Hi Listers, Just to let you know that ancestry have now got the 1871 census for Hampshire on-line. I have seen criticms in the mailing lists about the standard of indexing of ancestry's indices, and it looks as if 1871 is possibly worse than the others. However, if you have ever tried transcribing a badly written document, they probably havent done a bad job. A little imagination and the odd "*" wild card usually produces results. I did most of my genealogy years ago, when nothing was indexed, and everything had to be approached via hundreds of hours ploughing through original documents. (And I do mean original - microfilm and microfiche weren't even invented then!!) I am just grateful that I can now track down missing siblings with relative ease. I have no financial interest in ancestry.com but when I balance the hundreds of pounds I spent travelling to London back in the dark ages to search the censuses, I find it good value for money. Warts and all!! Sandra

You are quite right Sandra, as far as value for money goes on-line indices and such are far more economical than what we used to have to do. On the other hand there is nothing like the emotion of actually handling original documents that are hundreds of years old. I remember sitting in the old Dorset record office in Dorchester turning over crumbling register pages and wondering how long they'd last, and how privileged I was to be one of the last of the general public to be able to do that. Of course it's good that most such documents have now been filmed, and that extensive indexes are now available. Just so long as people are aware of what they are looking at, and if it is not a photograph of an original document, realise that transcription errors do exist, and every effort should be made to seek out, and preferably get a photocopy of, the original source. Cheers, Dave Jacobs =============== At 11:41 10/10/2004, Sandra J Smith wrote: >Hi Listers, >Just to let you know that ancestry have now got the 1871 census for >Hampshire on-line. >I have seen criticms in the mailing lists about the standard of indexing >of ancestry's indices, and it looks as if 1871 is possibly worse than the >others. However, if you have ever tried transcribing a badly written >document, they probably havent done a bad job. A little imagination and >the odd "*" wild card usually produces results. >I did most of my genealogy years ago, when nothing was indexed, and >everything had to be approached via hundreds of hours ploughing through >original documents. (And I do mean original - microfilm and microfiche >weren't even invented then!!) I am just grateful that I can now track >down missing siblings with relative ease. >I have no financial interest in ancestry.com but when I balance the >hundreds of pounds I spent travelling to London back in the dark ages to >search the censuses, I find it good value for money. Warts and all!! >Sandra > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Regarding using original documents. I recently visited HRO and because we could not find the relevant microfiche for what I suspected was a will of one of my ancestors I was permitted to see the original. I now have a copy of that will and it is much clearer than those I copied from the fiche. It was a great thrill seeing the original of a will written in 1719 almost 300 years ago. Well worth the 500 mile round trip. one happy researcher Hilary