I'm really disappointed in what I'm seeing available in the digitized versions of the Gettysburg ORs (s1, v27, p1-3) so I think that I'm going to have to digitize them myself. I started with the third volume (Correspondence) and thought that I'd post some of the results here by way of a warning. The trouble, of course, is not false-positives. The insidious errors are the false-negatives: when the search engine fails to find what is there. If you search and find something, it is easy to assume that you're getting everything - especially if the search results shows you a scan of the actual page. But that is not what you're really searching, of course. You're searching an OCRed version of the text that often has had little or no proofreading. And it is shocking to discover what you're missing! Cornell University's online version at http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/waro.html is often cited as a good source so I started with that. It has a powerful search engine that I know is used by a lot of people. But how many people have clicked on "View entire text" to see what it is actually searching? It's scary. When you look at that text, the first clue of the problem is in the title: The ..."OFFJCJAL IRECOIRDS"... Yikes. They couldn't even proofread the title?? For the first piece of correspondence alone (Page 3), I found several errors in the text, including: Pleasonton coded as "Plea" and "sonton" Washington coded as "Washing-" and "ton" (preserving the line break) intended coded as "lutended" positively coded as "posi.." and "tively" (another line break) That means that the search engine is not going to find those references. When you also count missing punctuation ("Stuart's" coded as "Stuarts"), I found more than 100 errors in the first 10 pages. Speaking of Pleasonton, I found 320 references to him in my own scan of Part 3. Cornell lists 311. You might think 97% sounds pretty good - unless you're researching the guy and don't realize that you've missed 9 potentially-critical pieces of correspondence that are from, to, or about him. In another test, Cornell finds only 92 of the 122 references to Emmitsburg in that volume (or 75%). For "Emmitsburg Road", it finds just 6 of 10 (60%). Of the last group, Cornell coded the first three errors as "iEmmits-"+"bare", "Einmitsburg", and "Emmits-"+"burg", respectively. The fourth error is due to the fact that Page 555 is completely missing from their scan! I bought a CD of the whole set of ORs and the search results there are even worse. Those of us who have a copy might double-check against the paper index but (1) honestly, who does that? (2) you have to check three indexes, one for each volume, and (3) it is woefully incomplete too! Of the 122 references to Emmitsburg in Part 3, the index lists exactly ONE. In fact, the incompleteness of the paper index is often cited as justification for using the digital version. Does anyone know of a digitized copy of the Gettysburg ORs which is more reliable?