Victor Markham said "As to GR census like I said I don't use this but I imagine you download the image and save it. From there you use Ancestral Sources to add it to your FH". I don't want this to get too partisan and certainly not acrimonious, but why would I use AS? That (and nothing else, either) will get near the quality of my translation and interpretation from an image into FH to comply with my own house style, needs and prejudices. What's more, Ancestry leaves a lot to be desired in its transcriptions hence search success. For years it's been my only census source but I've lost count of the number of times I've missed results owing to off-the-wall transcriptions (you couldn't get those spellings in any Earthly language, so what planet are they on?). You've prompted me to do a comparison of result counts for a selection of unusual names in the 1871 census. I can assure you that more often than not FindMypast finds more than Ancestry. And, while FMP is not by any means perfect, I reckon the results are more trustworthy. This accords with my recent experience of failing to find something in Ancestry, then using FMP (credits) and succeeding right away. Now i've taken out an FMP subscription but hope to continue with Ancestry because it has several superior features. Furthermore Ancestry has a superb facility for users to input transcription corrections plus their views on "incorrect in image", plus any other "variants" (that are often used in practice to enter women's maiden names). The effect of this, though, is to muddy the water so that where Ancestry *does* come up with more results than FMP there is strong reason to doubt it's more accurate in a strict sense. Victor Markham also said "...computer experts...", etc. Come on, Victor, don't be so trusting. As Adrian and I have tried to show, most of the software we pay hard-earned cash for is crap. How much bigger a mess are the vendors going to make of a really much better (and more complicated) GEDCOM? Paul

On 23/03/2012 17:35, Paul White wrote: > You've prompted me to do a comparison of result counts for a selection of unusual names in the 1871 census. I can assure you that more often than not FindMypast finds more than Ancestry. And, while FMP is not by any means perfect, I reckon the results are more trustworthy. This accords with my recent experience of failing to find something in Ancestry, then using FMP (credits) and succeeding right away. > > Furthermore Ancestry has a superb facility for users to input transcription corrections plus their views on "incorrect in image", plus any other "variants" (that are often used in practice to enter women's maiden names). The effect of this, though, is to muddy the water so that where Ancestry *does* come up with more results than FMP there is strong reason to doubt it's more accurate in a strict sense. > In my experience, too, Findmypast transcriptions are generally more accurate that Ancestry. I'd like to add that Findmypast also has an excellent and efficient system for reporting transcription errors (but not variants: they stick strictly to what is in the image). If you report a transcription error for a census or BMD record you get a prompt email acknowledgement with a promise that it will be looked at within 28 days. In fact it usually only takes a few days and on one occasion only a few HOURS before they make the correction! So I would encourage everyone to report any transcription errors they find on FMP, for the benefit of others. Lorna