Hello, Apologies in advance for a lengthy email, but I hope it will be of interest to all parties. I have recently had problems with FamilySearch in trying to relocate some previous search results, so I wrote to FS, and below are the replies. I had located a marriage record for a Thomas Mitchell to a Susanna Tregelly at Brixton, Devon, on 24 December 1747. Because it didn't wholly match what I hoped to find, I searched around through FS without much more success. When I tried to go back to the original search it didn't show up. Nor did a similar search for Susanna Tregelly. I had also found that when I searched for a marriage I got results for everything but. Hence my query to FS. --0-- We understand your frustration at not being able to replicate a search. We tried to replicate your findings ourselves and could only find Thomas's birth record: We could find no connection with a Susanna in that date range. We even searched on our partner site, Ancestry.com and could not find a marriage record there either. We do know that collections come and go according to the laws of the country that owns them. This may or may not be the case. We are also having issues with our search engine and hope to rectify that in the near future. As to your second question, church records often include birth, baptism, marriages and deaths. When the records are digitized, they will digitize all of the records they have, therefore there may be other types of records included in marriage records. --0-- Hello again, Thanks for looking. I don't really follow your logic regarding the laws of different countries. Once a record has been released, surely it stays released. I also don't follow your logic regarding the church records. Once a record has been digitised, surely a search should pick out what is being searched for, and not produce a birth record when looking for a marriage. Somehow the search process is not working. If that is going to happen there's no point in specifying a particular search option. --0-- Thank you for responding. We are afraid it is not our logic. We have quoted from our knowledge article below. And as we said, it may not be because of this. Once our search engine is revamped, it should be easier to find people more than one time. And that will make us happy, too. Best of luck. Record access is subject to change. You may see more or fewer records in FamilySearch.org for several reasons: FamilySearch does not own the historical records published on the FamilySearch.org site. Therefore, while we can publish free indexes, we may not be able to publish the accompanying images for all users. The viewing of records is subject to the laws of political entities and to the wishes of the record custodians (archives, societies, governments, etc.); they govern the following viewing privileges. Privacy for the records of living people and people within specific time spans; for example, many countries do not allow the viewing of certain records until a person has been deceased for 75 years. Which users can view images. For example, only registered users, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the sponsoring organization). The place the record can be accessed; for example, only in family history centers. Record access will change as the laws that govern records change. Access to census records and birth, marriage, death, and other records is determined by the country, state, or entity that has stewardship over the records. To make sure you have access to the most records available, you can do the following: Sign in to familysearch.org before your search. (In the upper right corner of the home page, click Sign in, and sign in with your FamilySearch account user name and password.) Search for records from a family history center. Some records are only available at family history centers. Note: There is no limit on the number of users that can view a record at the same time. Regards, FamilySearch --0-- I still don't follow the logic, and I wasn't (on that occasion) trying to view actual images. It seems a bit like an excuse to me. However, it seems we will have to await the updated search engine, unless someone else is better aware of what is happening! Many thanks for your patience, and I hope it helps someone. Best wishes, Tom Thompson. .

Hi Tom The marriage you seek is on the old IGI and looks to be a patron submission Hence the reason you can't find it on familysearch as the "new" familysearch does not include patron submissions To get to the old IGI, select search, then browse all record collections Let the search page load and enter IGI in the search You have a choice of extractions (indexed IGI) or Contributed (patron submissions or unsourced entries) or both together The marriage you mentioned :- Susanna Tregelly death: more spouse: Thomas Mitchell marriage: 24 December 1747 death: Additional Information for Susanna Tregelly Sources (1) Family History Library Microfilm: 1235253 Citing This Record "International Genealogical Index (IGI)," database, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/M6PC-D23 : accessed 2014-12-10), entry for Susanna Tregelly. The International Genealogical Index (IGI) is a computer file created by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was first published in 1973 and continued to grow through December 2008. It contains several hundred million entries, each recording one event, such as a birth, baptism (christening), marriage, or death. The information has not been verified against any official records. Duplicate entries and inconsistent information are common. Always verify contributed entries against sources of primary information. Learn more >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 10/12/2014 15:31, Liz & Tom Thompson via wrote: > > Hello, > > Apologies in advance for a lengthy email, but I hope it will be of interest > to all parties. > > I have recently had problems with FamilySearch in trying to relocate some > previous search results, so I wrote to FS, and below are the replies. > > I had located a marriage record for a Thomas Mitchell to a Susanna Tregelly > at Brixton, Devon, on 24 December 1747. Because it didn't wholly match what > I hoped to find, I searched around through FS without much more success. > When I tried to go back to the original search it didn't show up. Nor did a > similar search for Susanna Tregelly. I had also found that when I searched > for a marriage I got results for everything but. Hence my query to FS.