Internet Biographical Collection Removed from Ancestry.com!

It certainly had a short lifespan. The controversial Internet Biographical Collection (a specialized genealogy web search engine) has now been removed from Ancestry.com. The following announcement was posted a few minutes ago on the Ancestry.com web site:

Earlier this week we launched the Internet Biographical Collection on Ancestry.com. Our goal was to offer members a search engine that focused primarily on genealogy resources. We intended this collection to help surface family history information that many people would not be able to find easily because it is often scattered among numerous websites across the Internet. We cached individual Web pages in an effort to preserve history - if a Web page featuring important family history information were taken down in the future, a cached version would still be available.

Many people have expressed concerns about the collection and the search engine we created on Ancestry.com. We recognize the significant time and resources members of the genealogical community invest to make their family history research available online.

Over the past few days we have reevaluated this collection's goals, caching and crawling ability, and user experience. We have decided to remove this collection and search engine from Ancestry.com for the time being. We are still dedicated to providing family historians the online tools and aggregated records that make it easier to trace their family tree and will work to develop a solution that meets those needs in a way that will be most beneficial to our customers and the community.

Comments

[Dave S.]

Ancestry:
1) Don't require registration.
2) Don't Cache.
3) Just supply the links.

Then I will vote aye.

Dave S.

[Legal Eagle]

Any guess how many threats of class action suit it took?

[theKiwi]

As I posted in another thread, if they tried they could have made this the Google of genealogy sites and a very helpful and popular resource, but it clearly had a ways to go in terms of content, and a lot of people were unhappy, or very unhappy or very very unhappy with the methodology they used.

Yesterday's changes to make it free to everyone, and to make it more obvious what and where the original source was were certainly a move in the right direction

Caching the pages to be the first (and only) thing shown in the search results I'm not so sure about. Yes Google and others cache pages, but they don't offer the cached page as the only link in a search result - right on the Google results page you have a major link direct to the site, and smaller links to the Cached Page and Similar pages.

Yes it's a bummer when a web site (someone's personal genealogy) that you've quoted in your sources disappears, but unless Ancestry were doing continual crawling and updating of the cache would mean that viewers seeing the page in the frame wouldn't be seeing the newest version of any regularly updated pages.

People who clicked the button to "Add this to your family tree" (or whatever it said) were being stopped short of the original content, and any chance to contact the author.

Maybe it will come back in a much revised format, or maybe they'll just stick to what the do better.

Roger

[Karen K.]

I'm a big girl, I can find my own family history sites without paying ancestry to do it for me! Why not spend that time and money locating more newspapers or more orginal records to add to your collection. That makes more sense!

[Shannon]

Well, its now 9:12 and its still there, and its still allowing searches and its still giving results

[bianca]

Okay, we got ancestry.com to stop indexing our web pages, now let's tackle Google! They're the ones who started all this, or was it Yahoo, or Excite, or Lycos, or MetaCrawler, or Alta Vista...? Great work people, one less resource to help in my research.

[Ginny in Poughkeepsie]

At 11:29 PM - I'm getting Please Search Again
The search request could not be completed because insufficient information was provided to Ancestry.com. If the search request originated from another web site, please contact that site's administrator to resolve the problem.

At 10:24 PM August 29, 2007 it was still there and searchable as an "Unknown" database - searched it using my e-mail address and got results or just try "Smith"

http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1162

They haven't removed it - just renamed it to Unknown.

Source Information:
Ancestry.com. Internet Biographical Collection [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2007. Original data: Biographical info taken from various English web sites. See specific website address provided with each entry.
About Unknown

This database contains a sampling of biographical sketches found on English language web pages throughout the entire World Wide Web. Web pages can vary greatly in the amount of information they contain about a given person, and in the number of related and unrelated people mentioned on the same page. The information source and the central topic of each page will also vary greatly. Given facts should be verified using other sources. One unique and valuable feature of this web-based collection is the number of hyperlinks leading from each page in the collection to other web pages of possible interest on related topics.

It's like Abe Lincoln said:
You can fool some of the people all of the time!
Some of the people all of the time!
However, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

[paul]

FYI: Google made $925 million PROFIT in the second quarter alone of this year. I'm not certain, but I suspect that's a bit more than Ancestry earned, and guess how Google makes their money... I support what ancestry.com was trying to accomplish, a genealogy-specific search engine, with cached versions of old web pages that might not exist next month. Could've been great.

[W. David Samuelsen]

Ancestry spokesperson either don't know what she is doing or is lying right through the teeth.

The search engine is very much still there. Many of us can still access and still getting the results at least USGenWeb Project volunteers did NOT authorize them to hijack for profits.

"Removed for time being" - this is a big lie.

[Happy Dae]

"Source Information:
Ancestry.com. Internet Biographical Collection [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2007. Original data: Biographical info taken from various English web sites. See specific website address provided with each entry."

Of course, they mean English language web sites. I dinna see anywhere that they claimed copyright to the information. Since it was free, nothing was hijacked "for profits."

Secondly, they stated their DECISION to remove this collection. I dinna see where they said they DID remove it.

Sorry, Mr. Samuelsen, but I see no "big lie" here, only misquotes by you.

You see, part of being a family historian is READING the documents. Misquoting does a disservice to the original and to your readers. Of course, the second part is UNDERSTANDING what you read. Would we accept an "intention to marry" as proof that a couple were wed?

Now am I missing something here?

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com/ssg1.htm

[Legal Eagle]

> I dinna see anywhere that they claimed copyright to the information.
Eh-uh, they were SELLING access to it. That IMPLIES an assertion of (a deal over) copyright.

> Since it was free, nothing was hijacked "for profits."
Your short term memory failing, Happy Dae?

They offered this database to PAYING subscribers, and only made it "free" under public pressure.
And even then, it was not really free, but required you to sign up as a member first, and which point they start to spam you, and can sell your email address to third parties. Free?

> Secondly, they stated their DECISION to remove this collection. I dinna see where they said they DID remove it.
Read the title....
They said " ...Removed from Ancestry.com".

Samuelsen is simply stating facts, and not trying to twist the truth as you are.

[Pat Peoples]

Here, here to Karen's remarks. Let's stop playing technology geek and put some honest, real records on the Ancestry.com site. Newspapers -- beyond 1883 maybe? -- high school yearbooks, directories, actual birth, marriage and death records, cemetery records. The records this site could gather are endless and people would be happy to pay for access. But I'm not going to pay another 300.00 per year just to have a new way to search - nothing! Gathering and publishing of the US census is what started and made Ancestry.com. People need and want records, not new search engines!!

Pat

[Happy Dae]

Well, Legal Eagle, the title DOES say removed. But the title dinna come from Ancestry, did it? You quote me, but you dinna understand me. For a legal eagle you are quick to impugn someone's integrity. Ancestry hasn't spammed me, but perhaps you received such treatment. I've not heard they "sell your email address to third parties," either. Where is this coming from?

At any rate, I stand by the principles I stated, and further suggest that no one is under any obligation to subscribe to Ancestry. They are a business and must make a profit. Profit isn't a bad word. There are other resources available, some are even free.

Happy Dae.

[Doris Wheeler]

Why do we do genealogy? I thought it was to compile information about our ancestors and share it with others -- to preserve the clues that still exist today but may not tomorrow.

I for one welcome every opportunity to have the information I have gathered through the years accessible to anyone who has a need for it. I keep my database and website on Rootsweb because they "guarantee" not to remove it because of inactivity. Therefore, hopefully, they will live long after I'm dead. Even if the cached version Ancestry keeps does not reflect the most up-to-date info, it's far better than nothing. Genealogists years from now will still follow the basic principle: Verify, verify, verify.

The one change I would make is to add the url of the source website.

If you want to keep your information private, don't publish it on the web. Or at least pay dearly for a service that will password-protect it.
Doris

[Legal Eagle]

> Well, Legal Eagle, the title DOES say removed. But the title dinna come from Ancestry, did it?
It did.

[Ann Davis]

Well, so much for caching web sites that may not be around next month.....

many are already GONE now, thanks to this new cached database of ANCESTRY.

They will be parroting mistakes for years.......no one works their heart out to have things taken and "stored"....

We NEED correctons and NEW information.........thanks to this "Biographical" database, who's going to be out there beating the bushes for those who sit at home and search the internet and copy others work.

[Trish Lewis]

Amen, Doris Wheeler! I will never understand people who hoard their information. Yes, you worked hard for it, but after working hard for it, it makes sense to want to share it. Not only do many of us NOT have the time to find it on our own (I am a big girl, too), but I say why in the world would you want to if you can have the convenience of finding many items in a central location? It's just one more choice. Those that have the time and/or can't afford Ancestry can still find these sites themselves, and for free. I share all my research, and am glad many others do, also. Bless you all, but reconsider the illogical mindset regarding this issue. All my opinion, of course...

[Elizabeth Harris]

I share all my data freely and I have no problem with Google or other sites that provide direct links to my pages.

The issues for me with Ancestry are first, that they posted a cached version of my web site under a URL that implied that it was part of Ancestry.com, rather than making my URL the primary link as happens with Google; second, that they did this without the courtesy of asking my permission; and third, the implication that they weren't committing to updating the cached pages on a regular basis ("if a Web page featuring important family history information were taken down in the future, a cached version would still be available."). I wouldn't want somebody finding an old version of one of my pages and thinking this was my latest, most correct information.

I agree with others who have posted here that Ancestry should focus more on acquiring additional primary resources. Their attempts to link user-supplied data with no quality control (e.g. One World Tree, and this attempt at a "biographical database") are misguided and simply perpetuate sloppy work with many errors.

[LDrewitz]

I agree with Elizabeth. Ancestry had better get 'with it' in terms of acquiring additional primary resources. How many new business have we seen pop up in the last year like Footnote that are filming all this dynamite data and then charging a small fee to access it? And if you've never checked out Historykat.com, you should, there's some pretty neat stuff there for a small fee as well.
Ancestry became a Behemoth that is just too expensive -
Godfrey tried to acquire too fast and fell on it's face -
I think that these smaller sites got it right, build s-l-o-w-l-y and charge smaller fees and the race will be won, everyone will be happy, quality will be assured and records will be diversified across the country. There is room for 100's of 'Mom and Pop' operations here - I see small specialty sites becoming a cottage industry of sorts - anyone can do it!

[Nancy]

I have been involved in active family research since 1982. Thanks to the internet more family information is available, and available quickly and easily. Remember writing letters to names found in "The Helper", county offices, libraries, etc, and eagerly checking the mail each day in the hopes of a reply? Remember trying to find time away from work to be able to use local libraies and archives? The Internet sites that volunteers provide information to are great. I use them often and are so thankful to the volunteers who put the information on the site. Thanks! However, there just are not enough volunteers to post more than a small percent of the informaiton we would like to see posted. This is where the "for pay" sites come in to the picture.

Unfortunatly we have become a society that wants "something for nothing". The several genealogy sites that require a fee only exist because they saw a need and an opportunity. I am not wealthy, but I do use some of the sites that charge. They provide me a great service and I think they are entitled to make a profit in doing so. It is the American way. I don't care how much profit Google, Ancestry or any other site makes. It is none of my business. I don't understand the people who seem to resent successful companies.

I assume that those who post their info on the internet want to share it. Why else have they posted it? Another genealogist's work can be a source of clues to your own work, and someone to contact privately to compare info on a shared family, but that is all it is. Responible genealogists contact the person posting the site to share info, and do not incorporate it into their own work without finding a source for every fact. Sorry to say many of the family websites are of little use as they have no sources, or worse yet, give another sourceless site as their source.

I hope Ancestry will concentrate on digitizing primary source documents as I feel that is what is of the most value to serious researchers.

[Catpurrson]

As of 8:50 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time, Thursday, August 30, 2007, this database is still there as the "unknown" database referred to in a previous post and searchable at:

http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1162

As for "free," when the database was only available to paid subscribers, that wasn't appropriate; however, when it was made available to everyone, it *was* "free." There are lots of websites where you have to do a free signup to avail yourself of information. I don't understand the issues with having to simply signup with no cost involved to access something. Cost is another matter.

[Sara Binkley Tarpley]

I share data all the time. I have a database on Rootsweb and one on my own site. I love using Google and have no problem with what it does with regard to my site. A genealogy-only search engine would be great.

However, what Ancestry presented was not such an animal. It did not take you directly to a site. It did not clearly show the URL of the cached page, at least not until very late in the game. By using the word "collection" it implied ownership. The source information it showed at the bottom did not show the actual source, unlike some of the other records on Ancestry.

Some of my work is copyrighted. It may not be great, but it's mine. I have a right to an opinion as to how it is reproduced or republished. Whether my opinion is legally defensible would probably depend on an actual court verdict, which is not likely to happen. But that does not keep me from making an objection and feeling outrage when I believe that my original work has been misused.

[Marjorie Jodoin]

I was very excited when I first involved myself in posting genealogical info on the web; it was and is a great resource. One attraction was the idea that I could control the quality of what I posted. When I make a decision to remove info, usually because its wrong, being updated, or a family member has asked to have it removed, I want it gone. I was disturbed when I realized Google caches webpages and now Ancestry was planning to do the same thing. I have already discovered info from my site twisted upside down and backwards by others who have collected, posted on their own sites or submitted it to Ancestry. I have also discovered info my family asked me NOT to post, posted by other more distant relations, also ending up places I did not want it to be. It has brought home to me, that one needs to be VERY sure about what we post, and clear that it is out there forever, beyond our control. Which means that I am not able to share all that I would like to.

[Linda]

I think we all have to realise that nothing should be put onto the internet that we wouldn't write on the back of a postcard. In other words if you don't want it copied and used by unknown others then don't put it on the internet. Secondly why does everyone think that all genealogy sources should be free? Ancestry is a business no different from say a supermarket, they saw a business opportunity to supply something to the public that the public wanted. You don't have to subscribe to Ancestry anymore than you have to buy a can of beans from the supermarket. It costs Ancestry money to create and run their website. Imagine if they didn't exist - millions of people would certainly miss then and their research would be much the pooerer for it.
I for one am happy to pay for the service Ancestry provides and would have liked to opportunity to use their new search facility.

[W. David Samuelsen]

Newspapers!

Obituary Collection at Ancestry.com - same method used for now demise "Internet Biographic Collection"

I called my favorite newspaper publisher. She is having attorneys now looking into Ancestry.com's method of caching their FREE but copyrighted obituaries.
She was shocked to see "We hope you enjoyed your three days of free access." followed by ads for US Deluxe and World Deluxe memberships.

She told me she NEVER gave permission to them to do that. She will be in contact with other newspaper publishers about this.

I wonder about Deseret News (not the favorite newspaper mentioned above), since it is owned by LDS Church and they are worthy opponents of Ancestry now.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Dick,

Another problem with incremental backups is that once you restore the full backup you have to apply each and every incremental up to the point you want to recover to. And if you had a bad incremental due to bad media, an accidental deletion or whatever, you're hosed (to use the technical term.)

Also, I do agree with Data Center Manager about deleting the database. If what they did was to actually copy web sites without the copyright holders' consent then they've got to be breaking copyright law. There's no way that I could make copies of Ancestry's databases and then use them in my own for profit business without them suing my pants off.

After the dual PR disasters of FTM 2008 and Internet Biographical Collection, all I can do is paraphrase that great American philospoher Oliver Norvell Hardy and say "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten yourselves into."

[Dick Eastman]

Those who have expressed concerns about the recent offering from Ancestry.com might want to read a brief message from Kendall Hulet. He is a product manager at the company and he offers a glimpse of what the company wants to achieve in the future. It is a very short message but well worth reading. The comments from Ancestry.com members posted at the end also interested me.

You can read Kendall's comments at http://blogs.ancestry.com/circle/?p=1792

[Amanuensis]

I was DEEPLY disappointed to hear that Ancestry.com has decided to not go forward with its plans to cache all genealogically valuable websites that have no robots.txt files prohibiting them. Such a cache would have GREATLY advanced the field of genealogy.

I still, dispite reading numerous blogs and message board posts, fail to see why people who are not upset about Google, Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine), etc., caching their site, are so upset about Ancestry.com doing it. Ancestry.com was NOT "stealing" anyone's work, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act clearly distinguishes between copying and caching. Come on, do you not think that Ancestry.com would have undertaken a major project like this, involving more than a year of effort (according to blog posts from Chris Dunham AKA The Genealogue) without having first made sure it was legal to do so? And since Chris Dunham, one of the most widely read genealogical bloggers, noted LAST YEAR that Ancestry was doing this crawl, and provided a link to a page ON the Ancestry.com site providing all of the details (including how to opt out), it is not as if Ancestry.com was not providing fair warning.

I appreciate the honesty of some prominent bloggers, such as Pat Ritchie (aka Dear Myrtle), who admitted that she was opposed to having her creative works cached, at least in part, because she felt that financially she could be injured. What really has raised my blood pressure are the much more numerous posts by people who do not claim that Ancestry.com's action financially hurt them, yet were opposed to Ancestry.com doing something to make a profit. REMEMBER THE STORY OF THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGGS. With this kind of reaction from people who (hypocritically?) claim to be genealogy's greatest friends, it would not surprise me at all to find that the goose will, in the future, become much less interested in laying.

The fact that The Generations Network is a for-profit corporation means that if its Board of Directors (who are largely venture capitalists with little or no personal interest in genealogy) feels that money being put into increasing access to genealogical information would provide a bigger financial reward if invested elsewhere, then the goose will indeed stop laying. And those of you who claim that genealogy should be "free" will get exactly what you asked for -- which I think is what a Chineese proverb warns us to beware of.

[Marilynn B]

I am not opposed to Ancestry making a profit, but they decided to withhold information from being accessible at LDS family history centers when the LDS Church and Ancestry apparently could not come to a contractual agreement. (This was the subject of a previous discussion on this board, which is probably archived.)

Well, guess what the indexing volunteers are working on now? The 1900 U.S. census. Oh, but that is already available, you say. Sure, for a fee at Ancestry, but in order for researchers without an Ancestry account to obtain this information online, tens of thousands of volunteers are having to re-enter what has already been done! So much for Ancestry's dedication to the dissemination of genealogical data.

I understand the need to charge a fee to keep their business solvent, but some of the FHC patrons can't even afford an internet connection, let alone Ancestry's fees. One elderly sister volunteers her time, but has to carefully budget gas money to drive from her home to the church. Now she can't even look up census information when she is at the FHC! Fortunately, as has been reported here, the church is making lots of connections in the genealogical community that will benefit the FHC patrons.

I just wish I could spend my time indexing records that have not been previously extracted instead of re-inventing the wheel....

[Amanuensis]

Marilynn, perhaps a public library near where your FHC patrons live provides free access to Ancestry Library Edition. If so, then you could direct people who, for whatever reason, do not have a personal subscription to Ancestry.com there. Also, Ancestry.com continues to provide free access to a number of its databases at Family History Centers.

Neither you nor I know WHY the LDS Church and Ancestry.com failed to reach an agreement. As I understand it, the LDS Church is planning on reindexing all of the US Federal Census records, starting with the 1900 census (as you noted). The employees in the LDS Church's Family and Church History Department may have decided on this course prior to entering into the negotiations. If so, then the Family and Church History Department may have perceived there to be no need to seriously negotiate. Also, it may have been like a game of Chicken, with both sides believing that the other side would back down before the train came. As they say, it does take two to tango.

I prefer to focus on the fact that FOR YEARS Ancestry.com DID provide free access to its databases at FHCs. Rather than complaining about taking something that people were taking for granted, I prefer to thank Ancestry.com for providing the access as long as they did.

[Data Center Manager]

Dino (All Dino, All the Time):
> Also, I do agree with Data Center Manager about deleting the database.

You agree, but Mr Eastman apparent has trouble accepting that my comments showed his computer knowledge to be lacking.
He has removed my rebuttals of his ill-informed statements so future readers do not get to see it...

[JK]

I just tried using the 'Unknown' database and it DID NOT WORK. It may still BE there but it no longer works. Now, please don't misunderstand me I am all for NEW information in my search for ancestors but the WAY Ancestry did it was WRONG, I don't think the process of caching the information was wrong but the fact that they tried to CLAIM ALL the information they gathered as their OWN was wrong.

[Marilynn B]

Amanuensis, thanks for the suggestion. The county library system does not subscribe to any internet sites that are not free. I suspect this is true of many public libraries, as most have been under considerable financial duress in recent years. I did check on Ancestry Library Edition. The annual fee is $2500, which covers all computers in all branches of the county system. Certainly reasonable, but if you don't have the funding it doesn't matter how much of a bargain it is. I will certainly send all the info about it to our head librarian. Maybe a family history "angel" would like to contribute this service, which would be valuable even if the FHCs also had Ancestry. The more the merrier!

For anyone interested in getting their county library to subscribe, contact info is Pro Quest 800-521-0600. The phone tree gives several choices for schools, public libraries, etc. I talked to Maria ext 4088.( They also have an Ancestry/Heritage Quest bundle for $4500 per annum.)

Oh, as far as the "two to tango" analogy, the dance is a little lop-sided, as Ancestry.com is a for-profit and the LDS family history services are not! They are staffed by volunteers and paid for by church members' contributions. The only fees charged to patrons are the direct expenses of making copies and mailing films & fiches.

[Marilynn B]

Data Center Mgr, I would hope that Mr. Eastman removed the "gentlemanly debate" between you and him to spare the rest of us what was---face it---a boring and unproductive exchange. Besides, I was probably not the only one feeling uncomfortable with your attack. Next time you take issue with anyone's technical prowess, perhaps it should take place in a private conversation.

[Dick Eastman]

Thank you Marilynn for the kind words. I deleted that thread of messages mostly because I realized that I had revealed more about my private life "outside of genealogy" than I like to do. I am not a particularly private person but I do prefer to not talk too much about my "other life." I woke up one night and realized that "I really shouldn't have written all that stuff."

I will agree that it probably was also quite boring and unimportant to others.

- Dick Eastman

[Data Center Manager]

> Data Center Mgr, I would hope that Mr. Eastman removed ... to spare the rest of us what was---face it---a boring and unproductive exchange.

"Marilynn", boring as it may be, it was important to point out that Eastman's continued presentation of Ancestry's collection as a "search engine" is disingenious, and that his attack of another commenter for pointing out the collection was still available, was entirely unwarranted.
He tried to rationalise his attack of that member by claiming to know all kind of things about Ancestry.com's data center management. He brought that up, and I merely explained that we was wrong to extrapolate his limited experience with one kind of database to the other kind of databases Ancestry.com offers to subscribers That he took issue with correct information being provided, and even tried to suggest he in fact knows better because he works what he considers to be very large databases, is disappointing.

[Dino (All Dino, All the Time)]

Dick,

I think your deletion of the debate was interesting in one, unintended way.

How would you feel if Ancestry had cached that debate and made it available in their database of cached websites via the Internet Biographical Collection long after you had deleted it?

As for your deleting the debate ... it's your website. Do whataever you like with it.

[Dick Eastman]

Actually, I assume that Google, Yahoo and all the other search engines DID cache it. There's a good chance that archive.org also did. If anyone wishes to read it on those sites, I'd say, "go for it."

There is nothing on the Internet that is secret. (smile)

- Dick Eastman

[kathy glover]

I just want to say WOW!!! Don't you all realize you can find the info they have on their site off of other sites. i have never paid a penny for online genealogy search and so i dont understand why everyone is complaining about it so much. Will someone please clue me in here, I think i got lost in the shuffle LOL anyway thanks bye for now. By the way all i pay for is travel when i can and hard copies of things. It don't have to cost a arm and a leg to get the info you need. Thanks for letting me speak here. By for now til next time. Hehehe.

[Susan Daily]

Amanuensis: I believe part of the reason that the LDS removed the Ancestry.com access from their web sites had to do with Ancestry's decision to start showing advertizing (i.e. for mufflers??!) on their web sites. The LDS cannot ever jeopardize their not-for-profit status; there is too much at risk for the Church. I think it made things uncomfortable for them. But I am sure I am oversimplifying things.

[Joy Rich]

Amanuensis's "signature" links to http://www.apgen.org/directory/search_detail.html?mbr_id=820, the entry for a professional genealogist named Chad Milliner.

I googled "chad milliner." The first result is a listing for Chad Milliner on zoominfo. It says that Chad Milliner is a Content Specialist for THE GENERATIONS NETWORK, aka MYFAMILY.COM aka ANCESTRY.COM!

[Myra Burke]

I did not care for Foot Notes. I found more information on Newspaperarchive.com than any Genealogy site.
Very addicting so watch out!