Earlier this month, I blogged about locating the 1797 death record of little Hannah Preston. (See, "Love it when a deal comes together!" 2 December 2010.) As part of the test run today, I'll try to locate the source information for Hannah's database and digital image entries in the FamilySearch Historical Record Collection, "New Hampshire Death Records, 1654-1947."
Note: I started a discussion about the topics in this blog on the wiki page related to "New Hampshire Death Records, 1654-1947." Click HERE to access that discussion page. (You have to log-in to FamilySearch to post on the discussion. I hope you will.)
What we see: Setting up the search
There is source information available on the search page (see the lower clip in the graphic). That information doesn't seem to refer to the same database I'm searching, "New Hampshire Death Records, 1654-1947"; rather, the posted "Source Information" refers to a 2010 database by FamilySearch titled "New Hampshire Death Records, 1901-1948." I'm looking for a death that occurred in 1797--much, much earlier than 1901. The "source of the source" to the presented citation references those same dates (1901-1948).
The search page has a small window, "Quick Facts"; it calls out yet another date range, "1799-1800." (I never did learn how those "Quick Facts" are supposed to help me.)
There are two "Learn More" links on the search page. Both of those lead to a related wiki, titled "New Hampshire Statewide Deaths." In the next graphic, we'll take a look at that wiki.
What we see: Related Historical Records Wiki
I don't know why someone chose to give the wiki a different name ("New Hampshire Statewide Deaths") than the database (New Hampshire Death Records, 1654-1947"). Personally, I found that a little confusing.
I discovered other inconsistencies on the wiki page, especially about the record dates. We know the database title carries the dates "1654-1947"; however, in one section, "Collection Time Period," someone entered, "This collection includes information for the years 1639-1948"--so, beginning 15 years earlier than the database title suggests and ending one year later. Another section, "Record History," opens with, "Town Clerks began recording deaths as early as 1640." (Okay, so where do those 1639 records come from? Are they in the otherwise 1654-1947-dated database?)
It would have been nice to see the various entries on the wiki page referenced to footnotes, like Wikipedia does.
Toward the bottom of the wiki was a section titled, "Sources of Information for This Collection"--it contained the same citation information I'd seen on the search page, referencing those same dates, "1901-1948." The "source of the source" in those two citations refers to Family History Library microfilm. In the next graphic, I'll try to resolve my title and date differences by locating source information in the Family History Library Catalog. From the source of the source, here is what I will look for:
Author: New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics
Title: New Hampshire Death Records, 1901-1948
Microfilm: 316 rolls
Arithmetic 101: Family History Online Catalog (first take)
Using the Family History Library Catalog's search function, I pulled up titles by the author, "New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records." (Note the shorter author name; there were NO returns for the longer author, "New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics.") There were eight returns, none matched the title, "... Death Records 1901-1948." There were two death-related titles, as below and in the graphic above.
- Death Certificates, 1901-1937
- Death Certificates, 1938-1947
According to the source information (Record Search and wiki pages), I'm looking for 316 rolls of film and, of course, to find little Hannah's death, records dated much earlier.
I've exhausted my breadcrumbs from source/source of the source information reported on the database search page and wiki. In the next graphic, I return to Record Search and try to trace the source information from clues in Hannah Preston's database entry.
Taking another route from Record Search to FHL Catalog
- film number: 1001099
- digital folder number: 4243768
- image number: 01268
Sure enough, scrolling down to the film-by-film list of records for that source, I find surnames "Pierce to Pelton" (in which the Preston records would be found) said to be recorded on film 1001099.
Yes!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am forever beholden to FamilySearch for all they have and continue to do. Without FamilySearch and the volunteer digitization efforts, it's unlikely I'd have found the 1797 death record that plays such an important role in questions about my early families.
On the other hand, I'm sure folks (and more than just a few) have recorded the now-seems-bogus source data represented on the search page and wiki for "New Hampshire Death Records, 1654-1947"/"New Hampshire Statewide Deaths"--that's sad.
If we want modern technology to support online citations, we first need easily discernible, reliable online source information. --GJ
If we want modern technology to support online citations, we first need easily discernible, reliable online source information. --GJ



Good heavens! This is so important, that I've shared this with FamilySearch just in case they are new to following your blog.
ReplyDeleteI am exhausted, and I only had to read about all the hoops you jumped through to arrive at FHL film #1001099.
I had similar problems when using Record Search Pilot, and now think that FamilySearch Catalogers and database developers MUST get these serious kinks worked out ASAP.
All responsible genealogy websites must teach correct principles -- citing sources is Genealogy 101.
Wonder why they are continuing to let this catalog vs image discrepancy problem persist.
Thank you for commenting, Myrt.
ReplyDeleteAs you probably realize, I had intended to write a blog for BetterGEDCOM, showing how modern technology might interface with database developers to support capturing genealogical source information "on the fly" so to speak.
I just happened to select little Hannah's death record to use as the example.
At the developer level, maybe source methodology should be a little less "wiki"-like and a little more "CSI"-like.
I noted two other discrepancies in the process of putting together the blog, but chose to leave those for another day as neither directly impacted on my citation.
Speaking of which, I also left off a record of my personal citation to Hannah's record. Since FS is reporting that apparently-conflated and partial-footprint as the "source," I believe my citation is supposed to quote same as a source of the source. Believe I'm then supposed comment editorially about apparent errors therein. (To which I mutter, "where to begin.")
Thank you again for commenting. --GJ
I like the term "maybe source methodology should be a little less 'wiki'-like and a little more 'CSI'-like".
ReplyDeleteIf genealogists pursued a more scientific approach, they would take the time, as we did in high school science classes, to document the process so others can follow our line of thinking in the future.
Eliminating bias and predisposition to a specific outcome are also part of the equation.
Would that developers took as much time and care when labeling the databases they make available.
Thank you, Myrt for commenting.
ReplyDeleteI think all of us who have or are participating in the FS indexing effort have a special attachment to these collections.
Over the past week, I have reflected many times on the indexing effort--the man hours, the design of checks and balances, the fabulous organizational effort mobilizing a true world-wide program.
Then I open my eyes, in amazement, to realize FamilySearch apparently did not plan for the comparatively simple administrative process needed to "perzact" the sources being associated with all that effort.
Whether or not with reference to this blog entry, me thinks we need to ask FamilySearch to rethink their decision, knowing that generations upon generations of family historians will thank them!
Thank you again, Myrt, for being you, and for commenting. --GJ