Beta Familysearch

[grangers14]

There was a sticky on here and I just took it off the other day.
Is it ok if I bring that back and merge this with it too auntie em?
Thats if I am thinking on the right line the beta that is now family search?
I will put it back so you can see what Im on about!
Jo

[MarkCDodd]

The "New" FamilySearch is not the "Newest New" family search that is only open to LDS members and at selected LDS sites.

The "Newest New" is more like the Pilot Familyseach that is still operating.

The Pilot interface is much easier to use and narrow down results than the "New" FamilySearch.

It presents the data in chronological order with the full details of date and place viewable without having to expand the results like you currently do.

It has an export function that removes all the "white space" from the result so it looks much neater when pasting into your genealogical software.

It has a database of place names and can logically search across close parishes if you want it to.

i.e. If I narrwo the search to Sheriffhales, Shropshire it will search across Sheriffhales Shropshire, Sherriff Hales Shropshire, Sheriffhales Staffordshire, Sheriff Hales Staffordshire.

If i tell it to search across close parishes it will search Shifnal, Newport etc.

If you are logged in and wish to order the film/fiche/tape it will automatically fill in the details and remember the LDS center to send it from and to.

i.e. It would remember to send it from the Melbourne LDS center to AIGS in Blackburn for me.

I think they were planning to have the images available online but the amount of traffic they expect made that impossible.

[grangers14]

So this a new beta?

Im lost and what I read a little while ago doesnt add up?

I suppose submitted and extracted was too simple

Trancriptions are as we see and still best checking the origanal.

One persons eyes can see something else and a good point to check it all out.

Brilliant their films are so cheap to view through the lds and they welcome freereg to transcribe what they do have for volunteers to transcribe.
As usual its only as good as the transciber and also who ever put it there in the first place!
To transcribe you put what you see.

As we have seen many times the vicar may have not put what it really should be!

Jo

[Antie Em]

:? So this a new beta?

Im lost and what I read a little while ago doesnt add up?

I suppose submitted and extracted was too simple

Trancriptions are as we see and still best checking the origanal.

One persons eyes can see something else and a good point to check it all out.

Brilliant their films are so cheap to view through the lds and they welcome freereg to transcribe what they do have for volunteers to transcribe.
As usual its only as good as the transciber and also who ever put it there in the first place!
To transcribe you put what you see.

As we have seen many times the vicar may have not put what it really should be!



Jo

Absolutely right Jo - the same with any information you use, it's always best to look at the original. I have used my local LDS Centre in Harborne for years, to look at Parish Registers from all over the country. I have even ordered them in for Worcestershire, rather than make the journey to Worcester, when I've only needed to look at a couple of things, or for Staffordshire, rather than make the journey to Stafford. Best of all for me though, is that I love trawling through the records, it surprising what you find - buriel records are really useful.

[MarkCDodd]

Yes, there are good clues in the written registries that the church warden or similar might write.

I found that with the Baptism records at St Francis Xavier RC Church last week.

They also put the weddding dates and church, even if it wasn't R.C., onto the baptism records.

[minishant1]

I did a search yesterday on Familysearch and got the same relative with same Batch No., Film No., etc, but with different dads! Trouble is, anyone can add to Familysearch and if they get it wrong - as someone obviously did in that instant - there's no way you can tell which is the correct record.

Mini

[Northern Lass]

I did a search yesterday on Familysearch and got the same relative with same Batch No., Film No., etc, but with different dads! Trouble is, anyone can add to Familysearch and if they get it wrong - as someone obviously did in that instant - there's no way you can tell which is the correct record.

Mini

On the old search on IGI it says submitted or extracted
the submitted are from an individuals research or wherever
the extracted are from the Parish records but again still transcribed...but pretty good.

[grangers14]

Has anyone searched the old IGI recently?
Ive just searched found what I wanted then to find siblings added just surname and parents names then I get sent to the new site?

Im still not certain what is extracted or submitted...I shall have to try and read up some more unless anyone knows?
Jo

[Northern Lass]

Has anyone searched the old IGI recently?
Ive just searched found what I wanted then to find siblings added just surname and parents names then I get sent to the new site?

Im still not certain what is extracted or submitted...I shall have to try and read up some more unless anyone knows?
Jo

I know what you mean it happened to me other day
but have been using it ok today