• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

IGI - to tick or not to tick?

Bob Spiers

Bob Spiers

LostCousins Superstar
I picked up on Peter's (latest Newsletter) tip that when using IGI he recommends you 'untick' the box against 'Community Contributed IGI'. I read his explanation that this would exclude the less reliable data submitted by users.

Now I agree it was always the indexed searches that really paid dividends-providing there was something to find - so by default I only searched under that heading. However one event caused me to change my mind and reinstate the Community search.

Not too many weeks ago when in contact with another researcher I learned he had uncovered the person we were both seeking with an IGI search, whilst I had not. He explained that the information was shown (as he put it) in the ' Contributed bit'. I realised I did not have this section ticked, so tried again and sure enough the Contributed search came up with 3 responses, one of which was the very person mentioned by the other researcher. This information was not shown under the Indexed section.

IGI information can be sketchy at best and often contradictory, but now and again it comes up with little gems. This information turned out to be one such whether by accident or design.

So lesson learned, I now have both boxes ticked, even if I agree the Indexed section is far and away the most reliable.
 
The other thing to bear in mind is that the "IGI" database is NOT FamilySearch.org it is one database amongst thousands. To restrict yourself to just the one database and specifically search that collection is to ignore the newer more recently indexed databases in favour of a database ones scanned and indexed in the 70s/80s ie: thirty/forty years ago. You would never go to Ancestry and say "that's the first database they made available I will only ever search that database", so why do people do it with FamilySearch.org?

The old IGI database is gradually being replaced by specific named databases for each local area. Many of these newer databases have been scanned and the site allows you to view the image online for FREE. However typically to view the images you need to have registered and logged in to FamilySearch.org (which is also free). You can tell which collections have images as they have a little camera icon beside them.

So the moral is abandon the restrictive practice of just searching the one old database and open your eyes to the fact that Family Search now have millions of new records you can search and all for free.

NB. Some people have a strange notion that registering with Family Search and logging in rather than just anonymously searching somehow means you are endorsing the religious practices of the Mormons who's site it is. This is utter nonsense. If someone like myself who is vehemently anti ANY religion can register and login then you can too. Its a free resource that they actively encourage people to use. Use of the resource in no way shape or form comments positively or negatively on someone else's belief system.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
The other thing to bear in mind is that the "IGI" database is NOT FamilySearch.org it is one database amongst thousands.
Click to expand...

The old IGI database is gradually being replaced by specific named databases for each local area..........So the moral is abandon the restrictive practice of just searching the one old database.....
Click to expand...

I endorse all you say and would just say in defence of searching the IGI, it lies literally side by side on my laptop as a Toolbar Bookmark (IGI Search) along with (Family Search). A legacy from the past when using the old Family Search (aka LDS) you could select the IGI option which to me, and I am sure others, always seemed to produce the best results.

I am aware that Family Search have introduced, and still are introducing, changes (and Peter often refers to same in his newsletters), and yes that IGI is being phased out. Meanwhile, back in the Jungle, I am registered with Family Search and make regular use of same and - old habits dying hard- I also use the singular IGI search and no doubt will until it has gone to its LDS creator in the sky.

So my comment about ticked boxes really follows your own philosophy about not restricting your search options!
 
The IGI likely will never completely disappear. However it is being superseded "daily". Even if things are in the IGI, the transcription from the new transcriptions often has more information. A search within Family Search as a whole includes the stuff in the IGI so why restrict?

Some liked to use the IGI batch searches to find more of the family in the same place. If you're not doing that, starting from the site that shows locations and batch numbers, I can see no point in restricting a search to the IGI.

In FamilySearch now, you just have to enter a film number or batch number (or quicker click on them in a result) to get others in the same place - so that "batch" facility is still available but much broader than just the IGI transcriptions.

I always go on to check the film number in the catalogue to see exactly what has been transcribed. Many IGI entries are from the BTs and not the PRs. This doesn't make them invalid - just another source.

However a result just amongst the IGI contributor entries rather than the transcriptions is just a clue. It may turn out to be valid but without other sources, they're of the same value as the worst of the online trees.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Many of these newer databases have been scanned and the site allows you to view the image online for FREE. However typically to view the images you need to have registered and logged in to FamilySearch.org (which is also free). You can tell which collections have images as they have a little camera icon beside them.
Click to expand...
There are some records that you can't see unless you're either an LDS member or are in a FamilySearch Centre - these include the Kent images (which are also currently unindexed).

However, I'm not aware that logging-in provides any advantages to ordinary researchers unless you plan to upload your family tree (which, of course, I don't recommend).
 
Bob Spiers said:
I picked up on Peter's (latest Newsletter) tip that when using IGI he recommends you 'untick' the box against 'Community Contributed IGI'. I read his explanation that this would exclude the less reliable data submitted by users.
Click to expand...
Previously you could search the two sets of data independently, but not both together. It would also default to the 'Community Indexed IGI'.

I provided the tip because some people might not have noticed this change, and because others might not have been aware that there is a great gulf in reliablity between the two sets. However I didn't say always untick the box because - as Bob pointed out - there are some valid entries.

But there is also some dross - for example, you'll get 120,000 results if you search for Mrs Smith!
 
Ok, I'll stick my hand up. What tick box?

Can you add a link to the page please? Because I'm not seeing it.
 
Tim said:
Ok, I'll stick my hand up. What tick box?

Can you add a link to the page please? Because I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

A favour for a favour try here IGI The tick boxes are likely shown already ticked. "Community Contributed" & "Community Indexed"
 
See what I don't get with the new Family Search website is why on earth anyone would specifically want to limit their searches to just the old out of date IGI database. It has long since been superseded, yes we might have relied on it in the past but the new site has massively more databases to search free. Ones that are specifically indexed after a refresh of the old IGI data was re-classified into different databases and re-indexed.

So if you are still using the IGI database ask yourself why you are deliberately ignoring the better databases on the same site that contain all the info that IGI had and a whole lot more.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
See what I don't get with the new Family Search website is why on earth anyone would specifically want to limit their searches to just the old out of date IGI database. It has long since been superseded, yes we might have relied on it in the past but the new site has massively more databases to search free. Ones that are specifically indexed after a refresh of the old IGI data was re-classified into different databases and re-indexed.

So if you are still using the IGI database ask yourself why you are deliberately ignoring the better databases on the same site that contain all the info that IGI had and a whole lot more.
Click to expand...

Just caught your post before I am off out. I just want to say I use the new Family Search almost all the time but I have the old IGI site on my Toolbar tab alongside. You may or may not be surprised to know that sometimes, only sometimes, a blank can be drawn in the more rounded Family Search, whilst in the Community Indexed IGI in particular, up will pop a name not discovered in FS. Don't ask me how or why but I have been pleasantly surprised on a few occasions when this happened. Just a thought!
 
Yes but the community indexed stuff is similar to the ancestry stuff where you can discover the community has discovered numerous extra wives for Henry the Eighth. Just because someone submitted an extra name in the community index doesn't actually mean it has much weight. Often the community stuff in the IGI was little better than guesswork or wishful thinking. Only extremely rarely might you get something due to someone's diligent research having found the data in an alternate source (eg: Bishops Transcripts or wills etc). Sadly there is no way of telling from the bland text whether the info is gold or just iron pyrite.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
See what I don't get with the new Family Search website is why on earth anyone would specifically want to limit their searches to just the old out of date IGI database. It has long since been superseded, yes we might have relied on it in the past but the new site has massively more databases to search free. Ones that are specifically indexed after a refresh of the old IGI data was re-classified into different databases and re-indexed.

So if you are still using the IGI database ask yourself why you are deliberately ignoring the better databases on the same site that contain all the info that IGI had and a whole lot more.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure how to navigate to this page from the home page, so I won't be I guess.
 
The best thing about the IGI is the fact that we know which parishes are included, and which periods are covered. This detailed information isn't available for other FamilySearch datasets.
 
However the IGI is based on old information, the new datasets are taken from fresh scans of the originals and contains significantly more information than the old IGI does. In particular the old IGI (non member submitted) stops at 1875 as that was a 100 year cut off. The new datasets cover later periods eg: the Essex dataset covers up to 1900. That's 25 more years info for that one county alone.
 
I still use IGI a lot. I think the main point is that whatever data you find and use, you need to be clear in your own mind how genuine or correct it is. I know in FTM2012 you can rate the sources, but this isn't something I currently do.
 
I'm not suggesting that other datasets are ignored, but if you want to carry out a systematic search then the IGI is usually the best place to start.

One day FamilySearch might provide more information about the contents of their other datasets - I certainly wish they would!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top