APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-12 > 1229479688


From: "SMSys Info" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Chicago Marriage Records and other LDS databases
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:08:08 -0000
References: <49475BB8.3189.1C336B@hhsh.earthlink.net> <45c595dc0812160928v4cd0a0f4nbdb7b29412caebbf@mail.gmail.com><49483F88.9010208@reevesweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <49483F88.9010208@reevesweb.com>


Dear Peggy,
I will confess at the outset that I have absolutely no experience of
accessing the US based archives you speak of.

However, I feel your "conspiracy" themed comments about LDS FamilySearch and
commercial vendors provision of internet access to records to be slightly
too critical.

Consider for a moment where the genealogy world would be without the access
granted by these providers and in particular the free access to the
collections of the LDS Family History Library. Commercial vendors are in it
for the money - it is a business enterprise - they have to make a profit to
stay in business - there is a demand for their product (from us! -
genealogists) - it is simply not possible for everyone interested in record
research to visit the host archives. I believe we should be grateful for the
various partnerships LDS FamilySearch has with commercial vendors as the
FamilySearch involvement brings in an interested party that does not have a
profit motive but rather a community service motive with a commitment to
accuracy so deep it is religious.

As an LDS FamilySearch indexer (and an additional 25 years research
experience) I can say that in my opinion the professional level of the
operation is exemplary - I would recommend you joining up as an indexer for
the experience - and to make a difference (www.familysearchindexing.org) .

LDS FamilySearch runs two types of operation - digitisation followed by
indexing of the digitised records. In relation to some of your particular
comments I know that there is provision in the Indexing operation to record
any image as unreadable or part of the record as unreadable and such
information is built into the index information.

As to commercial providers leaving out records - I have always been
impressed by Ancestry's collection of UK census records where they
specifically record those census records and parishes that were either
damaged and not filmed or not available for their copying. I am not so
impressed by their indexing - involving non English transcribers was a bad
decision - so I look forward to the time those UK census records can be put
through the FamilySearch Indexing process.

You clearly feel strongly about some particular issues and you certainly
should make professional representation to the appropriate bodies and US
professional organisations regarding an explanation to your particular
concerns - for instance, what is the NARA response to a specific example of
an over looked record in the microfilming/indexing operation - I am sure
there will be many who will be interested in the replies you receive.


Kind Regards,
Stewart Millar
Berkshire, England


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Peggy K. Reeves
Sent: 16 December 2008 23:54
To:
Subject: Re: [APG] Chicago Marriage Records and other LDS databases

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my initial posting. I'll try to clear up
a few things (or maybe just make things worse)!

First, I was not comparing apples to oranges. It's ALL FamilySearch.
If they have put Cook County records online and the images all look
good, there's no way for you to know what's missing unless you have seen
the originals beforehand, or can look at them afterward. It would be
like looking at an online pedigree that has no sources and saying: "I
haven't researched it, but that looks right to me." That is the point I
was making. I can still look at microfilm images at NARA for most of
what the Footnote people (FamilySearch volunteers) have put online so
far, and the comparison is shocking. There are a lot of records that
have disappeared or become unreadable in the changeover from poor
microfilm to a digital image of poor microfilm. If the image did not
transfer over in a readable form, then why weren't the names indexed
anyway with a note saying that the image is too poor to be readable?
The index cards on the microfilm are almost all readable on the
microfilm viewers, and any that aren't readable on one index can be
cross-checked on another index (NARA has 3 different Civil War pension
indexes on microfilm--one by name, one by regiment, and one by number,
so there's really no excuse). Ah, but this would be very tedious and
time-consuming and would have slowed down the process of getting that
index online to be sold. This is the great conflict of interest that I
was trying to point out. But folks don't hear about it. All they hear
is the lovely spin that the subscription sites and FamilySearch put on it.

Yes, census pages were digitized more carefully because those pages are
sequentially numbered. In other words, it would be obvious if a page
were missing. Not so for the Civil War pension index cards--they can
disappear unnoticed for the sake of speed in getting them online to
sell, and that is exactly what has happened. The Footnote contract with
NARA says that Footnote can only make money selling these images for 5
years, and then the images will be available for free from the NARA
website. There, again, is the conflict of interest. Footnote has a
great financial incentive to speed through the filming as quickly as
possible instead of making it as readable as possible. Who is auditing
that process? No one--they are auditing themselves by saying it is
checked by two people.

FamilySearch recruits volunteers and provides them for use by Footnote,
Ancestry, and other Utah-based genealogy vendors. The vendors negotiate
contracts with the various record custodians and then they send the
FamilySearch volunteers in to bring home the bacon.

"FamilySearch helps archives and other record custodians digitize,
preserve, and publish their collections online. A key component of the
program allows FamilySearch and archives to team with genealogy websites
like Footnote to provide significant collections of genealogical and
historical records online."

This quote comes from the press release dated 15 May 2007 that appears
at the FamilySearch website. There have been similar press releases at
the Footnote site and the National Archives site, as new contracts are
awarded for digitization of various records. It is no mystery that
FamilySearch does it all, in fact, they brag about it! At the Footnote
website, Footnote refers to itself as "an official FamilySearch
affiliate". For a while, the Footnote people were wearing large
"FamilySearch" nametags while working in the file room at NARA with the
rest of us, but now these volunteers have their own room and can have as
many files out as they want, with very little supervision by the NARA
staff (at least I never see any staff in there when I walk by the room).

It is the longstanding policy of NARA to reduce handling of the original
documents by taking them out of public view once they are microfilmed or
scanned. Thus, the indexing and images that are getting botched or left
out completely for the sake of getting the product to market faster will
soon be gone forever from our view, because NARA will make us dependent
on those scans. How's that for "preservation"?

Peggy Reeves



This thread: