Another reason for incomplete parishes is that the person doing the transcription was only interested in either the male or the female baptisms and so ignored the other sex. This is one of the most frustrating reasons for them being incomplete as it means you have to go through the images yourself to find the missing ones. This has happened to me several times. However I would always recommend looking at the source anyway as there is often more information than shown in the IGI. Nuala On 05/12/2012 13:36, Andy Micklethwaite wrote: > 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 14:31 05/12/2012, Nuala wrote: >However I would always recommend looking at the >source anyway as there is often more information than shown in the IGI. Very definitely - if only to look for the word that changes everything in your tree - Widow. How many of us have had to prune a branch having discovered that word? I know I have. Andy