Dear Mark, etal, Regarding the issue of whether or not to include un-sourced data in the data-base: While we all agree that "sourced" information is more desirable and valuable than "un-sourced", in the absence of sourced data, I'll take unsourced any day. Last week, this same of issue of requiring 100% accurate and proven information almost got a wonderful death index database for the state of Missouri shut down. I believe that to strive for this level of perfection is wonderful, but to expect it or demand it is unreasonable. Even the LDS site doesn't try to confirm or guarantee the accuracy of any of the information on their site. And I suspect we all know that any information submitted by others needs to be independently verified. Even if I state a source, you would be wise to do your own confirmation. What if I accidentally made a typo? Or what if I were one of those individuals who were careless enough to keep sloppy records, or mean enough to intentionally put false information with fictitious sources on the internet? Would we allow genealogical books and magazines as sources? Just because it was published on paper doesn't make any truer than being published on the internet. I'm afraid if we insist on sourced and documented information, the next step will be to make everyone submit copies of their documentation. While that would save the recipients a lot of time and money, it would surely bring this whole sharing process to a grinding halt! As for me, I have several dead-ends and brick-walls on which I would joyfully accept any clue, sourced or unsourced. Respectfully, Debra Claussen In a message dated 10/30/1999 6:57:20 PM Central Daylight Time, webmaster@cobnet.com writes: << But why not add only sourced and documented data to begin with. Won't it help people more in the long run to be able to see that each item/date has been documented and sourced? Wouldn't that be better than perpetuating mis-information; better than trying to sort & correct it all later after alot of erroneous data has been entered? >>