Hello, I know that the IGI isn't comprehensive but I've always assumed that when it gives the name of the parish and the dates covered that it meant that I could be certain that those dates were actually complete. Could this be wrong? I have found surnames that seem to disappear from baptisms half way through the nominally covered timescale in the Parish and then numerous Parish marriages for unidentified brides and grooms in the same Parish who would have very likely been born during this period. Don't get me wrong, I am hugely grateful for the IGI which is a wonderful resource. I just want to know whether I should be checking the Staffordshire archives for Parishes where I have previously thought I had no need to do so. Helen

Hi Helen: You can't be certain that the dates are complete for the ranges given. In particular for Staffs, much of the IGI content was taken from the BTs and not the original PRs, and the BTs are less complete. I assume you know that the IGI has now been subsumed into the Family Search database. Paul On 5 December 2012 12:21, Helen Hudson <helen@ravensden.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote: > Hello, > > I know that the IGI isn't comprehensive but I've always assumed that when it > gives the name of the parish and the dates covered that it meant that I > could be certain that those dates were actually complete. > > Could this be wrong? I have found surnames that seem to disappear from > baptisms half way through the nominally covered timescale in the Parish and > then numerous Parish marriages for unidentified brides and grooms in the > same Parish who would have very likely been born during this period. > > Don't get me wrong, I am hugely grateful for the IGI which is a wonderful > resource. I just want to know whether I should be checking the Staffordshire > archives for Parishes where I have previously thought I had no need to do > so. > > Helen > > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Paul, Many thanks. I knew about the IGI being subsumed but I certainly hadn't realised that much of the content for Staffs was from the incomplete BT's and not the original PR's. That gives much food for thought. Helen -----Original Message----- From: staffordshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:staffordshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Prescott Sent: 05 December 2012 12:27 To: staffordshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STAFFORDSHIRE] IGI Query Hi Helen: You can't be certain that the dates are complete for the ranges given. In particular for Staffs, much of the IGI content was taken from the BTs and not the original PRs, and the BTs are less complete. I assume you know that the IGI has now been subsumed into the Family Search database. Paul On 5 December 2012 12:21, Helen Hudson <helen@ravensden.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote: > Hello, > > I know that the IGI isn't comprehensive but I've always assumed that > when it gives the name of the parish and the dates covered that it > meant that I could be certain that those dates were actually complete. > > Could this be wrong? I have found surnames that seem to disappear > from baptisms half way through the nominally covered timescale in the > Parish and then numerous Parish marriages for unidentified brides and > grooms in the same Parish who would have very likely been born during this period. > > Don't get me wrong, I am hugely grateful for the IGI which is a > wonderful resource. I just want to know whether I should be checking > the Staffordshire archives for Parishes where I have previously > thought I had no need to do so. > > Helen > > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ****************************** ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. ****************************** PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I too have found the old IGI to be incomplete on many occasions - I suspect there are many reasons. For example, I read somewhere (The Ancestry Insider blog perhaps) that the old IGI could not handle duplicate entries. Remember that the old IGI also contained "member submissions" of variable quality (to say the least). So if an entry for your ancestor's baptism had been submitted by a member, when the PRs or BTs including that baptism were entered in a batch, your ancestor's entry in the batch would be rejected as the member submission got there first. Now when the batch records were transferred to the new FamilySearch, they were transferred from the IGI and not from a resubmitted batch - so your ancestor's entry is still missing. HTH Andy. At 12:21 05/12/2012, you wrote: >Hello, > >I know that the IGI isn't comprehensive but I've always assumed that when it >gives the name of the parish and the dates covered that it meant that I >could be certain that those dates were actually complete. > >Could this be wrong? I have found surnames that seem to disappear from >baptisms half way through the nominally covered timescale in the Parish and >then numerous Parish marriages for unidentified brides and grooms in the >same Parish who would have very likely been born during this period.