<<snipped>> I understand why 'bundles' of documents must be kept as 'bundles' by archivists but the information that they contain could be teased out when putting it on websites. <<snipped>> Absolutely. Not just "could" but "should" - indexing should be by will, not bundle. <<snipped>> I was searching for a will of Elizabeth WATTS, a widow of Great Sutton of 1618, and found a simple inventory of four items only ... plus, in the same bundle, a will of Richard WORDEN. ... I then searched for the will of Richard WORDEN + variants (just in case it was recorded in its own right) and none was found. <<snipped>> Interestingly, many of the Earwaker compilations of Cheshire Wills are on archive.org. In particular, there is "An Index to the Wills and Inventories now preserved in the Court of Probate, at CHESTER, FROM A.D. 1545 TO 1620", compiled by Earwaker in 1879. This has an index entry for "Werden, Richard, of Chester 1618" but no Elizabeth Watts index! Earwaker's indices came from various original indexes at Chester and this suggests that anyone finding an entry in Earwaker that isn't on FMP, might try adjacent entries - matching year and first-letter-of-surname, I think - followed by browsing thru the images. Worth a go... FMP cannot be blamed for the quality of indexing, which came from FamilySearch. On the other hand they should have a mechanism in place to deal with all the errors. The correction mechanism that they have is accessed from the window or tab of the image but only allows replacement values. This is another case when the ability to add alternate indexes (as per Ancestry) would have been invaluable. Adrian B