At 23:24 18/03/2010, Dora wrote: >Seriously, first of all, most of the records in the IGI are individual bmd >events submitted by individuals from their own work. I think we must positively distinguish between member submissions and batch records. I'd like to hear again Roy's view on that - although I'm sure I know it!!! There is a huge temptation to say "I've found an event on the IGI submissions and the name fits so it must be mine" - forgetting the old rule of 3. I know I did that when I started this hobby and have had to go back and re-write my tree. Unfortunately member submissions don't seem to get corrected - is it actually possible to correct them once submitted? >But maybe Andy is one of the rare people who never makes mistakes, and >therefore he can contentedly conclude that if someone did make a mistake, >something is really wrong with them. Of course I neevr maik mistooks - nor did I make the conclusion Dora invented for me - but an omission rate in copying from the PRs (or, as was said, more probably BTs) of 10 to 20% is very high - especially compared to FreeBMD, UKBMD etc. IIRC correctly (my memory isn't what it was - see above) many omissions are there even when compared with the BTs on microfilm. However it's a lot better than nothing, especially when you can't get (for whatever reason - geographical or medical) to the original records. You just have to be aware of its limitations. Good on you Maggie for doing the research on the original records and finding a better quality result. Best Wishes, Andy.