FamilySearch and long URLs

Hello, ellenhof. Your question actually involves several issues for us to discuss; but, first I need to verify the nature of what you are citing. I attempted to locate the film you reference, but when I search the FS catalog for the cited digital film 321265, the result is "Registers of Births, Marriages, and Deaths," from Scotland's Registrar General. (See SnagIt below.)

Can you provide a link to the source?

Hello, ellenhof.

Thanks for the updated film number. We can see here the source of the confusion, and it makes a good lesson for others who read our Q & A. The imaged manuscript carries a number it describes as “Identifier: 321265.” However, FamilySearch’s “identifier” for its books and manuscripts are not the same as the Image Group Number or Microfilm Number.

The most important rule of citation is this: We cite what we use. In this case, you did not use the microfilm. Therefore, you would not cite the microfilm. You used a digital image that is available online at a specific URL. The URL is what you would cite.

Your suggested citation is this

Almon Brown Cannon, “The Descendants of Samuel (Carnahan) Cannon of Ulster, Ireland and Blandford, Massachusetts” (Wadsworth, Ohio, 1932), imaged by FamilySearch, DGN 321265. Onondaga County Public Library, New York.

EE recommends this:

Almon Brown Cannon, “The Descendants of Samuel (Carnahan) Cannon of Ulster, Ireland and Blandford, Massachusetts” (MS, Wadsworth, Ohio, 1932), p. 5; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/361395-the-descendants-of-samuel-carnahan-cannon-of-ulster-ireland-and-blandford-massachusetts : 13 December 2023) > image 8.

The differences are these:

• When we cite a manuscript instead of a published book, we need to include the identifier “MS” or write out "manuscript” in full.
• When we cite a manuscript or a book, we typically cite a specific page where we found the specific information. Thus, I added “p. 5” for this working example.
• When we cite a manuscript or book that we access online, we have two things to cite: (1) the manuscript or book; and (2) the website that provided the image. Because those are two separate things, we put them in separate layers of the citation, with a semicolon separating the layers. (Commas link similar things such as items in a series. Semicolons separate independent things/thoughts that are discussed in the same sentence.)
• When we cite an imaged manuscript or book, the website will often have one URL for the item in general, after which we need to specify an image number for the exact page. Often, as in this case, the image number is different from the page number. Therefore, in each layer, we provide the needed number and specify what that number represents. And, of course, we’re careful to keep each number attached to what it represents: The page number stays in the layer for the book/manuscript, while the image number stays in the layer for the website.
• Your citation also includes a separate sentence that names a library and its location; but it does not explain why that information is there. At the URL for the manuscript, we have an information sidebar that cites the Onondaga County Public Library as the owning institution.  If we want to include that information in our citation, we incorporate it by adding another “citing …” layer—in that same sentence, because the library is not an entirely different source; it is the location of the original manuscript we're citing.  The full citation would look like this:

Almon Brown Cannon, “The Descendants of Samuel (Carnahan) Cannon of Ulster, Ireland and Blandford, Massachusetts” (MS, Wadsworth, Ohio, 1932), p. 5; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/361395-the-descendants-of-samuel-carnahan-cannon-of-ulster-ireland-and-blandford-massachusetts : 13 December 2023) > image 8; citing Onondaga County (N.Y.) Public Library.

On this foundation, we can more wisely address the principal issue you raised in your query:

I saw that FamilySearch has recommended using its digital image numbers now that they have moved from microfilm. Given this update, is it possibly time to consider only using the digital numbers rather than long URLs in citations? The long URLs are not useful in print publications.

You’ve given us an excellent example why exact URLs are still helpful—and in many cases, essential.  If your first citation had included the URL, we could have easily located the manuscript, even though there was a problem with the identifying number.

Evidence Style citations differ from all other citation guides in one regard.

• Other citation manuals are oriented toward output: the bare-minimum details needed at the time of publication—following that manual’s specific publication style. 
• Evidence Style focuses upon input: the details a history researcher needs to record, at the time we access the source, in order to ensure that we have all information needed to (1) relocate the source; (2) evaluate the reliability of the source; and (3) supply this-or-that journal or printing house with whatever details its particular style calls for.

Typos happen. Misidentifications happen. If, while we’re using a source, we look for the shortest possible citation we can make, we will typically encounter one of three situations eventually: (1) we will lack information that a specific journal or publisher needs; (2) we'll lack information we need to understand our source; or (3) we’ll end up without sufficient information for us or our readers to relocate the record.

In other words: The research stage is the time for us to be thorough. The publication stage is the point at which we craft our arguments, polish our narratives, and shorten our citations to fit specific needs.