On 30/04/2012 23:46, mbstx wrote: > To me, it's not so much the quality of the image as the quality of the > indexing. There are a multitude of errors in the previous census > databases on Ancestry.com (and some in FamilySearch as well, but not as > many I believe). FamilySearch is trying to use indexers who understand > the batches they're working one, particularly re surnames, and other > things that might be misinterpreted.
But wherever possible one should record what is actually written on the Census sheet, not what is obviously a bad transcription. This is one reason why it's important to cite the full Source, including the website. If a person's name is transcribed (wrongly) as Jane on one site and (correctly) as James on another, someone trying to follow up your record of Jane, but using a different site to you, might not find the record. Sometimes what is written on the Census sheet is obviously incorrect, but I still record exactly what is written. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
