Are you also factoring in the multiple attempts by the GRO indexer(s) for some records contributing to the "excess". I have several instances in my own research where the indexer has indexed someone as both HATTAM and HALLAM presumably because (s)he couldn't be sure about the crossing of the T's. But there is only one real register entry. For instance look at: vol 5c, page 418, Marriages, Mar 1892 (Posting a link doesn't work) Mark At 7:23 pm +0000 30/11/03, John Parker wrote: >The latest update shows a gratifying increase in the number of >unique records. The figures do, however, raise some questions. > >Take two event years which have apparently been fully transcribed. > >We are told that there are 990,848 unique records of births in 1898. >For that year, there were 2,474 pages of births to be transcribed. >Assuming an average of 374 births per page (and an assumption of 375 >or 376 would not affect the issue), there were 925,276 births in >that year. So the number of "unique" records exceeds the actual >number of births by about 65,000, ie about 7 percent. > >[snip] > >I have previously raised this problem with Peter Dauncey off list, >so he will have been warned. > >J S Parker