On 12/20/2014 12:38 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: >> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >> conjecture or hearsay. > Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records > separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. > "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or > whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view > the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" > records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is > very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. I see neither "extracted" nor "submitted" in the records of the people I've located in the early 1600s, but the heading is "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975"; does that tell us anything? And there are alphanumerical sequences (record numbers?) such as LCTH-4CM. Perce

On 20/12/2014 17:56, Percival P. Cassidy wrote: > On 12/20/2014 12:38 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: > >>> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >>> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >>> conjecture or hearsay. > >> Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >> separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. >> "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or >> whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view >> the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" >> records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is >> very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. > > I see neither "extracted" nor "submitted" in the records of the people > I've located in the early 1600s, but the heading is "England Births and > Christenings, 1538-1975"; does that tell us anything? > They're split into separate sections now - Records and Genealogies. Genealogies are the submittes stuff. > And there are alphanumerical sequences (record numbers?) such as LCTH-4CM. That sounds as though you are also looking at FamilySearch Family Tree (as opposed to Search. Those are the FamilySearch ID numbers. Eventually the idea is that there will be one enormous family tree with every individual having a unique ID. At the moment there is a long way to go and there are many, many duplicates - lots of FSIDs all relating to the same person, with varying amounts of information in each record. I'm not LDS and frankly I think their "one big FamilyTree" is an impossible pipe dream, but I do contribute data to FamilyTree and do some work towards combining duplicates. I have made contact with a distant relative through FT and also found a fair few pointers towards possible/probable relatives worthwhile lines of research. -- Jenny M Benson

On 12/20/2014 02:23 PM, Jenny M Benson wrote: >>>> Thank you very much. But are the records on FamilySearch reliable? I >>>> have heard that some (much?) of the stuff in the LDS records is merely >>>> conjecture or hearsay. >>> Nowadays the LDS keeps the "extracted" and the "submitted" records >>> separate so you pretty much know how much you can rely on what you see. >>> "Extracted" means the original records (Parish Registers or BTs or >>> whatever else) have been filmed by the LDS and sometimes you can view >>> the images on site, sometimes you'll just see indexes. "Submnitted" >>> records comprise informtion submitted by LDS members so reliability is >>> very mixed - some very good, some decidedly iffy. >> I see neither "extracted" nor "submitted" in the records of the people >> I've located in the early 1600s, but the heading is "England Births and >> Christenings, 1538-1975"; does that tell us anything? > They're split into separate sections now - Records and Genealogies. > Genealogies are the submittes stuff. > >> And there are alphanumerical sequences (record numbers?) such as >> LCTH-4CM. > > That sounds as though you are also looking at FamilySearch Family Tree > (as opposed to Search. Those are the FamilySearch ID numbers. > Eventually the idea is that there will be one enormous family tree with > every individual having a unique ID. At the moment there is a long way > to go and there are many, many duplicates - lots of FSIDs all relating > to the same person, with varying amounts of information in each record. > > I'm not LDS and frankly I think their "one big FamilyTree" is an > impossible pipe dream, but I do contribute data to FamilyTree and do > some work towards combining duplicates. I have made contact with a > distant relative through FT and also found a fair few pointers towards > possible/probable relatives worthwhile lines of research. What I am seeing is all under the "Records" category. Perce