tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post2626532412718851697..comments2024-03-07T23:20:49.790-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: What is free and what is not in genealogy and other interesting questionsJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-87584414979762697212013-12-02T09:30:55.878-07:002013-12-02T09:30:55.878-07:00Bytes are free. Thanks for your comments. I will b...Bytes are free. Thanks for your comments. I will be posting about the IGI shortly to address these issues. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-64262272618324396402013-12-02T09:16:46.147-07:002013-12-02T09:16:46.147-07:00At the risk of taking up too many bytes... One thi...At the risk of taking up too many bytes... One thing about the IGI Community *Contributed* stuff that I never appreciated, was where you had to go to search it. If you search the full IGI, you get the option to search the Community Contributed stuff - fine. Now, my impression of this stuff is that a huge amount of it is basically genealogies - perhaps short ones, but genealogies rather than indexes. That's why FS correctly didn't dump all of the IGI into the new Records Search. And if you enquire on a record in the Community Contributed stuff, it (correctly) comes up headed "Genealogies" not Records or Catalogue, etc.<br /><br />And yet if you try to go from the front screen of FS into Search, then onto the screen headed "Genealogies" (not Records or Catalogue, etc.), you can only search Ancestral File or Pedigree Resource File - not the Community Contributed IGI. I could check this time and stuff in the Community Contributed IGI is not in the AF or PRF.<br /><br />A touch inconsistent that... Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-51758692315168256032013-12-02T06:59:10.877-07:002013-12-02T06:59:10.877-07:00Addressing the issues raised by this type of respo...Addressing the issues raised by this type of response is never a waste of time. We all need to recognize that there are people out there who, for whatever reason, never seem to get the message being sent. This is something we always need to be aware of. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-83058944013949241292013-12-02T05:39:04.369-07:002013-12-02T05:39:04.369-07:00Gordon - the issue for me is one of usability by p...Gordon - the issue for me is one of usability by people with an imperfect understanding. As such logic may not apply! <br /><br />As you say, "if you pick a specific location, such as UK & Ireland, the IGI shows in the list of choices". But my bet is that many people will immediately filter that list down without reading it - if you want Scotland, why would you bother to scroll, scroll, scroll, past the English stuff? And as soon as you filter, then the IGI disappears. <br /><br />Further, the database collections that the IGI was split down into, will omit (in some cases) index records duplicated by the Community Contributed stuff. And not having the IGI visible at the England, Scotland, etc., level makes it tricky to find that stuff. It's already bad enough trying to explain that "No data was lost - well, apart from..." I'd just like to make it a bit easier for them.Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-36472027147017726922013-12-01T22:17:03.235-07:002013-12-01T22:17:03.235-07:00Don't waste your time on these people.Don't waste your time on these people.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-21163955514363404582013-12-01T21:11:46.152-07:002013-12-01T21:11:46.152-07:00It’s really not that hard to find IGI entries. And...It’s really not that hard to find IGI entries. And Family Search is trying to get people to realize that. Go to the main page for FamilySearch. Hit the “Search” button at the top of the page. The top of the search page says, “Our records span …. including… IGI extracted…” <br /><br />At the bottom of the Search page, click on “Browse All Published Collections.” Then just scroll down the list until you come to “International Genealogical Index.” Or in the box that says “Filter by Collection Name” type in “IGI” and there it is.<br /><br />As the commentator mentioned above, if you pick a specific location, such as UK & Ireland, the IGI shows in the list of choices. It shows up in the list no matter what location you pick. You can click on anything between Africa and the United States and it will be sitting there in the “I”s. Or type “IGI” in the filter box and the link to the IGI becomes the only one in the list.<br /><br />There is another place to find the IGI records, also. That is in the appropriate, specific database where you would expect to find them. All of the extracted IGI records for Norway, for example, were split up into the three database collections, Norway Burials, 1666-1927; Norway, Baptisms, 1634-1927; and Norway, Marriages, 1660-1926. These also include all of the Vital Record Index extraction records that were never put into the IGI. I hardly ever use the IGI, because these databases have all of the Norwegian IGI records plus many more extracted records in them.<br /><br />There is a third place to find all the IGI records. Since by definition all IGI records have temple work done, all IGI records are in Family Tree. Unfortunately, it is hard to recognize them as such and they do not have any sources attached to them, but they are there.<br />Gordon Colletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10501621351412089615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-36880289141563579662013-12-01T18:18:12.103-07:002013-12-01T18:18:12.103-07:00I don't think that the bulk of the commentator...I don't think that the bulk of the commentators have analyzed it as much as you have. I suspect that they simply have not asked anyone about where it went or searched to see if it was on the website. Incidentally, if you do a Google search for IGI it comes up almost as the first entry and has a link directly to FamilySearch.orgJames Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-776155873641455032013-12-01T09:58:55.265-07:002013-12-01T09:58:55.265-07:00I think you're being too critical of people...I think you're being too critical of people's confusions over the IGI. Certainly, you can search (the two parts of) the IGI easily enough - but you have to find them first. <br /><br />If you do Records / Browse By Location / UK & Ireland, then there is the IGI, in its alphabetical place in the list. (Frankly, it should say "IGI Community Indexed" - I think - but let that pass).<br /><br />Seeing the IGI there was quite a surprise to me - because if I want to see what collections there are for England, I'd do Records / Browse By Location / UK & Ireland and instantly filter down to England, without reading through all the search results. And if I filter down to England - there is NO entry for the IGI. Hence my presumption that it was only accessible through some arcane link known only to the Jedi genealogists. (Needless to say, there are MANY entries in the IGI for England, so it should show in the list of collections).<br /><br />My suspicion is that a lot of the rumours surrounding "data has been lost from the IGI" a.k.a. "I used to be able to find this person but now I can't", originate from the community *contributed* entries that (to avoid duplication) resulted in the removal of entries from the community *indexed* collection. Like good genealogists, we avoid the community contributed entries (until we're desperate!) so never find the so-called lost entries. This "loss" (if you keep to the indexed entries only) is mentioned as a limitation in the Wiki entry for the IGI but it's not clear how anyone works out if a parish might be subject to such loss. And, of course, I can't find any lost entries to work through...Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.com