Forums
A few years ago there was this discussion regarding image numbers at FamilySearch https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/2259
I've just discovered that FamilySearch has changed the visual handling of items inside of an IGN number. Previously, you got the entire IGN in one long sequence of images. The default now is to show the IGN broken up into the items that make up the entire film. You now get just the images in the item. However, there are numerous ways for you to select either just the item or the full IGN. This starts to get very fun with the citations.
I'll start with this image
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSD4-Q35L?view=explore&cc=3015626&lang=en&groupId=M9XY-DPH
And we note that this is image 3 of 47 in item 15. And it's a much longer URL.
Now if I do the trick of just copying to the ? the resulting page doesn't include the item number and its image 586 of 864. You also cannot convert into item view, it's flat all the time.
If I go to the ARK page for the connection of an individual to that page
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QPJN-GGGL?lang=en
That link will take you to the item listing version which is image 3 of 47 item 15.
If you go in by IGN number, you get the full IGN but with the possibility of switching to items.
The catalog entry
https://www.familysearch.org/en/search/catalog/results?q.filmNumber=102700265
takes you into the film starting in full mode but switching to item number if you want.
There is also a catalog entry
https://www.familysearch.org/en/records/images/search-results?imageGroupNumbers=102700265
This catalog entry shows the IGN by item and you need to know which item you need. In this instance, it's not hard as it's by birth year, but others may not be so easy.
In the previous discussion, it seemed to lean towards using the shortened URL, but I'm betting that we will see more and more default use of the item number with their image number rather than the full IGN image number. I "THINK" we need to start including the item number but that makes the URL much longer and not always in use. Or is this not something to worry about as the ARK continues to get to the image, but if so what image number do I use.
Cryptoref, yes. The…
Cryptoref, yes. The architecture of the FamilySearch site confounds many. URLs for the same image do change according to how we arrived at the image. With the records I use, I most often see this difference when I access an image via one of these two approaches:
And, as you note, the latter also leads us to an intermediate page on which FamilySearch has extracted summary details from the document—creating a derivative (with a different URL) that we ordinarily would not want to cite. At that derivative page, we are then typically redirected to the original (with a different URL).
Most users of the site, arguably, are not software engineers qualified to parse the differences. However, users of the site do not have to do so to meet their needs as genealogical and historical researchers. To meet that need, we fall back on the most basic principle of citation (i.e., record identification):
We cite what we use—in a manner that permits two things
To meet this need, our relocation of online documents typically includes one or both of two things:
Evidence Style allows us to mix and match details of those two as needed to create a clear statement of how the image can be relocated. We may use one, or the other, or both. The simplest generic-rule is to cite the URL and/or path details that appears via the approach we used. EE models both.
Within this framework, why would EE 4's examples of church records imaged on line, using Templates 10 and 11, not work? Say,
I suspect that your technical mind wants more, but you'll have to get the IT explanations from a FamilySearch software engineer. If you do, many users of FamilySearch and EE would be interested in the rationales behind the current situation.