I have just received from Scotland's People an image of an Old Parish Register entry which I could not find online yesterday because there was a mismatch between the index and the page it pointed to. Both the International Genealogical Index and the SP index list the date of this baptism as 1801. However the actual document is crystal clear, and says 1807 without any hint of a shadow of a doubt. I have asked SP to correct the error. However it does mean that anyone who finds this entry in the IGI, and then tries to get the original through SP, is likely to have a problem finding it. Sadly, there does not seem to be any mechanism for correcting errors in the IGI. (I would be delighted to be informed otherwise if I am wrong.) This is an absolute classic case of why the IGI is a fantastic finding aid, but why it is always essential to check the original document. The same applies to any source which is a transcription of the original. No matter how meticulous the transcriber is, there is always scope for a slip of the pen, a slip of the brain, or a misinterpretation. Anne

I was under the impression that the pre-1855 OPR index was donated by the LDS for use of Scotland's records. I honestly cannot remember where I gathered this information. I too have found errors (very few) reflected / mirrored in both indexes. I brought up the subject of batch numbers that begin with 7 a week or so ago (and am afraid they may also begin with an 8). So far, I have viewed the first 30 years of OPR's in Nairn, Nairnshire and have found a few baptisms not included within the IGI index under C111232; however, covered in the following batch numbers: 7002815 7226629 7419702 7419705 7419706 7419708 7420336 There appears to be a definite distinction between the two - "member submitted" and "form submitted". Does anyone on this list have a clue? The above numbers relate to "form submitted". The form submitted include a number of locales in the UK and are listed in capital letters (perhaps by a forward thinking individual) as opposed to lower case (member submitted records). I echo what Anne has stated, always check the individual record but key is finding the record to begin with and the IGI cuts down the cost as searches are free. Personally, I visit the Hugh Wallis site for batch numbers; unfortunately the "form submitted" records are not included. Fine if you are a Smith or Jones, not fine if you are a MacCurrach/ McCurrich / McUrich / McQuirick or a Lamb / Lambie, etc. and other variants of the surnames. For what it is worth.......or not, Sherry

> I was under the impression that the pre-1855 OPR index was > donated by the > LDS for use of Scotland's records. I honestly cannot remember > where I > gathered this information. I think I deduced it from the occasional identical error in both, and of course the complete omission from both IGI and SP of all the Duffus baptisms from 1820 to 1854. > There appears to be a definite distinction between the two - > "member > submitted" and "form submitted". Does anyone on this list > have a clue? This is pure specualtion, but I wonder whether 'member submitted' are the ones members have put in about their own families or families they have researched, while 'form submitted' are the results of a sort of continuation of the 'extraction' programme under another name? > I echo what Anne has stated, always check the individual > record but key is > finding the record to begin with and the IGI cuts down the > cost as searches > are free. Indeed. As I said, a fantastic finding aid. Anne

Anne Have you found the Duffus baptisms (1820 to 1854) on the original parish registers? Rhoda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Burgess" <anne.burgess@btinternet.com> To: <moray@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [MORAY] Indexing and transcription errors - you have beenwarned! >> I was under the impression that the pre-1855 OPR index was >> donated by the >> LDS for use of Scotland's records. I honestly cannot remember >> where I >> gathered this information. > I think I deduced it from the occasional identical error in > both, and of course the complete omission from both IGI and SP > of all the Duffus baptisms from 1820 to 1854. >

I hope I can add a little to this 'conversation'. I haven't come across 'form submitted' in the IGI but have come across 'member submitted'. They can be quite amusing at times when it has been noted that a child was born on a certain date, the marriage has been member submitted a year or so previous to the birth. Another child has been found, at an earlier date, so another guess at the marriage date has been submitted. Sometimes this can happen 3-4 times, so take note, there is a lot of guess work in member submissions. When you come across 'member submitted', this is only from a member of the Mormon Church, not the general public. I think I am right in saying that where you find a death date that is also from a member. I had a cousin who, over several years, attended different churches and became a Mormon until she died. She submitted a few family names. 'Extracted' records, I find, are more likely to be correct, having been taken from the original entries. The IGI is a great guide but don't take their information as gospel, excuse the pun! Sheila KC. Anne Burgess wrote: >> I was under the impression that the pre-1855 OPR index was >> donated by the >> LDS for use of Scotland's records. I honestly cannot remember >> where I >> gathered this information. >> > I think I deduced it from the occasional identical error in > both, and of course the complete omission from both IGI and SP > of all the Duffus baptisms from 1820 to 1854. > > >> There appears to be a definite distinction between the two - >> "member >> submitted" and "form submitted". Does anyone on this list >> have a clue? >> > This is pure specualtion, but I wonder whether 'member > submitted' are the ones members have put in about their own > families or families they have researched, while 'form > submitted' are the results of a sort of continuation of the > 'extraction' programme under another name? > > >