Aside from the issue of completeness of this index, I'm actually wondering how useful it really is if it doesn't give an original image, doesn't indicate a source and is cobbled together from "various sources"(meaning that it may not always be death dates that are shown, but could also be burial dates). I know I'll be using it to give me an idea of the approximate date and place of death, but as far as well-sourced information goes, it really misses the mark completely. Its kind of annoying, as I'm discovering more and more of this type of genealogy index where the information can't easily be checked - which to my mind makes it no better than some of the old IGI. I'm now thinking I concentrate my efforts on only reviewing records where there is an original image to view as well, and where I actually check the original image as a matter of course before I record anything from a transcription. Is it just another example of quantity of genealogical records over quality? Corinne Curtis '#5579

I agree, Corinne. Although I am not always so bothered about not having the original image if there is at least a comprehensive description of the source of the data put in to the database, completeness of the coverage and potential omissions. That is, an index might be all I have for some early modern records, at least that tells me something and I can assess the data. Ancestry seems to be especially bad at bunging data from disparate sources into one searchable entity, which, indeed, harks back to the old IGI. Penelope Burton GOONS 4896 On 23 January 2015 at 18:12, Corinne Curtis via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Aside from the issue of completeness of this index, I'm actually > wondering how useful it really is if it doesn't give an original > image, doesn't indicate a source and is cobbled together from "various > sources"(meaning that it may not always be death dates that are shown, > but could also be burial dates). > > I know I'll be using it to give me an idea of the approximate date and > place of death, but as far as well-sourced information goes, it really > misses the mark completely. Its kind of annoying, as I'm discovering > more and more of this type of genealogy index where the information > can't easily be checked - which to my mind makes it no better than > some of the old IGI. I'm now thinking I concentrate my efforts on > only reviewing records where there is an original image to view as > well, and where I actually check the original image as a matter of > course before I record anything from a transcription. > > Is it just another example of quantity of genealogical records over quality? > > Corinne Curtis '#5579 > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message