I think that comment shows more about your biases than the original posters. I think it's a great explanation of how things in family history research work.

I had a very similar experience this week. I was again working on one of my troublesome ancestors and I was checking the census record for about the 100th time. As I was looking, I hit me out of the blue - what had been transcribed as Roud, Middlesex, was in fact, "Does Not Know".

I'm a native English speaker, I'd looked at that record litterally one hundred times. I've worked with handwritten historical records for years and it still took me multiple views over a period of a couplee of years to recognise what was written. And as you can see, the transcription wasn't even close. But you know what, I can't blame whoever did the original transcription. Because I know what I went through to work out what it said. And I think only my extensive knowledge of other records and the individual in question helped me work out what was written.

Ancestry indexes aren't perfect, but then there are very few collections of records with such huge volumes to deal with that are. Even if only 1% are wrong, when dealing with millions of records, that is going to be a numerically large figure of errors.

I think explaining the way research works, the good and the bad is more useful than the ever popular "Ancestry sucks".

Cheers,
Michelle