I was somewhat amused by the following "quick tip" that appeared in _Ancestry Daily News_ on 23 October 2001: "LATER MILITARY ENTRIES FOUND IN CIVIL WAR PENSION INDEX My grandmother's family all lived in southeastern Pennsylvania during the Civil War, so although her grandfathers would have been a little too old and her father too young to be soldiers, it seemed that checking the Civil War Pension Index for my surnames would still be a good idea. I was surprised to find her father, James Fraley GOERKE, listed in the Index. He had not served in the Civil War, but his record showed service in 1896-98 (Infantry) and again in 1917-20 (Navy). I don't know what he was doing on the Civil War Index, but I thought that others might want to check for their "too young" great- grandfathers as well. You might get lucky!" Excuse me, but luck has nothing to do with it, unless you call it dumb-luck. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why James Fraley Goerke is listed in the *Civil War Pension Index*. The so-called *Civil War Pension Index* which is available as an online database to subscribers at Ancestry.com is actually the *General Index to Pension Files, 1861-1934*. It is exactly the same card index that appears on the National Archives' microfilm publication no. T288. It is not just a Civil War pension index. It is an index to pensions granted for military service from 1861 to 1916. It includes pensions to veterans of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, and the regular service. The comments above illustrate a problem in the world of electronic genealogy. Actually, the problem is two-fold. Problem #1 is the is the failure of the database publishers to accurately title their databases. (The problem exists with both online and CD-Rom databases.) Problem #2 is the failure of the researcher to educate himself about the sources he/she is using. I am glad that the person who wrote the above "quick tip" had the dumb-luck to find her ancestor. I'm also a little embarrassed for her. Her ignorance of the index she used was published nation-wide. With a little effort at education, she could be even luckier. But understanding that many of the subscribers to Ancestry.com are not genealogy experts, I feel that Ancestry.com and other database publishers do their subscribers a disservice when they fail to accurately title and/or describe their databases. Just my big-mouth opinion. ;-) Barbara