I fought with myself on the citation for the Missouri Marriages from Ancestry.com in issue 51 of Casefile Clues. I'm not happy with how Ancestry.com handled the images in terms of being able to cite them.
It would have been nice to have been able to view digital images of the books from which these records were taken. I am reasonably certain that the microfilm copy of these records includes images of the book itself, making it easier for the user to know where the originals came from.
It should be easier for the user to know what marriage record volume each entry was from. Page numbers are part of the image, but volume numbers are not included. Ancestry organizes the records by year and then by image.
In the citation, I included the names as transcribed in the index, the year and the image number within that year. Actually the names as in the database should have been sufficient, but the additional information reduces any potential for confusion.
Thoughts are appreciated.