I think it would be recognised Ian. The Marriages Dec 1889 page range for Gloucester 6a is 499 to 574 inclusive. Page number 644 cannot therefore be correct. The aliasing team would pick this up! Best wishes Chris Preece Barossa Vineyards South Oz > ---------- > From: Iain Archer[SMTP:ia_gen@montaigne.demon.co.uk] > Sent: 25 September 2003 05:01 > To: FREEBMD-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: DOUBLE KEYING - a different point! > > [Transferred from FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com] > > Dave Mayall <david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk> wrote to > FreeBMD-Admins-L@rootsweb.com on Fri, 12 Sep 2003: > > >On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:47:24 +0200, you wrote: > > > >>Marriages Dec 1889 > >> > >>FERRIS Fanny Gloucester 6a [56]44 > >> > >>Ferris Fanny Gloucester 6a 544 > >> > > >>Question: is there some clever software which in time will recognize > >> these duplications and merge them into a singe (bold) entry? Because > >>in the meantime they are distorting the number of "unique" records > >>which FreeBMD claims in its home page.... > > >No, ultimately all unmatched entries will be investigated and resolved > >by experienced transcribers. > > Who will presumably be able to determine whether the page should be > entered as 544, 644, or even [56]44, and that at least one > of the transcribers had made an error. > > Now suppose that both transcribers had entered 544, or 644, or [56]44. > What is the probability in each case that not just one, but both, have > made an error? And would that error be recognised? > -- > Iain Archer > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go > to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > >