I have found similar situations, though at the time I managed to identify one of my wife's ancestors correctly since I had a lot of information on him. Someone had estimated his birth date as 1800 (25 years before his marriage date), which was estimated as 1825 because that was one year before the birth of a daughter of his in 1826. Apparently fine, only that daughter was the 7th child from his second marriage. He was actually born in 1763... Some gap! -----Mensagem Original----- From: Nancy Scott Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 1:57 PM To: 'Mary S. Scott (Michigan)' ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] figuring our sources for extracted records in nFS Karen mentioned that you need to be careful to not combine persons in nFS who are born with wide birth dates in nFS but with similar names. I totally agree with that but the opposite of that can also be true. I duplicated my husband's maternal grandmother's ordinance work before nFS was available because it had been done and all the birth dates for the children were about 30 years off. So even though I had searched to be sure I would not be duplicating, I did not give a wide enough range of years and so the work was redone. I found the duplication in nFS because of the family relationships and knew that it was her but the dates were so incorrect that without the family relationships, it was almost impossible to find previously. All of this points to the fact that we should enter as much data as possible about the person so that they can be uniquely identified. Things that this would include, in my opinion, are: alternate names and "about dates" if you do not know the exact date. A member of my ward did work for a family member with very minimum information on the card. Thre was no date of birth and the place name was not standard. I was with her and glanced over the card. When I asked her about it in a nice way. She said that that was all that was known. When I got home, I looked in Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org and came up with census records that would give about dates and emailed the documents to her. The next day at church when I talked to her about my finds for her, she said that she already had that information. I encouraged her to contribute any data that she did have so that the person would be uniquely identified including an about date. Writing this makes me think that it would be good to make some sort of handout on a person being uniquely identified to remind members how important this can be to reduce duplication. Nancy Scott Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to [email protected] ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message