Genealogy Forum UK

For Rowley Regis researchers information:

I've been in communication with FamilySearch regarding my difficulty in using a Batch Number search to find family groups since the implementation of the new site. I found that when I used the old method on the classic site, I was being redirected to the new site. Most batch numbers give me results which are all mixed up with results which do not match the criteria that I have specified, and the Rowley Regis batch number, P009901 wouldn't give me any results at all.

This is the important part of the reply that I received:

"This document explains why you get different results when searching for a batch number on the classic site and at our FamilySearch.org site. The records from batch P00990-1 do not appear because we do not have the rights to publish them. Since the new function of the classic site redirects you to the FamilySearch site, these records are no longer searchable by batch number."

The document referred to is at
https://www.familysearch.org/help/viewd ... ery=113065

After further emails to FamilySearch, I received this reply:
"Thank you for your reply. The difficulty in publishing these records comes from a new standard that we are required to follow in order to publish the records online. Many of these records were extracted decades ago. It is very difficult and time consuming to locate the donors of these records to obtain the permission needed to publish them at our FamilySearch.org. We are doing all we can to make all of the records available.

In the meantime, you can still do a search at our previous familysearch.org site. Do not include the batch number. Do a search with no name for the child. Include the father's name and the mother's name. Select birth/christening for the event. Choose a year and range. Choose the region, country and county.

This gives a search result that contains records from a few different locations, but is still searchable by looking for records that match the location you are seeking."

This seems to help a bit. Hope it's useful.
Di

Thanks Di
have moved to here

I find the new IGI difficult to understand if extracted or submitted
and waiting to see if they can firm that up

Interesting Di.

It does throw lots of questions up though?
We presumed Submitted was from LDS people who needed to add members of the family to be confirmed into the religion (think thats right )
Where extracted was extracted from records that a person has transcribed from and added.


Makes me more confused especially with the new family search what it all means
I suppose it still needs checking to verify and all is secondary evidence...
Jo