Ancestry.com Terminates Free Access in Family History Centers

The Generations Network, Inc, the owner of Ancestry.com, MyFamily.com, Rootsweb.com, Genealogy.com, and Family Tree Maker, has released a statement about recent negotiations with the Family History Centers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In short, the company is now halting the practice of giving free access to Ancestry.com to all Family History Centers. Thousands of genealogists have visited local Family History Centers in order to gain free access to services that normally cost $100 to $300 per year or more. Obviously, those people are going to be very disappointed with this news.

Here is the official announcement from The Generations Network, followed by my comments:

A STATEMENT FROM ANCESTRY.COM REGARDING THE RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE FAMILY HISTORY CENTERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

On March 16, 2007, a communication was sent to the Directors of Family History Centers from the Worldwide Support management of the Family History Department. Ancestry.com wishes to clarify a number of points not addressed by this communication.

-   For the past seven years, Ancestry.com has provided all Church family history centers free access to Ancestry.com without a formal licensing agreement in place or any compensation from the Church.

-    Over the past several months, Ancestry.com has been working actively to reach agreement with the Church on a formal licensing arrangement by which it could continue to make its service available to the public for free.  Unfortunately, the two parties were unable to reach an agreement on this matter.

-    Ancestry.com strongly desires to have a licensing arrangement with the Church that would allow it to continue to provide free access to the public in Family History Centers. The company said it still hopes to create an acceptable agreement with the Church.  The Ancestry Library Edition is available free to the public in over 1400 public libraries in the U.S. and U.K. via a similar licensing arrangement.

-    Ancestry.com and the Church have cooperated over the years on a number of projects to digitize and index some important online databases.  The Generations Network values its relationship with the Church and is committed to working closely with the Church and all players in the genealogy world to advance interest in family history across the world.

-    Because of existing contractual agreements, a select number of Ancestry.com databases will continue to be accessible inside LDS Church family history centers.  These include the 1880, 1900 and 1920 U.S. censuses, full name indices for the British 1841-1891 censuses (England and Wales), World War I draft cards, and a few additional smaller databases.

About Ancestry.com
With more 23,000 searchable databases and titles, Ancestry.com is the No. 1 online source for family history information. Since its launch in 1997, Ancestry.com has been the premier resource for family history, simplifying genealogical research for millions of people by providing them with many easy-to-use tools and resources to build their own unique family trees. Ancestry.com is part of The Generations Network, Inc, a leading network of family-focused interactive properties, including MyFamily.com, Rootsweb.com, Genealogy.com, and Family Tree Maker.  In total, The Generations Network properties receive 8.5 million unique visitors worldwide and over 400 million page views a month (© comScore Media Metrix, January, 2007).

Comments by Dick Eastman:

When I first heard this news, I was very disappointed. Any time an existing free service is canceled, the first feeling is one of disappointment. Even though I am saddened, I must also say that I am not surprised.

First, giving away a valuable service free of charge is probably not the best business plan I ever heard of. I am sure the company lost many thousands of dollars in revenue when people elected to use free access rather than paying for their own subscriptions. The Generations Network spends millions of dollars per year in scanning, OCR'ing, keying data, buying server farms, providing high-speed access to those servers, paying the salaries of the people who make all this happen, and so on. If the service they provide is valuable to genealogists, the company deserves a fair return on its investments. Giving away free access to a large number of your would-be paying customers is not a very good business plan.

Next, providing that free access for seven years without any sort of written agreement also is questionable. I doubt if any professor in any business school would approve. At a minimum, some sort of written agreement should have been in place years ago. If anything, the company is late at addressing this oversight.

I discussed the announcement briefly with two employees of The Generations Network. I do not know all the details, but I am told that company representatives have been negotiating with the Family History Centers to create a written agreement that was financially reasonable for both parties. The negotiators were unable to reach an agreement.

Finally, I know that The Generations Network sells online access to libraries and other non-profit and for-profit organizations. The pricing is more -or less the same as what other companies charge libraries for online access to other databases. I would assume that it is difficult to sell online access to any organization when it is already well known that your company gives away the same product free of charge to others. In short, The Generations Network has been undermining its own sales force.

I am also reminded of very elementary business "facts of life" that most of us learned in grammar school. I was always told that water was free. Nobody should ever have to pay for water. However, if we want the convenience of having clear, sanitary water delivered to us in the comfort of our own homes, day or night, it is reasonable and customary to pay the company that lays the water pipes under our streets, provides the pumping stations, and monitors the quality of the water delivered to our homes.

Providing online access to public domain government records is a similar business model. The documents are free. We can always view the records at any time without charge by traveling to the repository where the records are housed. We can obtain access to those records on site, usually during normal business hours. Those records remain as free as they ever were for those who visit in person.

However, if we want an added convenience of having images of those records delivered to us in our homes, on demand, any time of the day or night, we certainly should expect to pay for that added convenience. That is a value-added service above and beyond the ability to view a record in a distant repository.

In short, we should expect to pay for that added convenience.

Like the water department, Ancestry.com provides very big "pipes" that deliver lots of information to many genealogists. We all should expect to pay a reasonable charge for that added convenience. Any other plan not only puts the existence of this "pipeline" at risk, but also discourages other companies from entering the marketplace of providing valuable information to genealogists.

In the past, I have occasionally disagreed with business decisions made by managers at The Generations Network. However, this time I believe they made the right decision.

I suspect that lots of genealogists who never ran a business of their own will disagree with me. However, I bet those who ever had corporate financial responsibility and had to meet payrolls and pay creditors will agree.

- Dick Eastman

Comments

[Sheri Fenley]

Very well said. It is only fair to pay for services above and beyond the norm. For those whom this decision will affect there is still a way for them to get information. There are many wonderful volunteer lookup organizations that are out there.

[Paul K. Graham]

I wonder if Ancestry's change to charging some level of fee to FHCs for access has anything to do with the recent addition of Google-operated advertisements on search result pages, even for paying customers. Does a move to recover revenue from FHCs and a simultaneous move to make a few more dollars off paying customers through advertising say anything about their current financial situation?

[Regine Brindle]

This is a blow to FHCs but not the end of the world.
I was personally surprised to hear that no compensation had been provided for this wonderful service Ancestry.com offered the FHCs.
It makes me all the more grateful for the help Ancestry provided over these past years. It was the first place I took our patrons when they began their research.
I can't say I was surprised to see this happen however as a few months ago, when the Canadian Ancestry opened the FHCs didn't get access to these databases. It was due to the fact that these are available for free online. I sure can understand the reasoning not to pay for something already free but there are some great advantages to having the Ancestry subscription because of its advanced search capabilities.
Some people have mentioned the Family History Library catalog and how FHC patrons expect to just walk in a FHC and have the microfilms there, only to be disappointed and sometimes even angry because they have to order the microfilms. Even though NO profit is made when someone orders a microfilm from the FHL, the LDS church can not be expected to pay for the cost of getting it to the patrons. If the patron wants to go to Salt Lake then he/she will be able to have these microfilms for free, but even then there is the cost of travelling and lodging and...
Nothing in life is ever really free.
In this case of Ancestry to FHCs ... it sounds like we have been very lucky and maybe not grateful enough for what was truly free access.
The Church's indexing program is putting a lot of information online right now as are many governments and libraries. But even these government and libraries are not completely free all the time.
And in spite of the digitization there is still a lot of material out there that has not been microfilmed/digitized and requires trips to the local depositories.
I hope Ancestry and the church will try and return to the negotiating table and come to an agreement that will continue (it's not due to happen till Aprils 1st) the FHCs access to the Ancestry products.
It's a shame to see this partnership go sour.
There are still 13 days before this takes effect...
Maybe enough time to come to an agreement...
No matter... I for one (and I know I can speak for our FHC staff and patrons) thank Ancestry for having so graciously provided their wonderful product to FHCs for so long!

[Venita Parry]

I have truly appreciated the access to census and other images available at the LDS FHCs through Ancestry's generosity. I'll miss that option greatly. Personally, I'm not inclined to pay their high subscription rate to continue my personal access, so I'm doubly grateful for all that I have found so far.

Perhaps this is the time for Generations Network to consider different user options similar to those used by other genealogy resource sites - ie either no fee or a basic minimum subscription fee which allows searching for documents but a charge for downloading the digital images, pay per image. That I could live with more comfortably.

It makes sense to me to pay for duplicates/printouts of documents. I do that at any library or government office. I'm annoyed at having to pay a fee for the privelege of searching.

[Jon]

Great point Paul Graham. I was wondering if I was the only person who noticed that Ancestry started putting Google ads on the search results page for paying members. I am extremely disappointed that my $156 a year doesnt include an ad-free experience. I wrote to Ancestry support but of course only got back a form letter from their knowledge base stating that banner ads subsidize the cost of the service. We obviously enter a LOT of personal information into Ancestry when we are doing our research, and I believe that its a violation of our privacy for Ancestry to share those services with Google (for instance all my ads seem to be for companies that are local to my residence). I would be willing to pay an extra $10-20 per year if thats what they are making off of their google partnership. Boo Ancestry :-(

[Lori Goodhue]

I just came to this sight, read the article and have questions in my own mind. I agree to the point that Ancestry has the right to charge but those who do researching do it because of the joy and love of it. As a document archivist over the last 30 years I also charge for my services BUT I make it affordable.I also donate time and money to archive records so they will be held forever.
I also know that Free access is given to the LDS missionaries to film public records in every statethat belong to the individual taxpayers of that state and never knew this was being done. They are given free access which takes away making a living for others in this field yet we as taxpayers pay in one way or other. We also give our family information at no charge. Shouldn't we also be charging for our time we gave in giving that information? No we donate to the cause. It brings joy when we find lost family members we did not know were there. People are so caught up seeing how much money can be made. As the saying goes "Money is the root of Evil" In many situations it has just hit the roots of family preservation. It is too bad because it causes selfishness on everyone's part and I do not believe the good Lord meant that to happpen. If Ancestry wants to charge that is fine but jumping their prices like they have in the last few years those folks with lower incomes cannot continue what was a relaxing hobby and there goes our early history.

[Sue Barnsley]

I wonder why the Church and Ancestry could not reach an agreement? There was a reason that the Church did not pay for access to this huge resource for the FHC's. We can only surmise what that may be. I do not believe that the Church would take advantage of this Corporation the way it is being portrayed here.

In the Family History Centers across this world, we offer our services free to both member and non member alike. We charge for minimal things like the films and copies. But we do not charge for our time nor other resources that we have. The use of Ancestry.com was huge for us, and gratefully received, but the reality is most of it is available online else where for free. Case in point, 1901, 1906, 1911, 1851 census for Canada. It is available via the archives.ca website. The British Columbia birth, marriage and death records, another one that is free. There are numerous websites out there that are free, that Ancestry has capitalized on using our laziness as a motivator and having us for pay for it. That was good business savy.

I do not believe that Ancestry did not get something out of this arrangement with the Church.

[Kate Redford]

Well said. It is not unusual to pay for services of this caliber. Especially, when we cannot possibly duplicate it for ourselves. Even our local libraries cannot compare to what we have accessed over the years.

Dick your article certainy added to and enhanced the information that has
been displayed all over the Internet in the last 48 hours. Thank you for your fairness in printing as much information as you could gather.

When I began researching over 10 years ago, I was living in Houston, Texas. I did not go out in the evenings to libraries (Clayton Genealogical Library or FHC's) by choice. I chose to subscribe to Ancestry.com as part of my expenses for my interests. Just like a fisherman who wants the most complete tackle box or the artists who wants the best brushes and oils, each according to their financial situations. I have added to my selections and reduced my selections over the years to best serve my needs. Here in Salem I have found it even more valuable to be a subscriber. I also have similar criteria and price ranges when I purchase a new computer or printer. The results must fulfill my needs and stil meet my price range.

I have not regretted my decision for I have discovered information that was not available to me when I was available to do my research. I am approximately 2500 miles west of the Fort Worth, Texas National Archives, the repository for Cherokee Records; also, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma; Clayton Genealogical Library, Houston, Texas. and Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah. I try to stretch my time and resources as far as I can and still have the discoveries I desire at the time.

As I am serving on the staff in the local FHC I know that our patrons appreciate and use the Ancestry products regularly. The results are especially encouraging and exciting when a new researchers can leave with that first printed image in their hand. They don't realized we can spend weeks, months, years looking for documents to prove or disprove one item. I also know we use these products as a teaching tool to show them how and why to include other resources in their research. The gift from Ancestry of their services is a treasured resource and I am grateful.

I think when the shock leaves us and we think about how computers were when Comodore first was introduced we will all be grateful for where we are today.

There is still a lot of research to be done by everyone.

Kate Redford

[Jerrod Green]

I for one stand behind Ancestry and will refuse to go to the Family History Centers anymore if the LDS church refuses to purchase library subscriptions for Ancestry.com. I agree with Dick completely in this manner, and feel that its completely unfair for the Family History Library to expect a service for free that the rest of us must pay hundreds of dollars per year for!!

[anonymous]

As for why Ancestry would provide free access to Family History Centers, I believe the original owners felt the exposure given them in the FHCs brought them a lot of new customers. My personal experience with patrons in an FHC is that those who could afford Ancestry went home and signed up with a personal account once we taught them the value of the subscription in the FHC. Those who are on limited incomes and couldn't afford it would return to the FHC for access. I think MyFamily.com received the anticipated benefits by getting thousands of subscribers because of an experience at the FHC. However, the new owners have a different outlook. In addition, Ancestry may have reached a point where nearly everyone knows about Ancestry (a combination of FHC exposure and aggressive marketing) and the free access at FHCs is no longer providing them with very many sales leads. By cutting off FHC access, those who could afford it but just chose to use it at the FHC may decide to subscribe at home, and The Generations Network may receive a sudden influx of new subscriptions. However, those who can't afford it will have to seek other alternatives, which may or may not be available to them. Looking at the situation from a business perspective, only time will tell whether TGN's decision was financially viable.

As to the breakdown in negotiations between TGN and the LDS, I have spoken to several individuals who were involved in the negotiations (from both parties). My understanding is the LDS thought the idea of paying for Ancestry access, while not as good as the present situation, was only fair. Where the negotiations broke down was on the what a fair charge was. TGN's letter claims they offered a fair deal. What isn't said is what TGN considers "fair." I don't know the details, and both parties declined to disclose specific prices. TGN says they offered a "fair" price similar to what they offer other libraries.

Let's just suppose, as an example, TGN was to say to the LDS something like "For a metropolitan library with 20 branches, we charge $50,000 per year for a subscription, which is $2500 per branch. You have 5000 branches, so your "fair" charge will be $2500 per branch times 5000 branches, or $12,500,000 per year. Of course, the LDS would not find this to be a fair price, and I don't think any of us would, either. We don't know exactly what did happen, so I don't think we should be pointing fingers or assigning blame on either side.

Let's just hope that all parties in the genealogical marketplace can find a way to cooperate for the good of us all.

[Kevin Landers]

Wouldnt it be nice if the LDS church just bought out Generations Network and merged all the content between the Family History Library and Ancestry.com into one all-encompassing megasite that was available for free to anyone with an internet connection. Isnt that what we, as concerned genealogists should be demanding? Seems a little cheap to me when the FHL has no original records readily available online to cut off the only access many people have to those exact records? I think the church needs to pay up or shut up.

Kevin Landers

[just a thought]

Hey maybe you are on to something Kevin. Perhaps the church could trade access to records for scanning in exchange for continued free access. This could be a win-win for everybody involved! (Which probably means its simply wishful thinking...)

[Harold Kelley]

I want to comment on Eastmans rationale of this change. Doesn't Ancestry.com pay Eastman for his services. How much does this account for his views on this change. And did anyone notice that the plus fee charged by Eastman is now yielding less than one article per week. This week none! Why should we keep paying for getting less and less.
Harold

[Beth Wilson]

I have been following this with interest. I have a personal subscription to Ancestry and have for years. On my annual trips to Salt Lake I have watched many people use Ancestry at the FHC free of charge and thought it was interesting that the Church apparently was getting it for free. I assumed Ancestry was getting something of benefit in return. I have a database of several thousand Missouri landowners and several thousand slaves that I have been pondering what to do with; give it away for free or enter into a business arrangement with someone like Ancestry who would sell the information and give me a tiny percentage of the profit. I am more inclined to give the information away to help others with their research except for the fact that as soon as I do, I am certain that someone will start charging to look up information in my research for others. Ancestry has suffered the same fate, I know people use it for free and charge others for the research. This is inevitable. Seems like there is no easy solution.

[Dick Eastman]

---> Doesn't Ancestry.com pay Eastman for his services.

No.

Ancestry used to sponsor this newsletter but that stopped more than three years ago.

---> And did anyone notice that the plus fee charged by Eastman is now yielding less than one article per week. This week none!

That's because I have been out of town all week and just got home about three hours ago.

I do average about 100 Plus Edition articles per year. Some weeks there are three Plus Edition articles, some other weeks there are zero articles. Most of the time it is one or two per week. It depends upon (1.) my travel schedule and (2.) what sort of news items arrive in a given week.

---> Why should we keep paying for getting less and less.

You absolutely should never pay for this newsletter if you do not believe you are receiving value for the money you spend. I don't want your money if you are unhappy with the newsletter. I try to write it for people who appreciate my efforts.

I know that I can never satisfy 100% of the people. I try to satisfy 99%. I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not I succeed.

Thank you.

- Dick Eastman

[Bond Wilson]

I personally believe that the value of the "free" articles is worth more than the subscription fee without even considering the plus editions! Keep up the good work Dick...

[Helen]

No one should be uttering an unkind word about that fabulous service offered by Family History Centers and the more than wonderful Family History Library.
If it is ever thought that Ancestry lost a penny, wake up and smell the roses - they can afford to be far more than "fair" in contract offers. I was a member was years and after all that money spent I could look back and see where I had only a couple of "good" census records for the bucks. If one has been doing research for many years, Ancestry has little to offer to expand what one already knows. Helen

[Regine Brindle]

The person who considered price quotes could not be too far from the facts.
We checked into getting an onsite license for our genealogy society last year and it would have cost about $1700/year.
We could have had as many pcs hooked up in one building for the same price.
The problem is... if this is what they're offering the FHCs... There are 3500+ FHCs across the world. Most of which only have one pc... Many of them don't have that many patrons and paying $1700 to just give it away (as FHCs do not charge for using the facilities)...
I suppose we might be able to round up the money by pooling resources or charging the patrons a nominal fee to recuperate the cost of the subscription but in most cases it just would not be a viable option for the FHCs.
Maybe they could agree on a fair price, maybe according to how many computers would use the service... But how much is fair? Even if each FHC paid $300 each... the church would look at spending over $1,000,000!!! That's crazy!!!
The money can be better spent on microfilming more records that are waiting to be microfilmed.
Countries often see an opportunity to save money on preserving their records by letting the LDS church pick up the tab. I assume it is the same with the states. And Ancestry can benefit from this microfilming too... Surely there is a way to reach a compromise.
The FamilySearch Indexing project is putting many names online for free, index and images...
It's just there are SO MANY records to index... Why is it necessary to duplicate efforts to make information available to those who can't afford a personal subscription to Ancestry.
In Europe they offer a point system... That could get expensive too it seems to me, but it does enable a researcher to just look at specific records.
And there are mailing lists where people share points and help each other.
I am extremely grateful for Ancestry but am also deeply grateful for the microfilmed records I can't find on Ancestry but thanks to the FHL Catalog.
We're in this together... Let's work together...

[David Larson]

Meanwhile, our local library, much more convenient than the nearest FHC, continues to offer free on-site access to their patrons.

[theKiwi]

>Meanwhile, our local library, much more convenient than the nearest FHC,
>continues to offer free on-site access to their patrons.

Next time you're there ask a Librarian how much the Library is paying for the "free" Ancestry.com.

Our Genealogical Society pays over $2000 a year for the Heritage Quest subscription for our local library. I don't remember if we also pay for their Ancestry subscription or not, but it's a similar amount I think.

Roger

[Connie]

We all agree that Ancestry.com provides a valuable service and that if it's no longer available at the FHC's it will be a shame. I would like to mention that I know of at least two FHC's, which are located within church buildings, pay for their subscription to Ancestry. So check out The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints closest to you to see if they have it available. They are usually open during specified days of the week.

I have subscribed to Ancestry.com for years and have found so much information that it's been well worth the cost, especially when you consider the cost of ordering copies of birth, marriage or death certificates from some repositories. I waited sixteen months for a copy of a death certificate from a state, and paid $48 for it! This same state has withdrawn permission for Ancestry to use databases it subscribed to. I'm sure Ancestry had a contract with them, but this was probably a case of greed on the state's part.

It will be a shame if the two parties can't come to an agreement; I hope they do. Even if the FHC's start charging their patrons for use of their facilities (a nominal fee, of course), I would be willing to pay it to access all that they have.

The current ditization program by Family Search Indexing will be a great benefit to us genealogists...so many people have volunteered that the digitizing will be done far sooner than expected...and this information will be available from FamilySearch.org. Of course it will be hard to be patient until it's ready!

[Allen Ackley]

This news letter just became spam

[Michele]

Please, remember two facts - Ancestry.com is a for profit company, while the LDS church is a not for profit agency.

I believe both are a valid reason for existance - I've been grateful many times for the subscription I am paying at Ancestry and have done so for around 3 years now - even though I am less than 10 minutes from the local LDS centre - I pay for a convenience, knowing that the databases that Ancestry have are in many cases from original records - do we see that for free at LDS church - not really - we still have to pay even a minimal rent to view films of original data (possible for only one record) - unless that local LDS centre, specializing in that area has the records already.

To be honest if the LDS centres and their patrons, have used Ancesty for free all this time - I'm surprised it's taken Ancesty so long to want to charge them.

Don't forget the LDS cburch has expected/received free access to records and have used those records for their own benefit - or as they like to say - the saving of people. Some of you out there will not know what I mean, but others will know. What ever case I bet they haven't paid for this - but have just passed a copy of the records filmed to the original "owners".

Yes, the LDS church have done alot of good in preserving records, but at what cost to some of the different religions out there.

Ancestry have done so too and I have to assume have paid for the privilige of filming/digitizing these records.

I think I'd better end here before I say anymore good things about Ancestry!

[Marie Trichka]

Dick, thanks for your "freebe". The initial shock of any change, especially fees, generally wears off and we go on satisfying this addiction of hunting for ancestors, always looking for an easier, softer way. The post above mentions an important point - Ancestry usually confirms what we have already found or know, providing the hard copy that we normally wrote for and paid to an institution or entity to research and copy for us. I recently sent for copies from LVA and spend $100.

That said, I believe the FHC could better spend their funds continuing to microfilm delicate records that are fast decaying and cannot continue to be handled by local researchers. They have the experience that many USGenWeb volunteers lack and then the information is indeed "free" for a nominal shipping charge.

I will continue to support my local library and hopefully be able to access both Ancestry and HeritageQuest via the property taxes I pay. I do hate to watch ads when I already pay for a service so I probably won't get a private subscription.

[Jolayne]

We have loved having Ancestry at our Family History Center but I wonder how many other data bases would like the church to pay for their availability in FH centers. How can the church pay for one and not others?

I agree that the church should use its resources to continue digitizing original records. Maybe local FHCs can pick up the Ancestry subscription cost if they are able.

[Margaret]

I volunteer at a FHC -- I was told that ancestry offered its material for free because ancestry was given access to church material in its early days. In other words, ancestry might not have been able to get started without this.

The FHC access is greater than the Library Edition; some material is available there that public librarys do not have.

I had an e-mail from the church stating that it will be scanning and indexing some of the same material to be made available for free on its Family Search site. I will volunteer to index some so that the genealogy community will be enriched.

[Bob Peterson]

As you predicted, the people who have never run a business continue to demand free services. The FHCs exist as part of the church, and they benefit the church. Among other things, they provide access to potential new members who will provide substantial financial support to the church. Thus, volunteer efforts at the FHCs are religiously motivated, and carry their own reward.

Ancestry has provided an invaluable service. Gone are the days when you bought genealogy data one CD at a time. CDs that were frequently found to contain no useful information. Gone are the days of searching microfilm trying to guess what state that ancestor lived in. Replaced by nationwide, instant searches that find those ellusive records. What is the value provided by having all this information online and searchable? It is immense. Yet, instead of thanking Ancestry for developing this valuable asset, people complain that it is no longer given away. Amazing!

This is one reason there aren't more genealogy resources and researchers available. People don't want to pay for the service. They think everything should be free. For those who 'cannot afford' an Ancestry subscription, why don't they pay a fee to someone who does have a subscription? That would make it worthwhile for folks to offer such services.

Free. That's why I haven't pursued the study of genealogy. People don't want to pay for the services and information they receive.

[Sarah Sheffield]

(a previous post seems not to have made the posting, I apologize if it appears twice)
As a FHC volunteer, but non church member, I think their non-profit approach does place them in some conflict with the business model approach. Frankly, I approve more of the non-profit approach to records management and preservation in a democracy. As we see with NARA price increase, as prices go up, access goes down. I believe the church, regardless of their motivation, has benefited EVERYONE. The LDS records indexing project will have a huge impact on genealogy. Volunteers do NOT need to be LDS. For more information, go to www.familysearchindexing.org

[Alan Campbell]

Sitting her in snowy Ontario, Canada, I am reflecting on the fact that my full subscription to Ancestry.com costs me less than the cost of a medium cup of coffee each day from a take out restaurant like our Tim Hortons. Even with 20 some years of gealogical research under my belt I find that the access that the subscription gives me has been well worth the expense. Anyone who has attempted to find a person in a large Canadian city in the on-line censuses will understand how valuable the name search function provided by Ancestry.com is.

I have made use of free access to sources over the years and appreciated the chance to do so but I must admit that I never cease to marvel that we genealogists are one of the few hobby groups that think that our hobby should be free.

[DearMYRTLE]

Hats off to Dick for his forthright comments over the years. Regardless of who has sponsored his newsletter, Dick has called 'em like he sees 'em.

[Lee Hoffman]

I was at a Dallas Genealogical Society workshop Saturday when this was announced. There were many groans that a free service would no longer be available. But it was also stated that the Dallas Public Library affors at least some of the Ancestry.com service (census and a few other databases). I am always disappointed to see a free service go away. But I assumed that there was some kind of agreement between the LDS Church and Ancestry.com (or whatever name ) by which Ancestry would receive some compensation -- however minimal. I am amazed that they provided the service free for so long -- I would have made the cutoff some six years earlier! At home, I took advantage of the occasional free database from Ancestry.com before succumbing to my desire to "have it all" and subscribing. The monthly rate is not bad (although the yearly rate makes me think for a moment before I amortize it ). It certainly saves me a lot of travel time, money and research time in libraries and courthouses. Now when I do go on research trips, I can reduce the time researching since I just verify a lot or at least have something to point my way in researching.

Alan Campbell noted many think geneaogy as a hobby should be cost free. While I try to keep the costs down, I have never thought it was free. I've put out thousands of dollars in research travel and time, and that is nowhere near free.

[Cyndi Stallings]

In response to the remark: ..."They have the experience that many USGenWeb volunteers lack"... The FHCs uses volunteers to transcribe data and usually have no more experience than the USGenWeb volunteers. Each and every person researching their family history has something to offer. I'm not a licensed or a certified genealogist, but have volunteered to transcribe documents, and I like to think that my contributions are invaluable.

[Tom]

The local public library that I use, Santa Clara City in CA, population about 100,000, pays $4000/year for Ancestry. That money is donated by the Friends of the Library, who raise it with book sales. Not taxpayer's money. Unlike Heritage Quest, access is not available to library patrons at home.

From what I can tell, the Library Edition of Ancestry has all US databases except the Obituaries.

[Lyn Meehan]

In all this kafuffle, I haven’t hear or read anything posted by The Church in their defense. Nor have I read anything that Dick Eastman has approach The Church for their comment. Are we so narrow minded, as genealogists, as investigators, not to see that it takes two or more to tangle? There are two or more perspectives, let’s hear both sides of the story before making judgment.

[Dick Eastman]

---> Nor have I read anything that Dick Eastman has approach The Church for their comment.

Actually, I spent last Thursday, Friday and Saturday at the Genealogy Technology Conference at Brigham Young University. I was "surrounded" by several senior officials from the LDS Church's Family History Department and they were the first to tell me about this development. It was a major topic of conversation amongst all of us for three days.

The Family History Department has issued an announcement to all Family History Centers that simply announces the termination of the service. It gives no reasons why, other than stating that the Family History Department and Ancestry.com have been unable to reach an agreement.

Informally, I am told that discussions are expected to continue from time to time but nobody is yet predicting the outcome.

- Dick Eastman

[cassandra]

This has been on the cards for a while, I have noticed how many forums and genealogy rooms have people who have purchased Ancestry by annual fee and then proceed to do look ups for 100's and 100's of people online.

This must be one of the reasons as all these people getting the benefits without paying a single penny towards the site.

The NBI in UK stopped people from doing look-ups on forums etc., they say that they provide the CD's for an individual not for free access to others.

Maybe I am wrong but once one group see how much money is not coming their way they will look for ways to make it do so.

[roy]

The free Ancestry access at FHCs showed up about the same time that Ancestry started using the LDS every name index for the 1880 census. There may have been some agreement made about that that wasn't disclosed publicly.

That was several company names and CEO's ago . Things change.

[Mike St. Clair]

There are certainly many ways to look at this development. The comments here are interesting and thought provoking. 9 times out of 10 I agree with Dick, so we must think somewhat alike. But on this specific matter I have a different, somewhat conflicting viewpoint.

I have been a user of the Ancestry services since before they had a commercial offering, as one of the early testers. I've never stopped and suspect I never will. I find too much value there - a value that grows over time as the collection and user base grows. I have not felt that their pricing policies over the years were the best. In particular, I have thought that their practice of grouping more databases together and eliminating lower priced, smaller bundles were neither good for the genealogical community nor for Ancestry's growth. But I do recognize they have a business to run and that I'm not on the board of directors so their take on these practices counts a lot more than mine. In fact, I have run a business, and know that you have to be vigilant at all times on your pricing, marketing and support practices. I believe they are trying to do that, although I wouldn't always make the same choices if in their position.

One thing I recognize is that we wouldn't have nearly as much available online data if it weren't for commercial services like Ancestry. It can't be done for free at the rate Ancestry has done, and I applaud their efforts and their results. I am somewhat concerned that they are pricing themselves too high for a significant number of potential clients to use.

Now with regard to availability at Family History Centers and the Family History Library: I've always seen this far more as a benefit to Ancestry's marketing outreach than as a cost to operations. Having worked at FHCs, and being a frequent user, like someone else mentioned earlier I have very often seen a future customer of Ancestry be introduced, and persuaded that it was worth buying the product, after using Ancestry databases use at at FHC or FHL. I strongly believe that the loss of availability at these locations will cost them significant revenue over time. As a matter of fact, I can easily think of several dozen in my neighborhood alone who tried the online databases first at one of these sites, and then signed up so they could do so at home. It's hard to lay down a fee measured in hundreds of dollars before making enough use of the service to know if it's going to pay off for you.

The free trial is theoretically a way to do this, but the people I know who have tried this find that the available time they have in a couple of weeks to devote to this effort isn't sufficient to answer the question - is it worth it. On the other hand, I don't know of very many folks I've taken to the library to show them the ropes that haven't become so convinced over a few months if they stick with it. They all seem to end up with personal Ancestry subscriptions.

The bottom line - I think it is a big mistake (a business mistake) for Ancestry to withdraw the free service based on the lack of a payment by the Family History Department (if that is the major part of the obstacle as I've heard it is). At the same time, I'll admit that I would get rid of my car before I'd do without my Ancestry subscription with which I can enhance my research whenever I have the time or find the need. All without shaving, getting dressed, driving a few miles or 30 miles, parking, paying, etc.

It's an excellent and valuable tool. Come on Ancestry - let's get it back into the FHC system.

Mike St. Clair

[anotherthought]

Justathought, you are right, Eastman seems easily bought by advertisers. He also loves to yank comments about that.
He is remarkably uncritical of any product in general, and would be a financial blunder to kick against any advertiser, especially a past advertiser.
However... :-)....
These threads under the subjects he puts up are a great place for us to give the real scoop. We can post the truth about crappy products when he passes off press releases as news. And that is a great service.

[Dale E. Vaughn]

I am at FHL right now (19 Mar 2007 3:30 pm MT) - tried Ancestry.com, no problem. It does not seem to be a stripped down version - all the census records are there. Just checked other databases, seem to be there.

No official word, but several of the desk people said they reached an agreement yesterday.

[Richard]

Well said. I started paying for Ancestry.com last year. I am truly amazed at how many extremely important databases are added to ancestry weekly. Note the recent addition of the Kansas, Wisconsin and Iowa state census'. I'm guessing that those were not complied without cost and that many of the databases are "subscribed" to by ancestry from other sources. I spent many years complaining about getting sent to ancestry from every other site on the web, it makes it even smarter to subscribe. I have done more in the past twelve months at home than I would have done the rest of my life at a FHC. I find the FHCs to be extremely valuable but there is more there than what is on the computer. This will likely change the way that the FHC works and maybe take many us back to the books and the strengths of the FHL, namely the availability of microfilm and fiche.

[Mary]

I HAVE SUBSCRIBED TO ANCESTRY.COM FOR OVER TEN YEARS AND IT NEVER OCCURED TO ME THAT FHL WAS NOT DOING THE SAME AND PAYING FOR IT.

I AGREE, I MUST ASK WHAT WAS ANCESTRY GETTING OUT OF THE DEAL IF THE FHL WAS NOT PAYING?

I WILL CONTINUE TO SUBSCRIBE TO ANCESTRY DUE TO THE NEW DATABASES THAT ARE ACQUIRED ON A DAILY/WEEKLY BASIS. BUT YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON... I HAVE TRAVELED TO SLC WASHINGTON DC AND ANY OTHER STATE IN THE UNION WHENEVER I CAN TO DO RESEARCH BUT ON A COLD, LATE NIGHT, NOTHING BEATS ANCESTRY.COM

[Pat]

As a non-LDS volunteer at a regional (i.e., large) FHC, I'd like to throw out one point in favor of Ancestry taking another look at cancelling this service: I wonder if they realize how much free training and tech support is provided to newbie Ancestry users at the FHCs? I (and I'm not the only one) have several times spent hours helping patrons who are subscribers on their own learn to effectively use the site. I'd guess that many of them would let their subscriptions lapse upon expiration if they hadn't had an enthusiastic immersion all that Ancestry has to offer. (Case in point is the above post where the poster stated that after a few census records, Ancestry doesn't have much to offer. Obviously he hasn't looked at it lately.) Let's face it, tech/customer service is not one of Ancestry's strengths; no one there would ever spend the time with individuals that FHC staff members happily do.
And, as mentioned in other posts, even though we are not supposed to suggest to our patrons to spend money on subscriptions, I know for a fact that many of them have bought their own subscriptions once we have given them an introduction; after all, you can't use Ancestry at midnight in your bunny slippers at the FHC.
Ancestry.com is a fabulous service, especially in the last year or so. There's no free lunch, and a private company must earn a profit in order to pay for the services it provides. It is well worth the subscription price if one can afford it. But, maybe if Ancestry considers the benefits of the synergy between the two organizations, a reasonable pricing structure can be worked out.

[Eric Pearson]

Don’t be fooled by Ancestry.com, they didn’t give away anything for free, especially then or now. For instance, they allowed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use their services free because they made a deal that the church wouldn’t post all the US Census online. In short, Ancestry.com cashed in on being the one complete source for information.

I have much more on this and other agreements, but I’ll keep it to myself.

[Zoe Lappin]

Question: What is the status of Ancestry.com in the Family History Library in Salt Lake City? Will it continue as it has, with only the Family History Centers losing access, or will it change to Ancestry Library Edition? Will the FHCs offer Library Edition?
Thank you.

[Suzie]

I volunteer at a large FHC and this morning we called Ancestry.com and tried to purchase a subscription for our center. We were told that no library or Family History Center will be able to purchase a subscription at any price. It will be available for individuals only. Sounds like they (Ancestry)are heading in a different direction. Also, my parents always taught me nothing is really free. Just because the FHC's offered Ancestry free to their patrons does not mean that Ancestry was given to the FHC's without a price tag or for "free".

[Upton Sinclair Lewis]

Will those that pay for an Ancestry.com subscription be able to log on to their own account when visiting the FHL in Salt Lake City or their local FHC?

[Mr. B]

Read all the posts and I didn't see one that brought out a very interesting business fact and that is ALL items and services provided by a for-profit business to a not-for-profit business can be used in figuring taxes with good deductions and I'm sure Ancestry pays a bundle of taxes and if they don't I suggest the IRS do some serious investigations.
I've been doing genealogy and agree that some funds could be collected for doing some services but I don't agree at all with the fee structure and the manner of business of Ancestry and the other sub-companies. I continue to look for the free sites and there are many. Speaking of the free sites, how many still have to pay for their site license and name as well as provide all their services. I haven't seen a single one of them complain. Of course, Ancestry, with it's tentacles are trying to absorb as many of them as possible and that's too bad.

[richard waller]

while the geneology section of my library is large and can get most of what i ask for, the net is still the fastest way to find info not available to me at my library. since i am retired, i can not pay alot or for several services to get "my" info. i understand the need to be paid for services rendered and i will pay as i can, but i will not be able to do as much and as fast as i am now able to do. i just returned from a 200 mile round trip to take pics of some family head stones( i could have had someone else take the pics( if someone was available in that location, charged my less than it cost me to go to this town and be forsighted to know that the person next to the pic i asked for is also someone whose pic is important to me). the same applies to asking a researcher at an offsite location to look up the same info i can now look up for myself now on the net. i hope everone will cone to a conclusion that will work for me and still make money for the right people.

[Dave]

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but for the past eleven days ancestry has been crashing frequently at many FHC's. The computer support person at the FHC I utilize said that this phenomenon was occuring at Salt Lake and all over according to the emails he was receiving from other support personnel. A lot of people have temporarily given up using ancestry in frustration. I heard a number of people with personal subscriptions say they weren't having any problem while using it at home, just at the FHC. I find the timing very interesting as well as the problem taking so long to be fixed (if it ever will be now).

[Adrian]

Having read ALL of the above comments, there's a lot of talk about Ancestry having to charge as these services can't be run for free. I accept that though I'm bitterly disappointed. It has been a great way of people getting started with quick wins to motivate and encourage them.

However,I think we should be more appreciative of the incredible, free service that the LDS church offers. As a regular user in England I'd like to say a big thank you for all the hours that are given free by workers seen and unseen and the $millions that the LDS church must spend to keep their databases up to date, equipment working and connected, not to mention their buildings warm, comfortable and available for my use. To say that they get their reward because they're religiously motivated is an outrageous simplification (do they really get that much out of having this facility freely available to the public? -conspiracy theorists need not reply!)and actually irrelevant -the fact is that money has been paid and hours donated and that means that I spend less hours and money.

Thanks too for Dick's free newsletter.

[Rhonda Stoffer]

Susie, libraries have never been able to purchase a library subscription from Ancestry.com. Libraries have to go through ProQuest and purchase the Ancestry Library Edition from them. The fee is based on the population served. I would assume that the FHC would have to do something similar, if they qualify as a library user, I don't know what the definition is of a library that ProQuest uses.

[Preston J. Owens]

With the cancellation of Ancestry.com at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City will patrons who have their own personal subscription to Ancestry be able to access their account from the Library--currently they cannot.

[Zoe Lappin]

Preston: No. Patrons still will be unable to access their personal Ancestry subscriptions from the FHL. I phoned there twice today, got some rather confusing information, but that one point was crystal clear.

[Upton Sinclair Lewis]

Thanks, Zoe. That answers my question too. For a brief period last week when there was a glitch with Ancestry at the FHL, and I was able to access my personal Ancestry account during that time, but after the glitch was fixed, I was no longer able to do so. Right now and until April 1st, the pre-glitch Ancestry databases seem to be available.

Prior to 2007, there was the opportunity to log on to your personal account, but that inexplicably disappeared about the time the new Canadian databases were added. They were not included in the FHL's "package," but I could access them from home with my personal Ancestry.com account.

Ah Ha! I thought, I'll just log in to my account at the FHL, but when I tried to do so, there was no longer an individual account login where there had been one before!

It also makes me wonder if patrons with their own personal accounts and their own personal laptops will be able to access Ancestry.com through the new FHL "WIFI." I was thinking about buying such a laptop if only to be able to access my personal Ancestry account throught the FHL's WIFI, but want to be sure that the investment is worth it.

Dick Eastman seems to have the connections to get the answers from both sides. He would do us all a favour by looking into this and giving us the straight story! How about it, Dick?

[Rex Bosse]

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that if the FHC isn't paying for this service, then you, who subscribe, ARE paying for the FHC portion of the bill? Ancestry is a business, thankfully one that continues to exist in a somewhat unsteady economy, so Ancestry has to be generating revenue from some source that pays the bills, and that source is very likely individual subscriptions. If the FHC pays a share, the individual subscribers will have a longer grace period before inevitable rising costs force fee increases.

As for those who would take cheap shots at Dick Eastman, please remember that he, not they, provide all of us a chance to discuss multitudes of current genealogical information. Take your sour grapes somewhere it doesn't clutter the useful exchange of ideas, please.

[AntiMonopolist]

Eric Pearson wrote":
"Don’t be fooled by Ancestry.com, they didn’t give away anything for free, especially then or now. For instance, they allowed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to use their services free because they made a deal that the church wouldn’t post all the US Census online. In short, Ancestry.com cashed in on being the one complete source for information.

I have much more on this and other agreements, but I’ll keep it to myself."

Eric, if that is true....
That is anti-competitive monopolistic behavior.
You owe it to your fellow men to come clean about all their shady dealings.

Oh, well... Dick "Ancestry payroll" Eastman will probably remove this comment.

[Cynthia]

I am a volunteer at the local FHC and am sorely disappointed by Ancestry's decision. We have countless folks come in on a weekly basis who do not even have computers, or if they do they are not online. Most often because they cannot afford it.

Nearly $300 a year may not seem too costly for some of you, however, for "beginner" genealogists (many who are seniors on "fixed" incomes) it is completely unaffordable!

I wonder how many people NEVER join Ancestry because they will not have the exposure gained at the FHC's? We teach folks how to use their service--and gain the most from their research. Those who can afford it usually purchase their own account as a result. That won't happen again.

Corporate Greed 1 - "Little people" 0

[Sue]

Over the years, I have had many passions -- including crocheting, cooking, genealogy. I have never expected my yarn, crochet hooks, food, pans, stove, computer or databases to be free. Even if I access a "free" database, I am paying for electricity at the very least. If I drive to another location to use "free" information, I spend time, gas, parking and so on, again, at the very least.

Life is hard. Choices have to be made. I am fortunate that I do not have to choose between food and heat, for instance. Some folks do. I do make choices that reduce my food and electricity bills to pay for my hobbies.

Since FHCs already charge for microfilm (an excellent bargain!), why not make a similiar, per person/per visit charge to cover ancestry access? The church does a service for historians and genealogists, but they have their own reasons. So does for-profit TGN. The world just works this way.

[Kym]

I agree with the perspective that FHL/C's should have to pay for their "subscription" because, as one other person here put it, someone is paying for their subscription and it's probably all us Ancestry patrons. But at the same time, I have to wonder if this doesn't have something to do with the church's plan to publish their own databases on the internet? I recently watched a program on the LDS channel where the "top guy" at the library was saying that they are diligently working to create databases with digitized images and so forth for access via their site on the internet. AND just out of curiosity I wonder if they'll give it away free as they obviously expecting Ancestry to do? Should be interesting!

[Donna J Schmidt]

First, I did not realize you could access Ancestry.com from a FHC. I have paid for Ancestry.com for over ten years and think it is well worth my cost of $300 a year. There is nothing free from LDS through their FHC. The last time I had a microfilm sent in to my local FHC costed $3.50 for a month. To have it stay permantly at the center was $10.50. My center is only open one day a week during the day. If you want a scanned page from one of the films it costs you $2 per page from LDS. I have to laugh at the lady who suggested that LDS was going to put the 1880 census online for free. I paid for the 50+ CD's. LDS does not give anything away free either so why should Ancestry.com. I probably have close to $500 of Microfilm sitting at my local FHC. I am thankful that LDS has microfilm the many records they have done so I do not have to go to the original place to copy what I need to verify my records. I did not have to make an expensive trip to Russia, England, or leave Kansas thanks to LDS and Ancestry.com.

I am also on a fix income because of SS but my subscription to Ancestry.com is my one thing that I allow myself besides getting my hair done. The rest must pay for my basic expenses of living.

I hope that Ancestry.com and LDS can come to some agreement, but do not see why everyone shouldn't pay for access to Ancestry.com.

[Deb Chambers]

My local library (not FHL) has always had offsite access to Ancestry available - so I was able to access it from my home using my library card number - this morning I logged in and suddenly with no warning it said it is only available onsite. This is disappointing but I'm thankful I'll still be able to use it at the library anyway.

[theKiwi]

>I have to laugh at the lady who suggested that LDS was
>going to put the 1880 census online for free.

The index to the US 1880 Census has been online for free for quite a few years- as has the British 1881 Census and the Canada 1881 Census, both of which also available on CD from the LDS. They've possibly been online for at least as long as the CDs have been available.

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=census/search_census.asp

Roger

[Lorna rice]

I don't know a lot about "business sense" but I would guess that positive "product placement" in 4000 plus FHCs might be worth quite a lot. I like to think that it has even been a reciprocal association as hundreds of volunteers joined Ancestry's unpaid sales force. I hope this doesn't end up being "penny wise and pound foolish" for them because my personal Ancestry subscription is paid up. Incidentally, it has already been announced that the LDS scanning project is well ahead of schedule and that 2.5 million rolls of microfilm and 1.5 million fiche, index and images, will be posted online at familysearch.org for free access (yes, Kym FREE). Will we have time for Ancestry when that happens? The LDS Church gave Ancestry several databases ( the ones that will still be available for free) and I wonder if they EXPECTED that the new ones would be available to them also. Meanwhile, let's stop the bickering. Having Ancestry at the FHCs was a huge blessing but this change is not the end of the world!

[william venator]

I hope this just isn't a money grab move......I have payed my way through ancestry.com, and have enjoyed the service provided by ancestry and the Cof LDSt.'s. PLEASE resolve this

Bill

[Don Henderson]

The fee that Ancestry charges is too high. A "reasonable" fee is quite acceptable. The trouble is that businesses feel that they can charge whatever they can get away with. I have used Ancestry's free sites and found the info to be incomplete, not filtered properly and so cluttered with ads and junk, to be almost unusable. They also profit from all the family histories people post, which they distribute for a fee. Why do they not pay for their information.

[Concetta]

"The fee that Ancestry charges is too high. A "reasonable" fee is quite acceptable. The trouble is that businesses feel that they can charge whatever they can get away with. I have used Ancestry's free sites and found the info to be incomplete, not filtered properly and so cluttered with ads and junk, to be almost unusable. They also profit from all the family histories people post, which they distribute for a fee. Why do they not pay for their information."

I would have to agree with Don here. I have continually been annoyed to death by the lack of response Ancestry has had to problems with their search engine, incomplete or incorrect data entry, and all of the incessant ads within the site.

Personally, I'd rather pay the LDS a subscription fee. At least I know they have a concept of what reasonable is. Ancestry is just kicking everyone to the curb that helped them get their start, and trying to argue fees that are much more than "reasonable".

I fear, however, that until the entire story comes out, we will not know exactly what happened, ie. what a "reasonable" fee is. I know my FHC loses money on every film it gets (they charge us something like $11 for something that costs $30+ to make), so I can't imagine that they would be able to do even a $1,000 fee per year.

However, I could see LDS offering to hold Ancestry classes and teaching sessions, and using those as credits towards access. I think that would be fair considering that Ancestry is continually ripped for bad customer service, and our FHCs offer excellent teachers and customer service.

I won't pay my way through Ancestry.com. I prefer Heritage Quest and wish they would add more to it rather than Ancestry. At least I know I can find what I need on HQ.

[H Skinner]

Thank you Ancestry for the pleasure my subscription has brought me! I am at work when my family history centre is open.

Genealogy is my hobby and my entertainment (and of course my passionate addiction). Access to Ancestry is not cheap but neither is a subscription to any other entertainment or hobby! I value what I get for my money! I just wish the company would listen to some of the customer service feedback that would make for better relationships with clients!

Free access would be lovely - It's a dream and only dreams are free!

[Eugene Louis Siscoe]

You put a fine point on the reasonableness of the expectation to pay for a service. But, your example jumped over an essential element of that expectation: service! When one pays multiple hundreds of dollars for an annual subscription to Ancestry, one should expect ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTIONS, search engines that work, customer support that is able to provide support, and Information Technology Management that knows the business.

When Ancestry and Historical Data Systems (a premier civil war database) entered into their arrangement and the HDS database was migrated into the Ancestry world, the quality of the HDS database suffered. Family records that I found on other occasions while the database was still in its orginal environment were no longer available. Alternate name links disappeared. Surnames where changed from the true family surname to another more common form of the surname.

I belabored the issue on the civil war data as a means of demonstrating that I am not complaining just to hear myself talk. I stopped my subscription to Ancestry in 2002 because the value received from the subscription was less than the cost of the subscription.

P.S.
The Family History Centers were not freeloading on Ancestry's good-will. I thought that in the early stages of Ancestry's existence, Ancestry was given access to the microfilm archives owned by the Mormon Church.

[Gary Turner]

There is a lot more to this subject than people know. The Church has been working with Ancestry for years and they have multiple agreements. They are still working with each other. Ancestry obtained much of the information they offer on their sites from the Church microfilm archives. I believe they offered free access to the FHC's partly as consideration for help the Church has been to them and as an opportunity to get their name out in front of a lot of people. Now that they are well known they must feel that the benefit to them is no longer giving them the return they once obtained. I don't think they would have offered the service for free if they did not feel it was in their best interest. It would be interesting to know how many people bought their service after learning about it by using the service at a FHC.

I don't think Ancestry needs to worry about their future, they have superior search engines when compared with their competitors and people are willing to pay for that kind of service. If you have ever tried to look up something in the Census at Heritage Quest you will understand how much better Ancestry's indexes are.

[S Hathaway]

As an LDS Family History Center volunteer, I would like to bring to your
attention that, as of today, 29 March, there is limited access to
ancestry.com from FHC accounts (not getting any search results). There
is also a new page, "Family History Center Edition," from which you
cannot access what was previously accessible from FHC accounts.

What happened to the 31 March/1 April cut-off date?

Ancestry.com benefited from--indeed, was created with and by--LDS records.
To impose restrictions that were never before imposed, and to create an
end-date and THEN NOT ABIDE BY IT shows nothing but bad faith, not to
mention bad business practices.

It is my understanding that LDS has paid a negotiated fee all these years
for ancestry.com access. If that is NOT the case, then a reasonable
accommodation should be reached. If, however, that has been the case,
then ancestry, and its parent company, need to abide by the previously
made agreements and negotiate in good faith.

Ancestry will NOT, in my opinion, win any friends nor influence any
people (except negatively) by its decree to cut off LDS Family History
Centers' access.
I, for one, will now NEVER subscribe to ancestry.com because I've seen
the proof that it does not abide by its own statements and agreements.

As someone pointed out to me today, these are our ancestors and we have a
reasonable right to access their information.

Shame on ancestry.com and its parent company.

[Daniel]

I see ancestry.com as a necessary evil. Their fees have skyrocketed, and the day after I heard the announcement and 3 weeks after I renewed my personal subscription for 300, I received an email from them offering to NEW CUSTOMERS only their complete access for 2/3 of the price - 199.00. As a veteran subscriber, I definitely felt undervalued. In addition to their terrible (meaning, less than 99.9% accuracy) transcription errors which we fix for free for them, many of their databases are intentionally over-inflated to give the image of being inclusive (take, for example, the recently-added Nevada marriage indexes of "1956-2005") which includes all counties from 1966-2005, and only Clark County for 1956-1966. However, if you don't read the fine print, you may mistakenly eliminate places to look for ancestral record. In addition, FHL access has been banned (and I have a feeling it wasn't the FHL's call on that one). Ancestry provides me with great access to assorted databases, but I definitely have a love-hate relationship.

[Rob]

I think ancestry.com provides a great commercial service. They promptly add alternative names to correct transcription errors and the few times I needed to talk to a representative, I was able to do so. They can hardly be blamed for not being 100% accurate in their transcriptions, handwriting and record conditions make that impossible, further, workers make errors including all the people complaining on this website. From what I've read, I think they are entirely within their rights to require a formal arrangement with the Family History Centers. What fee they are asking, I don't know and can not comment whether it seems high or not but they are free to charge what they please and we can accept or decline the offer.
I also think the Family History Centers and the LDS Church are wonderful to provide the services they do to the public! Like ancestry.com, they have to make a decision on the economics of continuing to provide the service in their centers. Eventually the FHL will have much more information available on line than ancestry.com and I think they both have that in mind in their negotiations.
I hope they work something out because I think both organizations, and the rest of us, will be worse off if they fail to do so.

[Natalie]

If it is not too late for a researcher in England to add her two pence worth to this debate, I would just like to publicly express my sincere gratitude to both the LDS and Ancestry.com as without each of these organisations I would never have made the enormous progress that I have achieved thus far.
I first came across the amazing resources of the LDS library in London in 2001 since when I have made several visits there, usually going home with precious photocopies of documents I never thought I would be able to find. I have also spent an unforgettable week researching at the LDS library in Salt Lake City. In both locations, I have found the pleasant and friendly volunteers to be helpful but not intrusive, and the financial cost to me to be minimal compared to what I found.
As an older person living in a village in the countryside, I have happily also had a paid Ancestry.com subscription for the past two years, rather than face the inconvenience and expense of an 80 mile round trip to London every time I need to look something up, and regard it as worth every penny to me.
I do not expect to receive these services free of charge, and appreciate that they are available at all. I do not see that the LDS and Ancestry.com are in competition with each other. Each provides a unique and much appreciated service and long may both continue to do so.

[PJ Achramowicz]

I stopped subscribing to Ancestry.com simply because they became too expensive for my budget; every time they added something they tended to separate it out from the whole and charge a separate price for access to it. I find I am not the only one of such mind; many others have complained that Ancestry has priced themselves out of their budget. So instead I went to my local FHL where I could access Ancestry. I now find that my city library has an Ancestry subscription on the Library Edition, however, I can only print out my finds and cannot save it to disk or to their computer and email it back to myself, a decided disadvantage. I do hope Ancestry and the LDS come to an agreement as I would miss it. But I would also try to find other avenues and if all else fails, go back to the old fashioned letter writing to various archives and societies (which is still an activity I still sometimes have to resort to.)

[Lou]

Like others who have posted, I'm a volunteer at at FHC. From my point of view, Ancestry.com's decision will not have much of an effect on the number of individual subscribers. What is more likely to happen is that people will fall out of the hobby. Tonight was my first night on duty since the discontinuation of the service. We had one patron, a regular who always just views films. Our normally-full bank of computers was empty all night.

[Sheryl R. Frank]

I work at the Family History Center in a very small town. Many of our patrons come to the FHC for - yes you guessed it - the access to Ancestry.com.

Because I enjoyed using Ancestry.com so much at the FHC - I bought my annual subscription so I would have it readily available at home.

I don't know what the impact is at the other genealogy centers - but yesterday when I worked - we did not have one patron. Was it Easter Vacation or no Ancestry.com? I don't know. But I am sorry that we no longer have that valuable tool. I hope an agreement can be reached - and soon.

[ken]

I'm a business school professor and a businessman so I understand Dick's points about profits and business plans. But let's be clear, Ancestry was obviously trying to secure some financial arrangement with the LDS church over the 7 years. Or possibly they were hoping to tap the vast resources of the LDS for a fraction of the cost (say, free) with the deal. The LDS obviously does not view the ancestry subscription at their FHCs as a critical component of their mission. And I probably agree. Let's once again be clear. Ancestry needs LDS, not the other way around.

[Chris]

Maybe there is a clash of cultures here. As I understand it the LDS used volunteers to transcribe and collect birth, marriage and death information on individuals so that they may be baptized into that church. The moral of “changing a dead person’s faith” seems odd, but there are a lot of odd things in this life. The spin off is that the data is freely available and is a great help to the genuine genealogist. On the other hand collecting the personal details of ones relatives and selling them on the open market to any one who can pay also seems questionable. It is easy to think of ancestry doing everyone a favour and providing data but realistically it is a business and out to make money. It seems that many if not all the family trees are donated freely so where is the cost in this. The charges made are fine for the professional researcher who sells his findings on with his own margin added, but for the millions of amateurs they are exorbitant. You do not have to be a businessman or professor to understand once data has been collected, that the only costs are the administration of a bank of computers. I understand the recovery of initial costs is important but perhaps any professors out there can explain how long it will be before these are recovered and what the long term cost of accessing the data base will be.

[Dianna Solmes]

Sorry to see free access go, but .... change is inevitable. Reasons mentioned already I won't repeat, but here is something I didn't see considered:
Many of the records that Ancestry has made available online were indexed and extracted by LDS volunteers. Many of the records that Ancestry indexed and extracted were accessible to them from FHL Films. They saved a lot of money by using the church records. That might be a "reason" for them to have allowed free access for a limited amount of time.
The Church is continuing to film, digitized and store records. It will make many of them free. They are not in comptition with Ancestry. Ancestry does provide a wonderful service and I am presently enjoying their reduced price annual subscription. Look at it this way. We all benefit by all that is being done by all. If Ancestry sells more subscriptions at reduced rates, they will make more money and be able to provided more services.
I know that the purposes of the Lord will be realized, and the methods will be interactive.
It's all good!

[suzanne]

Yes ...I have read all of the postings. While I agree with some and disagree with others, and still have mixed thoughts with others… another perspective to consider... The question in the grayness of the line between..."it’s just business" and services offered freely leaving the question of fairness in payment for services.
Sure, we all work everyday of our lives. We expect to get paid monetarily for some things and not for others, (though the work can be even more tiresome than that in which we are paid). I believe a number of years ago, someone came up with the ingenious idea of Database Collecting for the growing trend of family history interest. Someone saw there was some serious money to be made in the growing trend. Then the brainstorming began... clearly there needed to be a way to get this new idea off the ground... How to? Well, those great minds considered all the possibilities. Among those someone made note of one of the biggest promoters of this trend, is “The LDS Church”. They are huge and all over the world! If they could be linked in with this idea, a lot of advertising and business would pour in by its association. With great effort, in selling the benefits to the LDS Church combined with their cooperation... Walla! The LDS Church signed on by supporting the site, teaching all the Family History Center "unpaid" volunteers how to use the site. Then they were to teach everyone in the genealogy community to use the site. They would all become so dependant on it they would start using it at home themselves. With advancing technology they could use this site from their own homes and odd hours in pj's if they like. Sure enough it happened. They called this great site “Ancestry”. Great name, great cause, great support from the Mormons. FREE advertising and SALES Force as Lora mentioned. Over the years I've worked (for free) in the Family History Center. I have helped a number of people use the center and the site. No one paid me any commissions or salary to train all of these people who then went home after learning, to get their own sites. Still I was unpaid for helping them when something at home didn't go as expected, and they came back in for more help. More FREE unpaid training. My time, my own training I received from others, FREE and unpaid by Ancestry. Someone can do the math here. I have an idea that may help resolve the question of fair price and service vs. business. I think it would make real business sense and fairness to have Ancestry pay a referral commission to each Family History Center for each and every customer who received their training with introduction through the Family History Centers around the world. Renewal commissions as well! Now lets see what defines fair. What is the going rate of percentages in sales/referrals? It wouldn't take long to put the word out and get those numbers. Could Ancestry live with FAIR in that way? While I agree that Ancestry is incredibly valuable in the resources it’ provides to those researching, I believe also, what it is that drives the trend or rather WHO it is that turns the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to their fathers , will not allow HIS work to be trampled! So Let’s wait to see what changes occur as time proves who’s work this is in the first place and may True fairness prevail!

[Marilynn B.]

Someone suggested that Ancestry subscribers are indirectly paying for the Church's access to its services, alleging that potential revenue from FHCs is presumably made up by Ancestry's paying customers. However, Ancestry subscribers are getting the benefit of the extracted and digitized records provided over many years by unpaid FHC volunteers, involving multiple recording and auditing of the same data to insure as much accuracy as possible. We do it because we love the work and we believe in it. Whether or not you agree with the theological reasons for the LDS Church's dedication to genealogy, you nevertheless reap the benefits. Without the information from these diverse sources, Ancestry would have a lot less to offer.

Many of us FHC consultants are also subscribers to Ancestry.com, having been introduced to it at the FHC. As a volunteer at my local center, I usually don't have time to do my own research there, so I do it at home, utilizing Ancestry.com, as well as the many free web sites, including the Church's own familysearch.org.

Another person complained about all the fees for microfilms and printouts. There is absolutely no profit made from these charges. It is simply the break-even cost of producing records or shipping things between SLC and your FHC. Consider also the cost of keeping the building open and heated or air-conditioned, buying and updating computers, microfilm readers, printers, furniture, and office supplies---none of which is covered by the nominal fees charged. Latter-day Saints pay tithes and offerings to help support the various Church programs, including maintenance of the centers.

I have been out of town for several weeks, so I don't know what is happening at my local FHC, but hopefully the current controversy will be resolved soon to the profit of everyone concerned, and we can all return to the task of seeking out our ancestors!

[Darrel]

It is a wonder that ancestors is charging for the info that is given to them free of charge and then they are also getting paid by the ad's they have. The church is getting there info by free volunteers from all there different sources. It sounds like that Ancestry. com are the guilty party in this.

[John C.]

I would like my two cents worth to this discussion. Years ago I put my family history information on a webpage hoping that I would be able to make some contact with others who were my cousins no matter how close or distant they may be. I also felt strongly that I had been the recipient of free information from some rather generous researchers. I hoped that by placing my puzzle pieces on the Internet it would benefit others.

Imagine my surprise one day at the FHC when I found that my data was found on Ancestry.com.!! They had "surfed the net" found my family history out there, copied it and placed it on their own website and then charged others to see it. I was never asked if they could use it. I never got paid for it. No one even checked it's validity (I have since found several errors that I have corrected) but they still "share" it as validated information. How do I know this is my data - because of those errors. There are some names in that information that were simply "family tradition" which I have since proven as incorrect. No one else but me knew of the subtle changes.

I say this only to say that Ancestry has always benefited in their enterprise from the free labor and research of both skilled and unskilled researchers. But never is credit given where credit is due. And now it is being implied they are a grand and glorious provider of valuable information and should be compensated for it! Give me a break as John Stossel would say!! They take free stuff, and yes they got a lot of free stuff from the LDS resources, and then they turned around called it their own and charge outlandishly for it. What a con job!

I teach a family history class and one of the first things I tell my class members is to avoid Ancestry subtle and cunning snares to draw them into their fee base. Isn't it amazing how you are in a website looking for a person or family and there is this search box that appears and asks you to enter your information you are looking for. As soon as you click the Search key you are whisked out of the website you are in to another website. There you are given several possible sites that the page says have the information you are seeking. No matter which sit you click on you are again whisked away and suddenly find yourself at "Ancestry.com". Good business. I think not. Do they have the information I need or am seeking? No they don't.

I’m personally glad the cord has been cut from them. The LDS church is providing the world their ancestry without the thought of profit. AsS the master said "freely have ye received...freely give."

[SM]

Dick Eastman is correct. TGN has spent millions of dollars in the past few years in buying the latest in scanning equipment, server farms, computer equipment, etc. They have paid lots of money to acquire records not owned by the LDS Church, so their databases will contain DIFFERENT information in the future. They pay scanners to scan images into their databases so they can be keyed. They pay keyers to create their every-name indexes. They pay workers to audit the work of the keyers. They pay people to standardize the data and prepare it for posting on the website. They pay software engineers to develop better software so all these processes can be done quicker, better and more accurately. All of this has cost a great deal! It is true that there have been glitches in their customer service, but it seems to me that they have tried, and are trying to correct those problems. Sometimes their search engines don't work perfectly, but they also are getting better at that too. They are a growing company, and they, on occasion, have growing pains.

TGN was started by a group of private investors who had a great idea. They invested millions of dollars, and I think it is only fair that they would expect a profit. The LDS Church probably helped them succeed, initially, because they thought they were providing a valuable service. They never had written agreements, only verbal (and reciprocal) ones. That worked well before, but now that TGN is a larger company, it seems only reasonable that they would want formal, written agreements. That is the only sensible way to run a growing business. It is also only right and fair that the LDS Church should be able to agree or not agree to such a request. Neither side should need to disclose their reasons or the the asking price. These were private negotiations. Personally, I hope they will eventually reach an agreement. However, I have had my own subscription to Ancestry for years, and it has saved me a lot of money, especially when I consider what just one family history trip per year would cost me. I have found countless names and tons of information on the site. I truly appreciate all this information I can access any time, day or night in the privacy of my own home! I also greatly appreciate all that can be found at the FHL's around the world.

[donna]

I am shocked and outraged!
what ever happen to giving back to community?

[Gordon Banks]

If those who find it convenient to have Ancestry access at their FHC so they don't have to go to their libraries or buy their own subscriptions would chip in and create a local fund, their FHC would likely be happy to accept their donation to be able to pay for a subscription. People are always happy to take something for nothing and then gripe because someone else won't pay for them to get even more for free.

[Rick Stone]

I have been going to FHCs for over 20 years. I installed our first computers. Regarding the Ancestry.com thing, maybe there is something I don’t understand, so help me out here.
1)) The FHC exists to provide general public access to LDS genealogy documents and records by way of ordering and viewing microfilms, etc.
2) This service has a cost overhead to the LDS church that is partially covered by rental fees.
3) The LDS church has a financial overhead associated with the FHCs in the way of dedicated building area, utilities, computers, copy machines etc.
3) The LDS church plans to digitize everything they own and make it available on the internet free of charge.
Conclusion: The FHCs will become redundant, they will close or become a training facility. The financial overhead formally needed to support the rental program (certainly not the most efficient way to do things in the computer age) will be transferred to support additional digitizing efforts and an ever improving information server system. So, why pay a service fee for access to a feature for a program (FHCs) that will soon become redundant?

[Ross Chapman]

I commend Ancestry.com and its' affiliates and parent company for sticking to their guns over this issue. During my few years of researching my family tree online and at public archives I have noticed that the LDS Church has too much control over genealogical services and data. Software is designed for their uses or if not specifically for their use then it is adapted so that the LDS market is tapped. I have to deal with 'alternate' families. I actually contacted a manufacturer of a piece of software and asked when they would adapt their software to meet the changes in society and societal forms. The response I got was when the LDS recognises them. In otherwords never. All software has to adopt a standard of data exchange that has been created and designed by the LDS church. Almost every government archive I have researched in all use LDS microfilm. Everywhere I have looked and researched I see the LDS church... sorry they have too much sway in genealogical circles and I believe that it is and has gotten to be too much

[Helen]

Regarding Ross Chapman's complaint about the LDS Church being too involved, perhaps he doesn't know that the Church gets permission to copy records, and then provides the Source, Archives, States and Counties, etc with a free copy of these films. If they didn't do that, many of these records would never be copied, or we would have to raise taxes to pay for the service. Perhaps we all should do less complaining, let these organizations solve the problem in the ways they can, and just appreciate what we have available.

[Kathy Collins]

My problem with the cessation of Ancestry.com's "free" service to the LD Church is that Ancestry.com is disallowing local FHC to purchase commercial or library site licenses for their centers, according to Ancestry.com internet-published letter to the FHCs ["At this point, Ancestry.com is not offering an option for family history centers to independently purchase commercial or library site licenses. Patrons, of course, may choose to subscribe directly to Ancestry.com."]. If the only issue is money, then a center's money would seem to be as good as any library or other commercial endeavor.

[Milo Wright]

The comments regarding Ancestry.com have been enjoyable to read. Dick Eastman is the Abe Lincoln of genealogy. Without Dick Eastman’s influence, we would be lost.

There is still a lot of confusion about what genealogy really is. Genealogy without documentation is mythology. By “documentation,’ I mean records retrieved from recognized repositories. Documentation is not finding your information on a database. Databases provide names, many of which are questionable. Documentation is not finding names of your ancestors in a history written by somebody else.

There are people gullible enough to pay money for questionable information. An error duplicated is still an error. If a human being can make an error in one second, the computer can duplicate the same error 200,000,000 times in the same second. Paying for information extracted by others does not make it correct. People are forgetting to organize their genealogy and to properly catalog the evidence. They continue to plow over ground which has been plowed and plowed and plowed, saying to themselves, “Am I ever going to get done?” These people are fertile ground for Ancestry.com. I have researched four to six generations on my direct line, and not once did I access Ancestry.com for information.

Thanks, Dick, for your incredible contribution. I don’t know how you do it. You keep us going in the right direction.

[Joseph William David Walker]

Dear Dick Eastman,
The LDS Church who provided most of the information that forms the basis of Ancestry.com etc. should have known that Ancestry would turn on them when they became so powerful and greedy for more and more profit. One only needs to look at their huge profit last year to know that they are not in it for the love of it,unlike the LDS Church. I do hope that the Church continues to develop it's own site and then we will see who the world's public will support.

[Joe Frain]

Just a quick one that probably will not get published. Personally, I think ancestry.com is getting a monopoly on genealogical data. No seach of a family name gets much more of an answer than ancestry.com which of course charges for everything. Also, why not give family history centers free access. They collected the data from around the world providing copies of their efforts for free to the associated sources. Now everyone wants to charge for providing information collected by their efforts. Their efforts have been considerable. I have been to Santa Monica and have seen the row after row of microfilm from around the world.

[Joy]

I went to visit my local Family History Center in early June and found
they no longer had free access to ancestry.com. Meanwhile, ancestry.com raised their already high rates. (Nice)
Years ago The Church of Latter Day Saints had provided their records to ancestry.com, free of charge, basically in exchange for free access to the ancestry.com website and databases. At the time I wondered what happened after the church gave ancestry all the information in their many databases.
First, I believe ancestry.com did have a verbal agreement with LDS. (why would they have given LDS free access for seven years otherwise.) Also, some sort of written agreement should have been in place years ago.
Ancestry.com is getting greedy.Google ads on their site,hiked rates. Sadly, we cant all afford it.They need to have more options and lower rates for seniors (and other low income) genealogy buffs. Paying for the databases use is not a problem, its the outrageous rates.

[just me]

Almost all the online genealogy resources belong, at bottom, to the Mormon Church (LDS). Most of the "hits" when you search on google lead to false-front pages that want a credit card before you learn anything. This is very deceptive and it's especially odious that it is being done by a "church."

Especially aggravating is the way these LDS-fronted fam. hist. agencies all ENCOURAGE you to submit your family history data and then promptly slap a COPYRIGHT notice on them. Equally reprehensible is the way they encourage people to upload UNDOCUMENTED so-called research and provide NO WAY for innocent victims to get data removed that is harmful or embarrassing or an invasion of privacy.

The whole family history business online stinks of self-interest and is very disheartening. Not to mention that the blockheads uploading most of the stuff to these online databases think nothing of invading people's privacy, risking or enabling identity-theft; and most of these so-called researchers have never even heard of "documenting one's sources"!

[Betty Slovinski]

I am furious that the Ancestry.com site bombards me with ads for tooth paste, automobiles and singles dating sites!!!!! They have become greedy and arrogant. I am looking forward to the day when they will have competition and I will run, notd walk, to their competitors!

[Carol Taylor]

I have tried to read all your comments but there are so many. I have used the Family History Room at two of the LDS Churchs here in Fort Worth, TX; I have also used the Federal Reserve Center and subscribed to Ancestry.com and a lot of the free genealogy sites and gleamed a lot of important information about my family. I have joined a lot of the Genealogy Societies in NC etc. I have scoured the internet sites all night long and stumbled upon the most important two in my research. One being That Hassell Bunch and the Anderson Family. Connected with family members I did not know I had. A lot of very nice people have shared their information on family. My problem is that of people like me and you doing a lot of research and then storing it on Ancestry.com and all their sites that they have bought up and then they are selling the information that we worked hard to find. There should be a charge but there has to be a level playing field for those kids out there that cannot afford the high fees to trace their ancestry. I don't know what the solution is except that there should be and I think there are some free sites that belong to the different cities that are working to keep some information free. I use the Family Tree Genealogy software because I think that it is so far the best, but I keep my information off the internet since a lot of my family lives to be 100 years old and I am not releasing that information until I am ready. My immediate family members will have access to the information that I have researched but I am in the process of trying to get it into book form so the Libraries can have a copy and unto that end it will remain closed to the public.