tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-434701420960162731.post7675238075224504175..comments2024-03-29T10:00:15.053+00:00Comments on The GENES Blog: IGI returns to FamilySearchChris Patonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05073425769475523109noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-434701420960162731.post-2633560731670783972012-05-28T21:23:09.909+01:002012-05-28T21:23:09.909+01:00Glad it's not just me!Glad it's not just me!Chris Patonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05073425769475523109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-434701420960162731.post-66261888855988914522012-05-28T21:18:21.282+01:002012-05-28T21:18:21.282+01:00I had a theory - it turns out to be wrong.
Accor...I had a theory - it turns out to be wrong. <br /><br />According to the AncestryInsider, (6 January 2011 - "Why Was the IGI?") records extracted from PRs through the "official" process were sometimes not loaded after all when a member submitted batch had already indexed them. "Why duplicate?" seemed to be the logic. The original IGI contained the member submissions - the new collections don't, but neither do they have the official extractions since they were never loaded. <br /><br />An example quoted by the Insider is William Bull, baptised "01 SEP 1550 Shustoke, Warwick, England", "Form submitted by a member of the LDS Church". This is in the old IGI, doesn't appear in the new collections - but then neither does it appear in the "new" IGI, despite the name "Community Indexed IGI ... church records" seeming to perfectly describe this case!<br /><br />So - I'm puzzled too....Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.com