Why Have FamilySearch Citations Declined?

Question

Has anyone noticed that FamilySearch.org's provided citations, particularly for sources like the 1920 U.S. Census, have declined in recent months/years? They don't seem to provide as much information in them as formerly.

Anyone know why this might be?

Comments

I've started using the Sourcer app to make the citations for my FamilySearch sources so they will be more complete. These citations include links to both the record and to the image if there is one.

---

I don't bother my little head with what they do/did or do not/didn't include in their citation.  To form the citations I use on profiles here, I have always used the citation they provide, to which I add a link to the image (when there is one), and also a complete transcription of the record.

I don't use apps or plugins as a matter of policy.

---

Well, I'm afraid I DO bother my head with all of this. Important information that used to be in those citations is now missing in some/many cases. And it's not always clear where to find all of it outside of the citation...or if you always can, with or without a LOT of trouble.  

I modify FS citations for my own purposes here. It's just easier when they give me the needed info.

---

Ryan, all that information is included in the transcription and I always include the entire transcription in my citation.  Here's one of my citations (the red is what familysearch provided, the black is what I added to it):

• "United States Census, 1910", database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M2Z2-T24 : Tue Jul 18 17:25:53 UTC 2023), Entry for Walter J Montgomery and Mrs. Nellie M Montgomery, 1910, see image, includes:

Name Walter J Montgomery

Sex Male

Age 30

Birth Year (Estimated) 1880

Birthplace Illinois

Marital Status Married

Race White

Ethnicity American

Relationship to Head of Household Head

Father's Birthplace United States

Mother's Birthplace United States

Event Type Census

Event Date 1910

Event Place Greenleaf, Washington, Kansas, United States

Sheet Letter A

Sheet Number 1

Affiliate Publication Number T624

Affiliate Name The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Address Park St

Occupation druggist

Walter J Montgomery's Spouses and Children

Mrs. Nellie M Montgomery Wife F 26 Kansas married 6 yrs, 1 child/1 living

Arlo E Montgomery Son M 5 Kansas

---

Ryan, take a look at the 1920 United States Census source citation (and other source citations) I placed on the profile for Alburtis Clarence Metcalf this morning. As I said in my previous post, I use the Sourcer app to create source citations from FamilySearch and Ancestry. Does this one meet your standards and include all the information you want? The Sourcer app can also create a narrative of the information in the source and a table of transcribed information if you want or need those. I used the WikiTree BEE app to create the Find a Grave source citation which incorporates the WikiTree template for the link to the memorial. All the apps can be found under the "Find" drop-down menu at the top of the page. I find these apps (aka extensions) very helpful and I have used them without a problem for a very long time. The developers of the apps are very responsive if you contact them about modifications to the apps you believe would be beneficial.

---

Hi Gayle,

First, the 1910 U.S. Census citations are usually among the most filled out of the ones on the site these days. Check out your typical 1920 one.

Second, that citation is missing a microfilm number (for example), which you get in other (and former) citations.

Third, that's more of a list, and not really a citation.

---

Nelda, I can see you put a lot of effort into those. That's good.

If you look at each one, however, FamilySearch is leaving some information out of certain years' census record citations/provided data that they put in other years'. Why? That's my question.

---

I don't know why FamilySearch started leaving out information in their source citations. What I was trying to do was tell you about a work-around I like to use. Honestly, I didn't put much effort into those source citations and tables at all. They were all created with clicking a command in the Sourcer app which provided a source citation I just had to copy and paste into the WikiTree profile edit box.

Answer 1

Yes I have been noticing this for a while and have brought it up on their discussion board, and other members have as well.  I don't think we ever got an answer about it and it doesn't look like it was fixed.  I have given up trying to use their citations for the most part and use Ancestry's for my profiles, but I know not everyone has that option.

Answer 2

I've noticed they're skimpier now, too. I am bummed that FS citations for some Mexican civil/vital records no longer include microfilm numbers or image numbers. The citation refers the reader back to the FS site and does not provide much more information about the source itself.

Answer 3

I haven't noticed any change. I usually skip past the index page and go straight to the source image, if I can.

Both pages have a citation available, I'm not sure which one you're talking about. The citation itself isn't all that valuable except as a link to their page. I usually modify it a bit to put the clickable link first with a description of what the source is (1920 census for example).

Comments

Rob, you're right, both the index for the source and the image for the source have citations that are available to be copied. The problem I come across is that the citation for the image to the source no longer includes a direct link back to the image. Nor does the citation provide a microfilm number or an image number (i.e. 020 of 1234). Below is an example of what I mean.

• Link to the image: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9R24-C61
• Citation for the image provided by FS: "México, Distrito Federal, Registro Civil, 1832-2005." Database with images. FamilySearch. https://FamilySearch.org : 18 July 2022. Archivo de Registro Civil de Distrito Federal (Civil Registry Archives), Federal District.

Answer 4

I am the sourcer app too and it really seems to have a lot of information, most of the time. It helps me greatly in creating the biographies as well.

Answer 5

I should probably say that I prefer to use citations that roughly, if at times far from perfectly, emulate the Evidence Explained models. At least when they're not FamilySearch citations. But if FamilySearch is going to start giving me significantly faulty citations like Ancestry does, I may have to craft Census etc. stuff from scratch, too. I don't relish the prospect.

Comments

It is troubling that FS has eliminated some important information for no discernible reason.  I've posted a Wish List request on the Wikitree sourcer page to see if Rob Pavey might be able to help:  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:WikiTree_Sourcer_Wish_List#comment_7504442

---

Thank you very much!

---

I agree completely. 

I write my own citations and always have. I tend towards a Chicago-style citation, but this is what Mills based her Evidence Explained style on, so it's pretty close.

I find Ancestry's citations appalling and FamilySearch's somewhere between mediocre and bad with an occasional foray into appalling.

Their citations that refer to their own database names are ridiculous. It tells you nothing about the actual record, where the original record was from, etc. Sometimes it's the equivalent of a citation that tells you the street address of the library you were in when you looked up a book in their card catalog and the book's Dewey Decimal number for that library, but nothing more. Title? Author? page #s? Publisher? Year published? Nope. 

I don't really care where you were when you saw a copy of the record; I want to know what the original record is.

I feel like a broken record on this sometimes, but a good citation is going to tell someone else where to find that original record when those websites and databases no longer exist. It should do that without needing a separate extract of the entire contents.

This (for example):

"United States Census, 1910", database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M2Z2-T24 : Tue Jul 18 17:25:53 UTC 2023), Entry for Walter J Montgomery and Mrs. Nellie M Montgomery, 1910

doesn't tell me where to find this record if I can't look at it on FS. But this:

1910 United States Census, Greenleaf, Washington, Kansas, 15 April, 1910, page 7601/stamped 85, SD 5, ED 151, Sheet 1A, family 1, household of Walter J. Montgomery, lines 1–3, https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9RK3-CZL, DGS 004971572, image 730, citing National Archives and Records Administration publication T624.

tells everyone exactly what I was looking at, lets them find it in another repository if they want or need—and even lets them see that maybe they're looking at a slightly different record for those cases we've all seen when someone got double counted.

Beyond the census records, I find they're often not clear about exactly what a record is in their description. They might say "Marriage record" but it's actually a bond. Or it's a transcription of the bonds. Or an index.

I don't have hope for improvements from any of the big websites and just keep doing my thing.

---

I agree with everything you just said. It's nice to see that you fully appreciate these problems and issues.

It takes longer, but I'm going to put more TLC into my FamilySearch citations.

Thanks for your comment.