At 10:23 04/02/2007, jeffgould@bulldoghome.com wrote: >I have just discovered a Cissie H, quite clearly written, in 1901, but >transcribed by Ancestry as Susannah. However, I agree with Jim: it is a >great resource and I wouldn't be without it. Jeff Folks, I, too, can live with most of the horrific transcription errors in <www.ancestry.co.uk> Having all the censuses from 1841 to 1901 for less than a single London red bus ride (now 2 GBP unless one uses an oyster card or, like me, a Freedom Pass) is worth having. I now have accumulated nearly 1,000 images One tip, though, if one is looking for a man called George. For some reason, literally tens of thousands of men with this as one of their forenames, have it/them transcribed as GEROGE. [ Believe me, I searched for just GEROGE no surname! It took yonks! ] Even, in some cases, one sees GEROGE GEORGE. <grin> You would think that some one, somewhere in the Ancestry hierarchy would have spotted that! Since discovering these GEROGEs, I have fed info back to Ancestry in the form of those surveys they pester us with! (With which they pester us?) Phil Phil Warn ô¿ô Genealogists do it backwards Family Historians take all steps "The Warn family in Tetbury from 1722" <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/philwarn/FamHist1/index.htm>