From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Keith Nuttle   
    writes:   
   >On 6/21/2019 6:39 AM, Geoff wrote:   
   >> Does anyone know if there is a way to search the "Archdeaconry of   
   >>Norwich" wills records on Family Search?  I can see the original   
   >>records  OK but there are 950 pages of them!   
   >> Possibly they have not been indexed  or I am missing a trick somewhere.   
   >Some records are indexed; some are not.  This is good and bad.  It is   
   >good in that it makes them easier to use; but you are dependent on the   
   >accuracy of the transcription.   
      
   Below the part of the window where you see the images of the original   
   pages, there might be two tabs, one of which is called something like   
   index; on the records I use most (Durham Diocese bishop's transcripts   
   [includes most of Northumberland, Cumb*, and some Yorkshire too]), it   
   always says something like "sorry, there is no index". (IIRR, the other   
   tab shows something like how to cite the records.)   
   >   
   >I do not know about the records you mentioned, but I have found that   
   >the original records had original indexes.  While it takes some time to   
   >understand how to use the original index, they work just as well as the   
   >transcribed index, BUT you have to look at the individual books in the   
   >database for the original index.   
      
   You mean the first few (or last few) images in the set are of a contents   
   (or index) section in the original book? That would be nice! It's not   
   the case in the ones I use most, which are parish records (or   
   contemporary transcripts thereof), which aren't even in consistent order   
   - things may be in BMD order one year, and different in an adjacent year   
   (or even have all the Bs say for several years together): certainly no   
   index. I just have to dip in where I think is about right, then look   
   back and forth.   
      
   Have you dipped into your 950 records, to see if you can get _some_ idea   
   of how they're organised? Oh, and you don't have to use the > and <   
   buttons: you can type a number in, so e. g. 425 to dip into the middle.   
   >   
   >Using the original index, allows you to make your own transcription of   
   >the information, and you sometime find associated information that you   
   >would not find in the transcribed index.   
   >   
   >I have found people in the original indexes, that I never would have   
   >found using the transcribed index, as the transcriptions were so bad.   
   >On instance, where the sure name started with Kn, was transcribed as Thn,   
      
   I generally just take the image, and don't bother with any transcription   
   (other than my own), unless the image is really illegible (I still take   
   it then). Though I did recently encounter one record set where the   
   download and print buttons produced a popup saying something like   
   "contractual obligation has disabled this function".   
   >   
   >--   
   >Judge your ancestors by how well they met their standards not yours.   
   >They did not know your standards, so could not try to meet them.   
   >   
   I like that. Not just your ancestors, but people in history in general   
   (which is probably what was meant, but given the newsgroup we're in ...)   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding that I get up   
   early on Sundays to apologize for being human.   
   -- Captain Splendid (quoted by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2014-11-16)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)