Genealogy Chat

Ive often read that familysearch rotate the IGI records but wondered if it were wishful thinking. However, just been to look at something there, in an idle moment entered my GGFx3 name and zilcho has come up - yet I know he was on there in 3 different submitted entries. So, it does look like the records take turns so well worth checking now and then.

I always believed thay were on a 6 week loop

I always thought that the IGI rotated info as I have sometimes found info and then not found it later.


Usually then check through Hugh Wallis batch numbers

If extracted entries were on a rota, then this would make pretty much of a nonsense of Hugh Wallis's website!

Perhaps it's only submitted entries ...

Penny

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/

Access is not through IGI

I'm trying to find out about this rotation but I can't find any mention of this. Can someome post a link?

Rose

I'm not convinced - in fact I doubt very much that records are rotated in this way. This is from the FamilySearch FAQ:

Is the IGI on the Internet the same as the IGI at a family history center? Yes. However, the Internet and family history center versions have the following differences:

* Information is displayed differently in each version.
* The Internet version is updated more frequently and contains more information.


No mention anywhere on their site about any rotation of records. And they can't be rotating records on their CD's, available at the LDS centres! In fact, that second bullet point above would suggest to me that the internet records are the most up to date version of the IGI. I think therefore this record rotation thing is a bit of an urban myth. It certainly doesn't make any sense for them to do it, and I can't see how any copyright law would force them to only put up records part-time (either its copyright or it isnt - end of story!).

So how come some people claim to find records on there one day and not the next? Well, it's very easy to forget exactly the search criteria which you use each time you search for an entry on there - even a slight change to the spelling of a name will give you different search results in many cases. I'm sure that is the reason in 99.999% of cases why we seem to "lose" records that we are sure we found on there previously.


By the way, Glitter Baby - Hugh Wallis is basically just a list of batch numbers that are based on the IGI from the FamilySearch website. When you search from Hugh Wallis site, then you are really just automatically searching the FamilySearch site - so if those records were "off-rotation", then Hugh Wallis wouldn't find them either!

Richard

But the Hugh Wallis site does NOT pick up all the submitted records. I personally prefer to use the Hugh Wallis site and look on the LDS/FamilySearch site as a last resort.

Hugh Wallis will pick up all records with a batch number that matches the number that you select from the Hugh Wallis site - nothing more, nothing less. You will get exactly the same result if you manually type that batch number into the relevant box on the FamilySearch IGI search page.

The reason why Hugh Wallis does not find submitted records is that Hugh Wallis only lists batches within certain ranges of possible numbers, as explained on this page:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers.htm#PageTitle

Most submitted records either have no batch number or they have an all-numerical number, which were not included by Hugh Wallis.

Also, Hugh Wallis hasn't been updated since 2002, so if you only use that site then you are potentially missing out on any more recent batches, even though these may be extracted records.


Richard

I have a related problem with the batches. Can anyone shead any light it please?

The batches for Closeburn, Dumfries in Scotland are numbered as follows:

C118161 1855 - 1875 contains male & female births
C118162 1765 - 1819 contains female births only
C118164 1819 - 1854 contains female births only

I was really hoping that the rotations theory would mean that there are batches C118163 and C118165 containing the male births, but they are just not on available at the moment.

If there is no such thing as rotation where are the boys? It would seem to be a huge waste of effort to only transcribe the girls, or to transcribe them all and then only display the girls. Is it possible that boys and girls were kept in separate registers?

Thanks
Tina

Hi Tina

One part of a branch in my tree came from Closeburn Dumfries.

The surname is Williamson. What surname are u after?

Clare

Hi Clou in Brummie

I have a few huge families in Closeburn!

The main one I am after in William Trotter c 1808, the son of John Trotter and Jannett McClelland (with many spelling variations!)

Any Trotters or McClellands would help.

Many thanks
Tina x

Hi

Never mind.. dont have those surnames in my tree. Me too the Williamson was a large family!!

Many thanks

Clare

Tina

This is from the FAQ page on Hugh Wallis website, regarding the females-only batches. It doesn't make much sense but nevertheless sounds as if it was done that way in many cases:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumberFAQs.htm#OnlyFemales

I found a C series batch with only females - where are the guys?
The following is an explanation from the director of the LDS library that was forwarded to me by an interested user of this site: "Thank you for your note. Your observations are correct and at least to some degree explainable. More females attend LDS temples than males creating an imbalance in the inventory system. To solve that issue, the batches were split into male and female (J and K batches). The females were sent to the temples, and in some cases the male portion of the batch has not yet been sent, but is waiting in the inventory." I'm not personally convinced this totally explains it but that is the official explanation anyway. That same user also forwarded me this observation; "Incidentally, I have since discovered that some of the missing males are in the Vital Records Index - for example for Dauntsey, Wiltshire, 1653-1885, females only are in the IGI, both males and females are in the VRI."

Richard

Thanks for that. At least I know I'm not going batty. I have the BIVRI disks and have not found them on there either :0(

Look like patience or a trip to Scotland then.

Many thanks
Tina x

Hi Clare

Thanks for looking for me anyway

Tina x

I can confirm definitely that there are extracted batches on the IGI which are *not* included on Hugh Wallis's website.

The parish of Cumnor (in Oxon. or Berks. - it moved around a bit!) is not listed on the HW website, but a batch of baptisms (taken from BTs) is on the IGI (covering 1607-1835).

Moral: try HW first (the easy route to a particular parish), but also try a general search!

Penny

Hi Tina & Brummie,
I live close to Closeburn Dumfries if you want Graves looking at or pics please let me know and I will go for you.
Phyl.

Hi Phyl

That's a fantastc offer - thank you so much. I will have a look at my notes and pm you later.

Sorry for the delay just got back from shopping.

Tina x

It was me who deleted - meant to edit

Hi

Thanks for great offer. I will have a look and PM u later.

Many thanks

Clare