tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post2960459732956812769..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Hmm. A link between FamilySearch.org and New.FamilySearch.org?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-36892932395017377662011-10-11T12:54:07.969-07:002011-10-11T12:54:07.969-07:00I found the same type link to people in new.Family...I found the same type link to people in new.FamilySearch in some of the Massachusetts vital records that do not have images available. I did not delve as deeply into the source as you did, assuming that this is a precursor for the sourcing process when new.FamilySearch.org is migrated to FamilySearch.org and becomes Family Tree. I would give Feedback or report a Problem to FamilySearch support.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01572739124200052085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-52218854293801512402011-10-10T13:46:36.859-07:002011-10-10T13:46:36.859-07:00Ancestry Member Trees give me the same feeling. Oc...Ancestry Member Trees give me the same feeling. Occasionally there is a tidbit of information I can use as a clue but 99% of the time there is nothing of interest.Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07230436754902585388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-53528174705245725262011-10-10T10:00:09.890-07:002011-10-10T10:00:09.890-07:00James, you generously did not comment on two other...James, you generously did not comment on two other issues, one with new.FamilySearch's display of Susannah Tanner's page, and the other with the Historical Records entry.<br /><br />1) Why does Susannah Tanner's page have parenthetical vital dates "(1745-1859)," while the only birth date given for Susannah is in 1784? There is no asterisk next to Susannah's pedigree-page entry suggesting that there are other entries for her.<br /><br />2) The Historical Records Search Results pages do not state what the source was for the entry. You can find it by doing a FHL Catalog search (a-click on the unidentified logo-link back to search page and wait several minutes for the search page to load; b-click 'Catalog' tab which really is for the FH Library Catalog; c-use the drop-down menu to select search by film number; d-enter film number and click 'search'; e-wait several minutes until you get a page giving only a general title for whatever database group the film is in; f-click on the title of the database group; g-look for the microfilm number and the title of the actual record source). I don't know why they can't just put the title of the actual source-record on the page with the search results.<br /><br />The generic "Births and Christenings" collections of databases are not actual source records, and there is no entry in the FHLibrary Catalog for any of them that list the actual components of the collections. There are Wiki pages for each generic group which also do not list the actual component source records. Wiki contributors do not have access to any complete list of what actual records are part of any of the generic groups.<br /><br />I don't know why the film number search can't just take you to the page listing the actual database name that goes with the microfilm number given in the search results (often only on the detail page, not the original results page); the page with the general record-group title is useless.<br /><br />Why are the slow and overloaded servers burdened with these extra useless pages?Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.com