> > > >So are Ancestry just reselling FMP scans and transcriptions, or did they > >eventually do their own after all? > > > Somebody raised that question around 3-4 years ago. IIRC the indexing > then was different enough to suggest they were independent of each > other; IME each seemed to have their own non-matching errors as would > be expected when done by different people. I think it was Jeanne Bunting who did a careful comparison of the two sites re the 1901 census. Each made errors -FMP slightly more, i think) but they were different errors, so using the two sites would sometimes piece together a correct whole from two halves. Both uswe inferior transcribers and rush the work on to the market too fast. But with a little effort, most 'missing' census entries can be resolved. With only one source for the moment, this is more difficult. It still seems that all the entries redacted, whether or no they should be, causes the more serious probvlem for those who really need this late information. Most of us will probably sample, spit feathers and then wait till it becomes genuinely public. Presumably there is free public access if you go to Kew? If not, why not? EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society