The problem identified is probably much larger than you think. Last year when the new Family Search came on line, by chance I discovered that my parish of interest in southern Somerset had been transcribed/indexed. I'm told these were done some 20 years ago, and been on a British Vital Records CD, but they were not something that was available at my FH library. Thankfully. My research would have a very strange shape. For your interest, I had also transcribed this smallish parish, and for baptisms I identified 1060 entries. Searching for baptisms using Beta Search I found 1052 entries. (So far so good.) Duplicate entries from the PR, duplicate entries from the BT, and various duplicates of duplicates added up to 114 entries. So the number of unique entries using Beta Search reduced to 938 entries. The next bit gets a bit murky, and I may have miscounted. But I have 168 entries in my transcript that I couldn't find in Family Search. And furthermore there were 49 entries in the Family Search version that I couldn't match with any of the 168. Part of my analysis compared the names I expected to see - both family names and given names, with the names that appeared in the Family Search index. There are far too many to cite here, but finding a Solomon indexed as Elmer, Elizabeth as Mable, or even Kaylene Barrigo for Mary Anne Bonning (from the marriages) left me stunned. I always use the Browse by location, selecting Europe, and then selecting the specific England database. In the search form I enter only "parish name", Somerset, and this brings up an incredible number of entries. At the head of the results list is a hint " Try adding a name to your search (first or last). Even a guess might be helpful." Could any of you guess any of the alternates I've named above? I've offered my transcription, but I'm still waiting to hear about that. Bev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hase" <pat@pathase.demon.co.uk> To: <bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [B&S] Response from Family Search about errors innewBristoldata. > I've also had problems in trying to make my feedback to Familysearch > understood by the LDS.