Spelling of names

Briggs, Suzanna Reed

I noticed a "different" edit pencil on a name. I looked through all the attached sources. Lol it was the spelling! It was the spelling of Reed vs Read. Do we ignore this edit or are name spelling variations to be included in the future. Beside the two mentioned there is Reid, Reade, Rhead, and many more. I'm leaving it as Reed as this seems to be the most used spellings - at least in the England Parish registers.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

You're misunderstanding the interface, I think, and thereby pointing out yet another problem with the whole concept of the computer making decisions for you. In this case, that decision is, "is the information in this index entry that you're attaching as a source different from the existing information in FamilyTree that you're attaching it to?", and the reason the computer is making that decision is to determine whether you're allowed/enabled to edit that Family Tree information straight from Source Linker or not. The algorithm's decision, however, is not an indication that you should make that edit.

In general, Source Linker's algorithms can all be characterized as "extremely literalist". If the index labeled the field as "Marriage Registration", then Source Linker will not enable editing (or creation!) of a "Marriage Place" when you're attaching that index entry. Likewise for "baptism" versus "christening", "burial" versus "death", and so forth and so on, and also for names: if it's one character off, it's different. In the latter case, I suppose this is a good thing, because it should/ought result in fewer "smarter than thou" moves from the computer, but the flip side of that is the misperception that it's pointing out the difference because it expects you to do something about it.