime, my documentation points me to the specific image on the particular film, and that, after all, is the purpose of documentation—to allow others to replicate your source material directly without their having to reproduce your search.
Best wishes,
Lawrence Bouett
Orinda, CA
FHL Film image number as a part of the citation
One further comment on why I catalogue the FHL Films I use and use image numbers in my citations: some—perhaps many—of the FHL film descriptions are incorrect; for example, this is the FHL online catalogue description of FHL Film 221879 (Lagos de Moreno): "Confirmaciones 1728 -- Bautismos 1607-1640 -- Matrimonios 1638 -- Confirmaciones 1680 -- Casamientos 1605-1637 -- Confirmaciones 1634 -- ? 1612-1634 -- Defunciones, Matrimonios 1638-1634 -- Bautismos 1647-1649, 1627-1628, 1615-1620 -- Matrimonios 1612-1635 -- Defunciones 1681, 1659-1673". Well, in cataloging this film, I discovered that, between images 324 and 329, there are marriages that date from 1586! Incredibly, I found a marriage record that I needed from 1588, which I would never have found had I not had my catalogue; it is the earliest record I have found online thus far on any FHL film ...
Lawrence Bouett
Orinda, CA