Philip Powell wrote: > > I've had a good look round the site to see if there is an answer > available but with no success. > > Is there a mechanism in place to report obvious[0] errors on the > original scans? I'm not talking about 'spelling mistakes', smudges or > faint entries but things like the 2[1]I've seen: > > a) 'Soseph' in a typeset scan after 'John' and before 'Lucy' - making > it a reasonable assumption that the typesetter had picked up an 'S' > instead of a 'J'; > b) 'Elizabeth' in both the forename and district columns in an otherwise > perfect handwritten scan where there was no doubt about a single letter > or number on the scan. In this particular case, the clerk who had > numbered the pages at the top had clearly spotted it as he'd added ??? > after both occurrences. At present, there isn't a mechanism. We are developing such a mechanism to cater for corrections to the index, whilst still remaining true to the index. In essence, the record will be transcribed "as is", and a separate record will be submitted to record our THEORY about the record. Both will be presented in the search results. -- Dave Mayall