FamilySearch Full Text Search

Hello, Obsessed_Genie.

FamilySearch has numerous types of material, including

• collections with titles that need to be cited
• indexed records within its AI Lab that are not in titled collections
• imaged record sets that are not indexed and are not in a titled collection
• imaged books (published books, generally out of copyright)

Re your issues with a specific collection: the devil is always in the details, and we need specific details to help you. Would you take a stab at creating a citation for that record set, following whichever EE example you feel best fit? (EE's Chapter 8, Church Records, has a number of examples.) Then give us that draft and tell us which example you are following.

Re, the errors that you have noted, turn to EE's index and look up "errors, correcting." The pages cited there will demonstrate how to correct different types of errors.

Hello, Obssessed. Thanks for the draft. Your structure is well handled. As composed, EE would add two things.

1. The year of the will, after the testator’s name.
2. The Item Number for the record set within the IGN.

However, the first edition highlights a problem. You cite this as the will of John Pott, but both your URL and your image number go to the will of a widow named Margaret.

The results would give us this:

Archdeaconry of Lewes, Sussex, Wills 1664-1669, will of [testator’s name, year]; imaged FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D1Z1-53 : accessed 23 December 2024) > IGN 004426870 > item 2 >  image 948 of 1043; citing East Sussex Record Office, Brighton, Sussex.

Yes, there dp exist options for the URL we choose to cite.

• If we have just one image to cite from the record set or film, then citing to the exact image is what most users seem to prefer.
• If we have multiple images from a record set and the film has only that one record set, we might cite the URL for the start of the film and then the exact image number (not exact URL) in each shortened citation thereafter.
• If we have multiple images from a record set and the film has several record sets (as in this case), we might cite the URL for the start of that record set (which FamilySearch did) and then cite the exact image number (not exact URL) for each individual document.

As you note, the citation suggested by FamilySearch IS misleading, because it begins the citation with the name of a collection, in quotation marks, that does not exist within its database of named collections. When we go to the search screen for collections and enter those exact words, no such collection is found. Our access is through the IGN number, not through a named collection. 

Addressing other confusion, you say:

“The top right of the screen said ‘Sussex. Wills 1664-1669.’ The header board at the start of the digital film gave the title of the record ‘Original Wills 1527-1858’, but the card covering this will, image 173 (item 2), says 1665-1669 for the years included, which is different to what it says on the screen!”
 

Your exclamation point is well understood.  My screen (PC, not phone app) does not show “Sussex. Wills 1664-1669.” Re the header boards:

The header board for the whole image group (at image 3)  gives the name of the whole body of records that FamilySearch filmed in that untitled collection: "Original Wills, 1527-1858.” Below that we see that this title board is for Item 1 of that body of records, and that item 1 covers only 1664.

However, the image number we seek is not within this group, so the dates on the bottom line do not apply. Your image 948 is part of Item 2, for which the header board is this:

As we see from this image of Item 2's header board,  the title of the whole body of records remains the same as on the header board for Item 1, however, the bottom line of the header board tells us that Item 2 covers “1665–1669.”

This introduces something else to consider. The grouping “1665–1669” is an arbitrary grouping created by FamilySearch for filming purposes. As we study the records that are imaged, we see no evidence that the record office where this is held has any bundle or box designated “1665-1669.” 

Instead, the images for each year begin with a tag that states the year and that tag is fastened to a ribbon.

This tells us that the record office’s organizational scheme is by individual years, that the wills for each year are bundled and tied together, and that some years have multiple bundles. Specifically, the bundle image that covers the record at image 948 says “Wills 1669 (Part 2) [Will Nos.] 59–end.”

This information would alter your citation’s Layer 1, where you cite the original record. There, your citation would not use Family Search’s organizational scheme; that would be cited in Layer 2. In Layer 1, you’d follow the basic pattern for official records: Creator (Location), record group identity and bundle/file/book number, then specific ID.  That pattern would create this citation:

Archdeaconry of Lewes (Sussex, England), Original Wills, bundle “Wills 1669 (part 2) [Wills Nos.] 59–end,” will of [testator’s name]; imaged FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D1Z1-53 : accessed 23 December 2024) > IGN 004426870 > item 2 (1665–1669) >  image 948 of 1043; citing East Sussex Record Office, Brighton, Sussex.

Because the bundles are labeled by year, you would not have to cite the year after the testator’s name. Doing so would be redundant.

Hello, Obsessed. At input, capturing FS's item number as part of the FS path, which it is, provides backup data for all those times that we mistype the image number.  As you demonstrate, it's easy to get documents missed up. It's also easy to make typos. 

At output (publication), when we have editors and fact-checkers going behind us to ensure there aren't errors, we can streamline the citation and eliminate redundancy. At input, every piece of access data is valuable.

Hello, Obsessed. At input, capturing FS's item number as part of the FS path, which it is, provides backup data for all those times that we mistype the image number.  As you demonstrate, it's easy to get documents missed up. It's also easy to make typos.

At output (publication), when we have editors and fact-checkers going behind us to ensure there aren't errors, we can streamline the citation and eliminate redundancy. At input, every piece of access data is a valuable safeguard--and typing those 8 extra characters ( > item 1) only takes a second or two.