Confusing IGI

[susan williams]

 Has anyone else ever come across errors on the IGI When comparing copies of some Parish Records I have to the IGI there were quite a few discrepencies, in fact it did make me wonder which records were in fact correct - The Parish Records or the IGI - made me go back to the very beginning and re do a lot of the research just to make sure I was following the right family. Have to say that I am still in a bit of a dilemma over some of the information but without the help of any census researching in the 1700's relies heavily on both the above records - mind you I do live in hope that someone somewhere just might have an old family Bible with all the names neatly written down !!!
Susan

[emeltom]

I'd say that the Parish Registers are the closest to being correct. You have, of course to allow for the fact that many people were illiterate and unable to spell their names and they therefore went with whatever the Parish Clerk/Vicar wrote down, as they wouldn't know if their name had been mis-spelt.
With the IGI what you see are transcriptions of the original records so there are bound to be mistakes. Clarity of handwriting varies greatly and when you are transcribing you are supposed to put down what you see and not what you think the name might be.
I once searched for ages for an ancestor named Gardiner. When I eventually found him and looked at the original I could see why the transcriber had him down as Garolmer - the handwriting was awful.
Emeltom

[CaroleW]

You also have to be very careful of submitted IGI entries.  These are frequently inaccurate

[sillgen]

The IGI is not done for our convenience.  It is an index of temple sealing for members of the LDS church.  There are bound to be errors as these were amateurs transcribing the registers in many cases.  It does not profess to be full coverage of all parishes and even those that are on it often have chunks missing.  Use it as a tool to point you in the right direction but the original registers must be checked too.
Regards
Andrea

[stanmapstone]

There is an article on the IGI at https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/International_Genealogical_Index_%28IGI%29

Stan

[susan williams]

So relieved that someone else has also had similar problems with the records on the IGI. The Lancashire Parish Clerks Project have some excellent records for those researching Lancashire families and it was through that site that some of the differences  with the IGI info were sorted out.  However the main line I am following does have a really difficult problem- the IGI lists a marriage in 1810 in Hindley when an Elizabeth Taylor married  a John Lowe - there is also an entry for a Betty Taylor who also married a John Lowe in Hindley, The children listed all say To John Lowe and Elizabeth Taylor but one does say to John Lowe and Betty Taylor and that was not my gt. gt. grandad - he on the John Lowe Elizabeth Taylor " list "  The entry in the Hindley Parish records lists the marriage as
John Lowe to Betty Taylor - not Elizabeth. Burial records are in the name of Elizabeth - she died in childbirth aged 29. So here the IGI says one thing and the Parish records say another hence why it all seems just a bit confusing  and I just don't know what is the right information.
Susan

[sillgen]

Hi
I don't think you have really taken in what has been said.  The marriage which names Elizabeth is a member submitted one.   Those must be treated with caution as you have no proof that they are correct.   Many are pure guesswork.  This one obviously has more than a grain of truth though as the other record which names Betty is an extracted record ie taken directly from the parish register.  You should always look at the original source which in this case means searching the church register. The IGI is a transcription not an original source and we all know that transcribers make mistakes.
Regards
Andrea

[Cell]

The entry in the Hindley Parish records lists the marriage as
John Lowe to Betty Taylor - not Elizabeth. Burial records are in the name of Elizabeth - she died in childbirth aged 29..
Susan

Hi,
Regarding the extracted record ( which is the one  taken from parish records ) John Lowe to Betty Taylor and the  difference between the burial records which says her name is Elizabeth( I assume you have her burial record from the church) -why do you think this  marriage is wrong? Betty is a nickname for Elizabeth.

Many people married under their known as name and not their full birth name.  I have a great uncle who married and died  by his middle name and not  his christian name ( as he went by his middle name to all that knew him). My g grandmother Elizabeth - married under Lizzy and died under Elizabeth , her  registered birth  name was Elizabeth .

Hope that helps
Kind regards

[susan williams]

Very many thanks for all of your help - and the name Betty  had not gone un-noticed as being  a shortenend or family name for Elizabeth - all of this research was in fact done through the Parish Records before a computer came into our lives - and yes some of the entries on the LDS site are indeed open to transcription errors  which as with the census documents is really only to be expected..  Re-visiting this research on the computer was an attempt to find another generation as age no longer enables such visits to libraries and Record Offices that hold the Parish Records. Just happy that I have indeed got the right family and the correct information
Best wishes
Susan