Citing FamilySearch IGN

Hello, Allen. The new AI full-text search is indeed wonderful, despite all the OCR misreadings.

I'll repost your questions individually, with answers below them.

1. Is it acceptable to spell the word "page," rather than the abbreviation "p."?

Absolutely.  If you’re writing for a journal, its editor may insist upon using abbreviations to save space. That’s an issue of style rather than substance.  In our own research notes, we spell out anything we think may be misunderstood by us or a reader.

2. Should I use the phrase "imaged at" rather than "imaged?"

In the sense that you have used it, imaged or imaged at is a “bridge” that we use between layers of a citation, to explain the connection between two seemingly disparate things that are linked in that citation.  It alerts users of the citation to the fact that we are not citing two different things.

For each bridge, we choose whatever word(s) best describe the situation. The bridge word is not part of a rigid formula in which certain words are allowed and other words are not.  (This harks back to EE 2.1: “Citation is an art, not a science.”)  Citing is a form of writing, a form of verbal communication. At every utterance, we try to choose the words that best communicate our intent.

This also points to an issue within your citation, which reads:

Marshall County, Tennessee, County Court Clerk Minutes, Vol. A, page 444, Thomas Ross appointed administrator of Samuel Hillis estate, 7 December 1840, imaged; FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/records/images/ : accessed 13 December 2024) > IGN 007642977 > Item 1 of 3 > image 231 of 234.

The bridge word “imaged” should not be a part of Layer 1 in which you identify the original volume.  Your second layer is where you tell readers that the volume is imaged at the website FamilySearch. Therefore, the word “imaged” should be placed in that second layer, after the semicolon that separates the two layers.

Indirectly, the misplacement addresses the issue you have raised here: whether you should say “imaged at FamilySearch …” or just “imaged, FamilySearch …”  If, as your bridge between the layers, you had used “imaged at ..." then you would not have placed “imaged at” in Layer 1, followed by a semicolon. Doing so would have created phrasing that you realized was irrational for the English language:

3. When you go to the URL provided, you actually have to select "more options" to be able to enter the IGN. Should that be part of the path?

In your example, yes.  At the URL you cite, we do not have the option of searching for an image group number. This particular website is creating new pathways for accessing images. At the URL you cite,  we must burrow through multiple new menu choices to find a search box at which we can query by IGN number. 

When we do burrow through the warren of menus to find that particular set of images, our new URL is this: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9PS-L28D?view=explore&groupId=M9JT-RWY&grid=on

We can shorten this by eliminating the ? and everything past that point.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9PS-L28D

4. Should you cite "image 231 of 234," or is simply "image 231" acceptable?

Yes, it is acceptable to say just “image 231.”  However, amid all the changes that online image collections go through, stating the total number of images in a record group will often help us (and users of our work) locate the material in the future.

At this particular website—amid its changes from an old framework to a new one—we now find multiple imaging for the same set of records, with different image numbers for the same material. At other websites, as databases are updated and new materials are added, image numbers shift. 

Including the total number of images in the particular set we are using takes a few seconds longer; but when we go back to that set of records in the future and do not find what we seek on “image 231,” we’re going to wonder whether we made a typo in the image number, or a typo in the IGN number, or whether there’s some other problem.  Adding the total number of images in the set we’re using will help us going forward—or help others who are using our citation to find the specific record.

All things considered, an Evidence Style citation would be this:

Marshall County, Tennessee, County Court Clerk Minutes, Vol. A, page 444, Thomas Ross appointed administrator of Samuel Hillis estate, 7 December 1840; imaged, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9PS-L28D : accessed 13 December 2024) > IGN 007642977 > Item 1 of 3 > image 231 of 234.

Allen, we've had formatting issues for several days, ever since Drupal (our website's language/platform) did an update. We're working on it. In the meanwhile, we appreciate your bearing with us.

We may cite online records using URLs or paths and waypoints. Sometimes one works best, given the structure of the website and the imaged record set. Sometimes the other works best. Many researchers include path > waypoints, even when citing an exact URL, because (a) typos are really easy to make and parts of URLs can be accidentally lost when formatting test; and (b) the shelf life of many URLs is about the same as mayonnaise.

Throughout EE, you will notice that the discussion uses and/or when referring to URLs and paths > waypoints. Specifically, see:

• Template 10's Construction Notes for "Specific Item"
• 2.35 for "Paths & Waypoints"
• 7.49 for "Citing Image URL vs.Database/Collection URL"
• 9.21 for "Citing URL & Path"
• 11.5 for "Citing URL or Path & Waypoints"
• 5.14, 7.18, 7,35, 7.37, 8.21, 8.26, 8.36, 8.37, 8.40 also are relevant.