FamilySearch database that isn't a database, and how to cite it

By smmatteson on Sun, 07/07/2024 - 10:03

Forums

I read with interest your response to the ’FamilySearch website layer’ inquiry (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/index.php/node/2289).

My issue is ‘cite what you use’. While researching marriages in Arkansas, I used the ‘Arkansas, county marriages : COLLECTION RECORD, 1837-1957’  at https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1417439

[image ee1]

The twist is that that webpage directs you to another page with a search box at https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1417439.

[image ee2]

The results page from a search gives (which doesn’t work correctly when pasted into another browser) https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=100&q.anyDate.from=1850&q.anyDate.to=1860&q.anyPlace=Monroe%2C%20Arkansas%2C%20United%20States&q.givenName=martha%20j&q.surname=james&f.collectionId=1417439)

[image ee3]

Which leads you to the image of the marriage license at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-66Y7-PK8

[image ee4]

The ‘Arkansas, County Marriages, 1839-1957’ link takes you to a page of film numbers.

[image ee5]

Unlike ’FamilySearch website layer’, I didn’t go through the catalog to get to these film numbers.

  1. If I tried to cite the collection [Equivalent to EMPHASIS ON DOCUMENT / CITING DATABASE], the URL (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1417439) would take you to a page with a link to the search box. That won’t work.

 

  1. If I try to cite the collection [Equivalent to EMPHASIS ON DATABASE], I get:

“Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837-1957,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/1417439 : accessed 6 Jul 2024) would take you to a search box, not a waypoint that you could follow to the final image. That won’t work.

 

  1. If I cite the collection, and use the film list as the waypoint, I get:

“Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837-1957,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/image/index?owc=https://www.familysearch.org/service/cds/recapi/collections/1417439/waypoints : accessed 6 Jul 2024) > IGN 004307891 > image 411.

Yet this doesn’t really feel like citing what I used.

 

  1. I’ve come to the conclusion that this “database” isn’t really a database, as we normally see them.

Since all of my citations are to marriages to two counties, I wonder if it might be more appropriate to ignore how I found the record and just cite the two collections, for example:

“Marriage records (Monroe County, Arkansas), 1850-1951”, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/375553 : accessed 8 May 2024) > IGN 4307891 > camera icon, image 411.

Since these films are restricted to access from a FHC affiliate, would I need to indicate that in some way?

Upload a document
ee1.JPG

Submitted byEEon Mon, 07/08/2024 - 12:39

Oh, what a labyrinth that website has become.  Its documents are priceless. I’m grateful to the site and all the people behind it for making these documents available. I empathize with the trials they are going through as they transition from microfilm to online digital. But in the meanwhile, we struggle.

“Cite what you use” remains the essential guideline.  From that standpoint, the “concise” citation you offer at the end of your series does not work.  Let’s consider two parts of it:

Your citation: “Marriage records (Monroe County, Arkansas), 1850-1951”, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/375553 : accessed 8 May 2024) > IGN 4307891 > camera icon, image 411.

  • Database title:  The title you cite does not exist in FamilySearch’s database of titles. When we go to FamilySearch.org > Search > Records, we find a search box for “Collection Title.” When we type in the title you give in this citation, we get no hit. 
  • URL: Here in the URL we see the crux of the issue. That URL, https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/375553 presents a catalog page, not a database. Each catalog entry at FamilySearch begins with a few descriptive words to tell us what is covered by the sources cited on that page.  The descriptive words used for each catalog page is NOT an electronic database title.  It’s just old-fashioned cataloging data.

At one point, you say: “Yet this doesn’t really feel like citing what I used.”  That feeling exists because none of your draft citations actually cite the original document whose image you are viewing. From your citations, no one who has access to the original documents at the courthouse or on microfilm at the state archives would have sufficient data to locate the record.

As explained at EE4  §3.14-3.16, when we are using online images, we typically have two entities to cite:

  1. the original, with all the details needed for a citation to the original; and
  2. the provider of the images.

We cite each in a different layer. We may choose to feature the original in the first layer, or we may choose to feature the online database in that position.  This principle is illustrated in every EE example for using databases. The results are simple:

Emphasis on Original: Template 10: Online Image Image (No Named Database)

       1. Monroe Co., Arkansas, “Marriage Record [Book] D, 1866–1877,” p. 54, Golitely-James marriage; imaged, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org : accessed 8 July 2024) > Image Group Number 004307891 > image 54.

Emphasis on Database: Template 10: Online Image Image (Named Database)

       1.  “Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837–1957,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org : accessed 8 July 2024) > Image Group Number 004307891 > image 411; imaging, Monroe Co., Arkansas, “Marriage Record [Book] D,1866–1877,” p. 54, Golitely-James marriage.

To close, let's revisit the confusion that you've had over whether an image appears in a database. There is one quick way to determine whether we have a named database:

When we cite microfilm that is not in a database, FamilySearch's frame around our image looks like this:

 

When we cite the marriage book images through a named database, the frame around our image looks like this: