When is an update not an update?

When it's the 20th April and shown as such on my Recent Changes index.
All of those listed as "updated", with the exception of James ROWE and Jessie SUTHERLAND, are behind the scenes tidy ups with no information added.
James is there as his baptism and burial information have been checked, found wanting, and updated.
Jessie because her death in Victoria, Australia has now been found.

3 months of updates

Quite an impressively long list of recent changes - but don't be fooled.
Many are minor changes to citations, or the last edit date changed because a scanned certificate has been added (which wont be visible on the family tree pages, but may be if included on the Originals subsite - not yet updated).
Another reason for inclusion in the recent change index is the addition of links to a hopefully relevant dna page for those belonging to dna tested lines (some of which links may still not yet work).
 
At least two new people now have pages, probably others:
Grace MEIKLE nee ROBERTSON, mentioned recently
Elizabeth HAMLEY nee ROWE, although the impetus for her publication eludes me at the moment.

Now that more of the FAIRBAIRN trees are included on the One Name Study pages, the FAIRBAIRN page has been cut back to only include trees for the more closely related FAIRBAIRNs.

Many updates probably don't feature in the recent changes index but only in the updated descendancy charts.

6th: Ignore "recent changes"

All of the supposed recent changes listed in that index for the 6th April are merely background database tidy ups, no new information.