dot. Of course any original record stands a better chance of being accurate than any transcript, but the point about the latter is that its index should point to the names we seek. Too many of my folk do not appear in 1911; they can't all be 'not at home'.
Despite the assurances I read in Prophile, (Journal of the Friends of TNA) if the 1911 set-up for overseeing the work was anything like the farcical one organised for 1901, then it is no wonder many are missing.
During my year's sub. to ancestry.com I corrected around 300 errors many of them obviously wrong, hopelessly wrong. They looked wrong, (admittedly, occasionally what was written was accurately transcribed).
I've spent c. 10 years organising, checking, editing three county censuses and although I'd happily have a go at any county far removed from where I live, local people or those with local knowledge of surnames are bound to be best at getting names right.
(Stallard not Hallard; Worgan not Morgan; Hambidge not Hambridge etc). Those living abroad, as ancestry's efforts show, are not best placed for this work. I think less haste and more accuracy outweighs volume - even if we do have to wait a few more years.
This is not an attack on foreigners. It is a plea for accuracy; and anyone who can stand being demoralised over our BMD records should take a look at
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mikefost/
or better still, read the books!