Genealogy Chat

Thank you Alan. I have certainly understood. I for one realise that the IGI was never meant in the beginning for general public genealogy, but realise that certainly with the advent of the computerised 1881 Census paved the way for many genealogists worldwide to make use of the facility for their own uses. Those of us who have done Family History for a long time are very aware of what you are saying, and I have been very grateful for what I have gained. My Scottish side is well documented through the IGI with some errors as in most transcriptions, but few of my Northants Ancestors are on the IGI. Warts and all it has been a very useful guide to my Family History, but like most records should always be checked carefully against the original parish registers. There are concerns for me of some misuse in that some people seem to be able to add without any checking? And I have seen some rather ludicrous claims back to Adam and Eve, nice if this could be checked! But that said, I think that most Family Historians recognise these rather ludicrous claims and use the IGI for what it is, a very valuable aid to their Family Histories. I know that my own Family History Group make a lot of use of the Watford Family History Centre where everybody is so helpful, and you all do stirling work as volunteers, for which much thanks, as the world would be a poorer place without volunteers. Happy Christmas to you all. Janet

Unfortunately, Giles failed to indicate his reason for asking the question, and now seems to have lost interest in this thread, anyway. Perhaps if he had couched his question in more specific terms, he would have received the information he was seeking. Reg

Giles was asking about particular parishes - the parish of Martock Somerset has its parish registers listed under a film number (1526678), but the only IGI entries are LDS member submissions, no extracted records at all. Merry Christmas Diane

Hugh Wallis Site has not been updated since 2004, and I suspect not much for a few years before that. As Ann pointed out though, the LDS is a FREE resource, available to anyone at all and we should be grateful for what we get, warts and all; mistakes are not confined to LDS records, there are rrors and omissions aplenty on Ancestry, for instance. As I don't know the reason behind Giles' original question, it is difficult to give a proper answer. OC

If it's any help, I've viewed the microfilmed parish registers for St. Peter's, Drogheda, Co.Louth, Ireland at an LDS centre, but they don't appear to have been transcribed. The entries I was looking at were in 1815-1850, and that period doesn't have a batch number on the Hugh Wallis site. I found several births and a marriage in the registers, and none of them appear on the IGI site.

I remember reading somewhere (maybe on here even) that the LDS are planning a total revamp of the online version of the IGI (the CD version is no longer being updated, by the way). I believe that the new online version will include links to scanned images of the original registers - which, if true, will be fantastic for us. Unfortunately there doesn't currently seem to be a cross-reference system between the source call numbers (i.e. what has been filmed) and the batch numbers (i.e. what has been transcribed). The best resource that I know of is the Hugh Wallis site (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb*com/~hughwallis/) - that will at least give you a list of batch numbers for (most of) the transcribed parishes, and the date ranges that have been transcribed. However, Hugh Wallis is definitely incomplete as I've found parishes on the IGI that do not appear in Hugh Wallis, so it's still a case of trial and error: i.e. first search on Hugh Wallis which will take you straight to the right batch number if listed, if not on there then search the IGI itself, and if you still don't find what you're looking for then search the LDS catalogue to see if it's actually been filmed. Richard

Giles I'm not sure why you are so concerned about this matter.........obviously you have a cogent reason, but expecting GR members to be able to provide your answers is perhaps a little over-ambitious. If you ever find out, perhaps you could enlighten us................. Reg

Giles I can only refer you back to Alan's answer as I cannot come up with a specific example, off the top of my head. But I have certainly seen entries in the LDS catalogue, for film of Parish Registers, which state 'Not for distribution to LDS centres' - these presumably are the ones he is talking about, where entries do not appear on the IGI. OC

'The LDS central library holds records of all descriptions - film, microfiche, hand written extracted registers, books, pamphlets and so on.' I know this, but am only concerned with parish registers. 'I have found this to be the norm - complete register filmed, but only partially transcribed to the IGI. It tends to be the very early years which havent been transcribed because of the difficulty of reading the entries (I presume), but the above register (St James) has a period of 20 years of marriages not transcribed in the early 1700s.' One could assume then that every register ever filmed by the LDS has had an attempted transcription of atleast the baptisms contained?* I never mentioned marriages, as I know many entries are missing; the IGI mainly holds baptisms. The Mormans don't believe in death, so that's why they have transcribed even less burial entries; the National Burial Index goes hand-in-hand with the IGI. *I hope to be corrected by an example of a filmed parish, where no such entries have been transcribed at all.

Giles The LDS central library holds records of all descriptions - film, microfiche, hand written extracted registers, books, pamphlets and so on. I can tell you for instance, that last year I was looking at the register for St James Church, Gawsworth, Cheshire. It is listed as a film which covers certain dates, with some gaps. I borrowed the film from the LDS and I can tell you that the register had been completely filmed, from start to finish - but not all the entries appear on the IGI. (Update Just realised you asked for names of parishes which have been filmed but do not appear on the IGI at all. I cannot give you a specific example, as I tend to look for parishes which have been filmed and transcribed - if they haven't, I move onto other sites for research information.) I have found this to be the norm - complete register filmed, but only partially transcribed to the IGI. It tends to be the very early years which havent been transcribed because of the difficulty of reading the entries (I presume), but the above register (St James) has a period of 20 years of marriages not transcribed in the early 1700s. I honestly don't think there is a definitive answer to your question - which is why I always prefer to look at original Parish Registers, rather than rely on the IGI, but you cannot assume that if the LDS have filmed the register, that they have therefore transcribed the whole register. OC Apologies for the messy layout of this message - hope you understand it.

'How long is a piece of string?! I don't think your question can be answered in terms of a percentage' Okay, please ignore the questions in my opening post, as I'm not looking for an accurate answer--just a rough estimate. 'some registers have been fully transcribed, some partly and many many not at all.' I challenge anyone to name one or more registers they've viewed at an LDS Family History Centre that have not been transcribed at all, and therefore have subsequently no baptism records for that parish listed in the IGI. 'Up will come a list of ALL material which the LDS hold on that particular area - not all of it filmed and not all of it transcribed onto the IGI.' If it comes up in their catalogue then they must have filmed it--no? Either way, please can you name any parish(es), listed under the corresponding church records section, where none of the baptisms have been transcribed into the IGI? If I've still not made myself clear, please let me know.

Giles How long is a piece of string?! I don't think your question can be answered in terms of a percentage - some registers have been fully transcribed, some partly and many many not at all. A way to find out for a specific area, (Or at least to get a good idea) is to go to the LDS site, click on Library Catalogue, type in your place name. Up will come a list of ALL material which the LDS hold on that particular area - not all of it filmed and not all of it transcribed onto the IGI. Perhaps '100 times' was an exaggeration - but not necessarily. I am referring of course to primary documents, not to submitted entries. OC

'Yes, quite a few, even when the years are supposed to be covered - the odd entry is just missed out for some reason' Here, you believe only the odd entry is missed out. 'The LDS have filmed about 100 times the amount that they have actually transcribed onto the IGI. Transcribong is done by volunteers of course.' ..but here you believe only about 1% is transcribed onto the IGI, but I know the figure is much higher than this, therefore, I must not be understanding you properly. 'I hope this answers the question. Feel free to ask if I have not made it clear.' Alan, cheers for all the additional info, but it doesn't quite answer my question. You describe the process of how new films take up to 2 years to be transcribed into the IGI, but I'm more interested in how much is already there compared to the original filmed records. 'Other Registers have been filmed with a proviso that no copies will be made of the original film for distribution to the local FH centers.' I should have been even more specific in stating that I meant films which are available to the public in FH centres. My question does not refer to films that are only held at SOG (for example) or are unavailable to the public. Again, thanks for the additional info. 'I have twins born in the early 19th cent. Only one of them appears on the IGI as an extraced record. The other name is at one of the Temples but as yet has not been assigned to someone. When it is assigned, it will appear on the IGI as an extracted record.' How could one twin have been transcribed but not other? Surely this is a mistake by the transcriber? Wouldn't this be a case of what the first responder mentioned about the odd entry being missed out for some reason--potentially by mistake? Is that the only baptism you've been unable to find at the IGI, but you've not even seen the entry on film either? I've found a better way of phrasing my question... Which parish(es) filmed by the LDS last century, available for viewing at FH Centres, have NOT had a single name/entry transcribed onto the IGI?* *This question only applies to IGI entries with a source referencing the original film, as I'm aware some entries have been contributed by random members of the public.

To find out what percentage the Mormons have posted on the IGI, can I suggest you contact your nearest LDS centre, and ask someone there......if they don't know, I'm sure they will enquire. Reg

Yes, quite a few, even when the years are supposed to be covered - the odd entry is just missed out for some reason. The LDS have filmed about 100 times the amount that they have actually transcribed onto the IGI. Transcribong is done by volunteers of course. Hope this answers your question. OC

Have you ever found a baptism in the original parish registers filmed by the LDS, but not transcribed in the IGI? In other words, how often have you found baptisms in Morman microfilms that weren't listed at the FamilySearch website? Essentially, I would like to know how much percent of baptisms--from registers filmed by the Mormans--have been transcribed? Any help would be much appreciated!