Hi BB,

"if you utilize "alternate" data you are no longer citing the original document and one CANNOT, by any legitimate citation criteria I'm aware of, cite the original document as the source of the citation."

I totally concur and this _IS_ the fundamental issue.

I certainly don't wish to hijack your post, however, the scope and depth of "alternate data" proliferation is worrying. It appears to me that what I'm seeing is a mix of both the intentional and unintentional - new "features" and bugs - and perhaps index data corruption. I would like to give one example and I'll go quietly away.

Have a look at this:

http://www.ancestry.com/rd/viewrecord.aspx?dbname=&dbid=...
See image 1

Thomas Griffin - (User submitted)
[Thomas Griffie] - Alternate with no explanation
[Griffis] - Alternate with no explanation

Note that in Household Members he is listed as Thomas Griffi_s_.. all household members also as Griffi_s_
Then note clicking on Mary Griffi_s_ ends up Mary Griffi_e_ - See image 2

Then click on "View Others on page"
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1910USCenIndex...
See image 3

Note he is listed as Thomas Griffi_n_.. and the other household members are listed as Griffi_e_..

If I save the citation using new add (beta) the name offered is Griffis, that's it, not Thomas Griffis just Griffis.

What was the original transcription, how/why/who changed or added alternates and has index data been irreversibly changed or deleted?

sf