A question related to the OP- Family Search-are records collected by LDS members and held on film before they launched their current project of filmed and indexed records included in their indexing ? I note some entries have no image and in one or two cases I have not been able to track the record when browsing the images. Probably my error but I just wondered. If I recall correctly some of the member gathered information the old LDS website carried was unreliable. I find the value of the LDS site is in the filmed images.The FreeReg is very helpful and I think records are very carefully transcribed, it is an admirable project and I thank all those who contribute. Used together they have changed the game. Using the Family Search index to search Norfolk PRs shows up some weak transcribing. Not as bad as Ancestry though. Rosie On 29/01/2016 22:58, Rosemary Jones via wrote: > FamilySearch has the unindexed images of the parish registers, archdeacons > transcripts and bishops transcripts for about 80% of the parishes. It may > even be more ... that's just a wild guess on my part gathered from my > extensive use of them. > > FreeReg has an extension collection of transcripts. > > Since FreeREG and FamilySearch are free I'ld use them first. > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Mike Fry via <norfolk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> On 29 Jan 2016 9:56 PM, Jan Rockett via wrote: >> >>> Can anyone tell me whether the Norfolk records on Find My Past, The >>> Genealogist and Family Search are any different please? >> Don't forget the transcriptions on FreeREG >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Mike Fry >> Johannesburg >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NORFOLK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Rosie Re familysearch The old IGI was made up of two main elements A. The patron submissions, some of which were based on sound research, unfortunately some were a work of fiction and guesstimates, and therefore patron submissions were unreliable B. Extractions from Parish and other records, which in the main were/are reliable ============ New familysearch does *not* contain the patron submissions, it is wholly based on extractions Therefore is much more reliable (albeit harder to drive ;-) ============ For those of a mind, the old IGI is still there in the "Browse all published collections" (go to familysearch, select Search and then select Browse all published collections, then enter IGI in the search box) Select International Genealogical Index (IGI) You then get a search page with both "Community Contributed IGI" (patron submissions) and "Community Indexed IGI" (extractions) included You can search them together or separately NB the majority of extracted records are included in the latest familysearch search but the patron submitted are not Transcription errors apart which are a problem in *any* database for several reasons, most records in the latest familysearch are reliable (but require confirming by checking the source) The main problem I see these days is finding the record of interest as new familysearch is not the easiest to manoeuvre around PS some records on familysearch do not have an image or have an image that is restricted as the LDS do not have the necessary permissions to allow it Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/01/2016 07:46, xpn11 via wrote: > A question related to the OP- Family Search-are records collected by LDS > members and held on film before they launched their current project of > filmed and indexed records included in their indexing ? I note some > entries have no image and in one or two cases I have not been able to > track the record when browsing the images. Probably my error but I just > wondered. > If I recall correctly some of the member gathered information the old > LDS website carried was unreliable. > I find the value of the LDS site is in the filmed images.The FreeReg is > very helpful and I think records are very carefully transcribed, it is > an admirable project and I thank all those who contribute. Used together > they have changed the game. > Using the Family Search index to search Norfolk PRs shows up some weak > transcribing. Not as bad as Ancestry though. > Rosie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus