Newfster
et al, I wasn't questioning the quality of Ancestry's digital imagery, but rather their transcription accuracy. I can't speak for anyone else, but it has been
my experience that Ancestry's transcriptions are markedly inferior, and more error strewn than any other similar online resources I've come across - and that's most of them. I have no axe to grind, but am simply calling it as I see it. I acknowledge the fact that any large scale project involving the transcription of information into search indexes, is bound to be subject to numerous errors & omissions. However, that acceptance shouldn't be used to establish any kind of benchmark for future projects, which is why I hope both the LMA, and Guildhall - who are presumably using public funds to commission this work - don't shirk their responsibilities, and ensure a rigorous system of quality control is implemented.
That said, I agree it will be a welcome development, which should prove a very valuable resource for all genealogists. And that is why I said, "...mustn't be churlish."
Swampy
