> The problem is that we all like to use the indexes, not just as a pointing > aid to the original documents, but as data in its own right. eg it is > probably rather dangerous to use the index to work out ratios of surname > variants etc. To use Ancestry's indexes for any statistical purpose would produce results even more bizarre than our government's assessments of just about anything! To instance my own one name study, about 25% of AINSLEY variants are mistranscribed in their indexes over the 5 census they've indexed (excluding the 1841) - and thats only the surnames! If one takes into account the other data they claim to have indexed, I suspect the figure for accurate transcriptions of any one record is around 30% given the consistent misspellings of place names - although I've not bothered to record these for analysis. The transcription quality is abysmal, and I am frequently only able to find "missing persons" by having a very good idea of where they are - BUT - the images are there, and are generally of good quality, which means I dont have to travel to view them and with cunning investigation can often even find the persons i want! I loathe Ancestry and thir brash commercialisation of our hobby - but I reluctantly pay their subscription because it does save me money and time. Hugh Ainsley - the AINSLEY one name study -GOOONS #3926