How should obsolete English characters (example below) be indexed?
Sorry if some Community members think I should have posted this under the General Question category, but it somewhat connects to the thread at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/135873/dutch-reformed-y-with-dots-over-or-ij#latest, which I have been following with great interest.
I wonder how this surname would be treated, in line with the "index what you see" approach that appears to be stressed in FamilySearch indexing projects?
Having a GREENGRASS branch in my ancestry, I would have no hesitation about the spelling (or recording) of the surname illustrated here. The last two characters in the name both represent the letter "s", the penultimate one being commonly known as a "long s". Yet, as shown at https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.surname=greengrafs&q.surname.exact=on there are 170 instances in FamilySearch's indexed records where the character has been indexed as an "f".
In my early days on FamilySearch, this error made me miss a lot of results for my Greengrass relatives, as it did not occur to me that this misinterpretation had taken place (obviously affecting other names, too), so I was making "Exact" searches for GREENGRASS, instead of using a wildcard in the appropriate place, as I would now.
The use of the "long s" was taking place until well into the 19th century, so I wonder if project instructions ever mention anything relevant to the issue, or are indexers expected to be aware of matters like this?
(Another example - usually in much older documents - would be the "ff" at the start of a name, which is meant to represent an "F" - not a double-f)
As I have mentioned, I have purposefully placed this question here, as I feel it ties in closely with the suggestions / debate, on how to record unfamiliar characters, at the referenced topic found via the link above.