I like Ancestry's 'alternate name' system, which makes no value judgement about the alternates, but it only applies to names, so we just have to grin and bear the bizarre birthplaces, wrong ages and relationships, and the odd administrative framework they have adopted. At least FindMyPast will entertain the possibility of making amendments to other fields.
As to the question of transcribing what you see, not what you think it should be, it's up to the researcher to interpret and evaluate the source. We are in the business of research (at least I hope we are), not data retrieval, and if the original record is unclear, or even gibberish, that in itself is just another factor for the serious researcher to consider.
There's a good example of this in the 1881 Census for England at RG11/930 fol 58 p35 where the Weston/Parkinson family entry is sheer nonsense - I thought it was a transcription error at first, but it clearly isn't. You also have to remember that when you are looking for something in particular you recognise a name or a word that even the best transcriber will get wrong, but equally this can lead you to subconsciously 'correct' something as you read it. Mostly this is fine, but it is dangerously close to mis-reading, and can lead to correcting things that shouldn't be corrected - anyone with an unusual name that is very similar to a more common one will know exactly what I mean.
Mean_genie
