NARA Proposes to Digitize Content in Cooperation with The Generations Network (Ancestry.com)

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is giving public notice of a proposal to enter into a non-exclusive agreement with The Generations Network, Inc. (TGN), owners of Ancestry.com, to digitize and further expand public access to archival holdings in NARA's custody. Please note: this is for a NON-EXCLUSIVE agreement and will not replace any of several other agreements with other companies that are already in place.

NARA is requesting comments about the terms of the proposed agreement. The public is invited to respond and all comments must be received by April 9, 2008.

Please go to http://www.archives.gov/comment/tgn-preamble.html for an overview of the draft agreement and a link to the agreement.

Comments

[Barbara]

I thought records were already "free" to access at NARA facilities? It seems the high price to access holdings of Ancestry.com, especially, is becoming cost-prohibitve for most genealogists. I am sure, however, that the change(s) will enhance availability to professional genealogists who in some measure get a return on the expenditure.

[Terry Reigel]

My understanding is that most NARA records are currently available only at the facility holding the record - the exceptions being a few record types, notably the census, are more widely available on microfilm. As I read the proposal, the records selected for the program will now be available at many more NARA locations. And for the many genealogists who don't have easy access to an NARA facility the arrangement will offer a very economical means to access the same records. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[Chris]

As a brit of american ancestry NARA facilities are hardly free for me to use. I welcome any expansion of what is available to me online.
Is Ancestry.com prohibitive? Not for me - it has probably saved me a fortune over the years. My world membership is up for renewal this month and I have no hesitation in renewing it. I agree with Terry Reigel - a win-win

[Dick Eastman]

---> I thought records were already "free" to access at NARA facilities?

Yes. Access to NARA's holdings has always been free and will remain free under the new agreements. You have always been able to travel to whatever NARA facility holds the original record(s) you seek and you have always been able to view those records at that location free of charge. That is not changing under the new arrangements.

For me to view the Civil War records of my ancestors, in the past I had to travel to Washington, D.C., the only place that houses those records. A round-trip ticket by air or by train plus hotel and restaurant charges while I am in the Washington area typically costs me $400 or more for an overnight trip. Nothing will change in the future: I still have the option to do that as I always have.

Anyone traveling from the west coast will have to pay a lot more than $400.

What is being added is a new option: a chance to see copies of those records on my computer screen at home and to optionally print copies on my local printer. Charges per document have not been defined but I suspect it will be a lot cheaper than $400.

In short, the new arrangements with various commercial firms to digitize NARA's holdings and to make them available online should save me a lot of money and probably do the same for many more people. At $400 per trip, I don't get to Washington very often! If the same records are available online for $8 or $10 per document, I can perform my research much faster and for much less expense.

However, if I do not wish to pay for online access, I still have the option to look at the records the old-fashioned way: by traveling to the appropriate repository where the records are stored and looking at them for no charge.

- Dick Eastman

[Athena]

Isn't Footnote digitizing the Civil War Servce Records?

The two contracts -- Footnote and Ancestry -- are both non-exclusive. Footnote started with the microfilm collection but as I read the announcement for Ancestry, they will be starting with other material.

[Karl]

Hey I say great. If a public/private partnership gets me digital access to these records I'm all for it. They cost money to digitze and honestly us users ought to be the ones paying for it (not that I would complain about free - but its just not going to happen).

[Kenny - hdpth-DNA]

yeppy !!! I just knew this had to happen eventually :) the Laguna Niguel, CA branch, not quite as costly as a trip to DC ... but still a bit out of the way, and time consuming to get there "/ I say fire up the scanners and get this show on the road :)

see you in June, Dick !

[Tommy Michaels]

I, like many other commenters, are happy about this project. For those who don't subscribe to Ancestry.com because of the expense or otherwise, I would suggest you check your local library. More and more libraries are acquiring access that is available in the library or sometimes online through the library with your library card.

Tommy

[Happy Dae]

It is good news, but I wouldn't get excited yet. As I understand the word, proposal, the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Not a done deal, right? I DO hope it goes through, however, for the added convenience to folks around the world.

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

[JudyE]

It seems as if Ancestry is trying to take over. I belong to the NEHGS, which I use extensively. It costs $75.00 a year. Ancestry now has an agreement with them. I am a paid subscriber with Footnote. Now Ancestry will have an agreement with the NARA. Apparently they want to be the only game in town.

[Linda]

I would only support the agreement if TGN offers a separate economy subscription for access to only NARA records and NARA provides careful oversight of the digitizing processes. This oversight is needed to make sure that TGN does not continue its decline in quality. For example, you can get WWII Enlistment records through Ancestry.com but at least one field was imported incorrectly. I know this because my dad who is living is a veteran and I checked the corresponding enlistment record online at the NARA site (free..no travel)and saw that several people had been incorrectly imported into the Ancestry.com version of the database. When I wrote support, they said they were aware of the problem. This was months ago and it still isn't fixed. So..what is better...spending money to travel to get first hand data or getting incorrect data? Hopefully, there is something in between.

There is a lot on Ancestry.com that can be obtained for free elsewhere (i.e. census images, obituaries, historical papers, family and local history books). I'm planning on dropping my Ancestry.com subscription when it expires. This is partially out of principle due to TGN's declining quality processes and partially to use the money towards a service that I don't have access to records elsewhere (i.e. Genline subscription for Swedish parish records). Incidently, Ancestry.com's Swedish emigration records are reportedly flawed too.

At the minimum, I would like to see NARA to require Ancestry to offer separate affordable subscription options for access to NARA records rather than allow them to use it to justify increasing the current subscription price. Again, I would hope that TGN improves their quality assurance processes.

[Patty McCormack]

I would have to agree that Ancestry wants to be the only game in town and if this proposal happened to be between World Vital Records or Footnote I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I didn't see anything in the proposal that limits the amount of money Ancestry could charge us to view the digitized records. My guess is they can change anything they want and while that fee is certainly cheaper than a plane ticket, most of us don't have the money to take that plane trip anyway; it's not a question of comparing one expense to the other, it's a question of not being able to afford either. Additionally, for many elderly genealogists it's not even a question of the cost involved when visiting a NARA facility, it's the inability to be mobile and make the trip in the first place.

There is no doubt that digitization is needed so that people can access these records from the comfort of their own home but the cost that will be passed on to each subscriber and the quality of the resulting data is equally important.

To those who have spoken to the quality of Ancestry's digitized work, I can only add that I have worked with thousands of passenger manifests and long ago have given up on trying to get them to correct their errors. They have ships named as "unknown" and in some cases ships have been given the wrong name when the name of the ship is clearly visible on the image. They have manifests filmed out of order, pages at the end of one manifest that belong to another and their transcription of these manifests is poor at best, being done by people who read and write English as a second language.

At Immigrant Ships Transcribers Guild we try our best to have manifests transcribed by volunteers who have some knowledge of the handwriting style and the language of the area from which the passengers came.

I understand too well the costs involved in digitizing from microfilm.
It's far from cheap and that cost must be passed on to someone. However, other companies such as World Vital Records and Footnote have managed to keep the cost of their subscriptions affordable to most people.

I would not personally be in favor of having whatever digital material evolves from this contract being set aside in a separate database for which a separate fee is charged. Ancestry is already charging for separate databases while other companies are charging one subscription price for everything they offer.

It's very tempting to go into what Ancestry has done to their affiliates as well, but that's a topic for another discussion or perhaps a topic that is best left entirely alone.

Peace to you and those you love,
Patty McCormack

[Barbara Rice]

While having access to records on line is a joy to many of us, Ancestry is one of the last organizations I would choose for accuracy. Their work creates errors and is often as sloppy as other compilations which we label "view but VERIFY". One recent example is the copying of World War I Draft Registration cards so that the information from the front of the card is not matched with the reverse of the card, but with a different individual.

[Pam from Jax]

I too continue to fight the accuracy and responsiveness war with Ancestry almost daily. I agree that other organizations far outshine Ancestry; they have the arrogance and indifference to customers that come with massive dollar backing. I would rather have NARA fund and distribute the materials, but it seems more important to fund other government programs. (Surely this 'nonexclusive' proposal had other constituent bidders; I wonder who they were.) In summary, it's better than nothing, but not much.

[Mary]

I agree with those who think that ancestry is the "big fish." It is possible that at some time I may stop my membership due to the cost. However I think it is great that some entity has agreed to digitize these records so they can be available in all parts of the country. The results of a2 Hour trip to the NARA archives near me will be improved by this effort.
Additionally I should note that many local libraries subscribe to Ancestry so get your butt there and check to see what is available to you before you sputter. Short drive vs Hours and or many many Hours long flights and hotel bills. I know what I would pick.

[Allen]

NARA's delegation to the private, for-profit sector of its duty to provide citizens digital access to their records and archives is unacceptable. Do these contracts specify that the businesses performing the digitization cannot hold copyrights to the digital images?

[Linda G.]

It's amazing. Anytime Ancestry.com is mentioned there is a flood of negative comments. I just do not get it.

- There are errors in other databases, too. None of them are perfect. Why? Because they are created by human beings and non of us is perfect. Errors happen. Ancestry does have a way to submit corrections and I have submitted many of them and they have been put online within days of the submission. And as far as respoitories go, files are misplaced and misfiled because of human error, too.

- Ancestry adds records ALL the time to their database and does not raise the cost of the subscription every time they add new material. The cost of one of their subscriptions cannot compare with the costs for on site research unless you are fortunate enough to live near the facilities you require. Or the convenience - can you go to the library or a repository at midnight and look up records on a Sunday afternoon?

- If Ancestry wanted to be the only game in town, then why is that they are not the first company to enter into an agreement with the NARA? Just because their aim is to offer as much as they can to their subscribers shouldn't mean that they are trying to control anything. They are in fact trying to expand their offerings to make it easier for all of us researchers.

- Of course there are plenty of free websites which offer great information - I use them all the time along with my Ancestry.com subscription - but - and this is directed to Linda - where did you get the idea that census images are available for free? The LDS has a limited amount recently made available for those registered in their pilot program to access, but certainly do not cover 1790-1930!

- If Ancestry made this a separate offering then they would have to break down their entire database and offer it piecemeal and that would cost all of us a lot more money than a single subscription price. If you can save 50 cents a day then you can afford to subscribe to the US database at the yearly rate and if you can save about 80 cents a day, you can afford the World Subscription. Think about it! It more than pays for itself.

- Mary, thank you - you said it right - go to the library and use Ancestry there and just see what they have to offer. I and so many others are indebted to Ancestry's efforts of digitizing so many records and getting so much information online. My research would be nowhere near where it is right now if it wasn't for all that I have found there.

- Allen, just what is your beef? Do you want to pay more taxes so the governemtn will do it? Do you want to wait the years it would take for them to complete it? Or do you want to be able to have access to these records like the rest of us do in a more timely basis?

enough said. Back to work.

[Carlos]

The anti-Ancestry crybaby types sit in their trailers all day, looking for free Blogs and discussion boards upon which they can bemoan the subscription cost of Ancestry, blame Ancestry for global warming and the high cost of gas. Of course these people would be the first to bellyache about their increased taxes if NARA were to fund this digitization with taxpayer money rather than relying on private sector help. Trust me, if it required an annual subscription to post on this blog, they wouldn't be here. I'm happy to pay for both Ancestry and Footnote and I work.

[Lawrence H. "Larry" Head, Jr.]

Based on my frequent use of Ancestry.com, I agree that their derivative data contains many flaws. On the other hand, any product of human effort will include errors. But, considering that Ancestry.com has liberated me from traveling further than my PC, I have been spared the expense of God-only-knows how many hours and dollars. Thanks to Ancestry.com I have accomplished things I never would have dreamed of.

Also, it seems that those choosing to do so may still exercise the option of dealing directly with NARA. And if you think that NARA's service is cheap or prompt, then you're in for quite a shock.

And, as others have said, you can probably access Ancestry.com for no more than the cost of a library card.

Bottom line: three cheers for Ancestry.com, and let the digitization begin.

[Linda]

QUALITY OF ANCESTRY.COM DATABASES IS AN ISSUE. I have been an Ancestry.com subscriber for over 10 years and have seen the decline in the quality of their records. Yes, I know there are human errors in transcribing the indexes that cannot be avoided. However, there are errors that can be avoided. Errors in importing databases is something that should have been caught! Omitted pages or misindexed pages should have been caught with quality processes. TGN seems to use users to identify errors rather than having strong internal quality processes. This is true with Ancestry.com and this has been true with FTM 2008. I believe the decline in quality is the main reason for the anti-Ancestry.com sentiment. Correcting poor quality after implementation is far more costly than implementing quality processes before release.

COULD THE GOVERNMENT ENFORCE QUALITY PROCESSES? - Any contractor for other government contracts must prove that they have implemented quality processes so hopefully NARA would provide oversight to ensure quality processes were implemented in digitization of the records or take the contract away from Ancestry.com.

COST OF DIGITIZATION - I don't live in a trailer park (that was a mean comment Carlos) and I'm a computer professional so I understand digitization and indexing is not cheap. NARA and other governmental agencies have already provided a lot of information online with our taxpayer dollars. I'm sure that cost lots less than 50 cents per day per person. However that being said, I am willing to share some of the cost for access but don't want to be tied into a full Ancestry.com subscription for the records within this potential contract. I want the option to pay for a subset IF and only if the quality is there.

SUBSCRIPTION PLANS? Ancestry.com used to offer subscriptions to subsets which were more valuable to me than paying for the entire US subscription that has a whole lot that is meaningless. As taxpayers, we have the right to pay for admission to one national park or buy a golden pass to access all parks. Why can't it be the same way with access to government records? If this potential contract goes through, Ancestry will benefit from additional subscribers to their full subscriptions whether or not they offer subscriptions to subsets of the information. They shouldn't penalize those of us or other taxpayers by requiring payment for access to databases that are not within this proposed contract.

LIBRARIES/FREE RESOURCES - We have a lot of choices for spending an average of 50 cents a day but each 50 cents you spend on Ancestry could be used to obtain something more valuable no matter what your income. I understand the argument that Ancestry.com is offered at many libraries for library use. But some of us work and have families and you must use Ancesty.com at the library where computer time is often restricted. I plan to drop Ancestry.com out of principal and to use that 50 cents a day elsewhere. Yes, I may make a visit to the library if there is something I don't have access to elsewhere. With 10 years of Ancestry.com and home access to Heritage Quest, I doubt that will be the case.

CENSUS RECORDS FROM HOME - Many libraries offer access FROM HOME to their subscription to Heritage Quest with your library card number. They have most census records that Ancestry.com has and many more images of local and family history books and growing all the time. I have found images on Heritage Quest that either were missing, misindexed, or unreadable on Ancestry.com. In addition to census and books, they have the PERSI index. There is an order form to get the articles through Allen Public County Library. My library also provides access to historical newspapers and obituaries that I have to pay for as part of my subscription on Ancestry.com. My husband and I have had jobs that have taken us to three different cities and each city has offered Heritage Quest access from home with a library card number.

VOLUNTEER NETWORKS - Many people who do genealogy are generous with sharing information. I admit the search functionality is partly why we have to pay for Ancesty.com. It is often more efficient than surfing for some types of information. However, there are sources out there on the internet that give you more valuable information by networking with cousins, surfing volunteer sites such as Heritage Trails. These volunteer sites often give you information about the locations and families that help your researched subjects come alive.

To sum it up, TGN needs to improve their quality processes and subscription plan offerings to get me back on their side.

[Kim]

As a librarian, I just want to gently remind folks that the Ancestry Library Edition and the private subscription to Ancestry is by no means the same thing. The Library Edition has "trimmed" content. In other words, you don't get all the good stuff. Go figure. For example, the US Passport series that you get "at home" is not currently available in Ancestry Library. No DNA or Learning Center sections, either. So, I wonder, then, how long it will take for "new" content from NARA to filter down to the Library Edition? Also, since Ancestry can create two editions (and apparently an edition for the new Borders superstores, too!), it would seem they could create a NARA-only content edition easily enough. As to commercial interests mixing with our national records - that which seems easiest is not always what is best. Sure, we all want quick access to these records - and digitization is the way to go - but, PLEASE - this is the United States' National Archives we are talking about here. Do you mean to tell me that the United States can't afford to digitize its own historic records? If not, couldn't we all just kick in one year's worth of Ancestry (or Footnote or whatever) subscription money to defray the costs of perpetual, online free access for all? Professional archivists at NARA - and not corporate hirelings - need to digitize these records as part of their long-term, permanent public mission to ensure the preservation and open, free dissemination of our nation's collective documental history. If it costs, it costs. Otherwise, you are inviting the government to create cafeteria-style public institutions: "no, I don't want that dish of digital pension records, but pass that plate of pothole repair for our Interstate system." Genealogists (and I'm one, too) worry about "saving" their family's history for posterity, yet ironically many are so quick to sell the soul of the records that created their research in the first place. For shame.

[Also a Librarian]

Ancestry Library Edition DOES have the US Passport records.
http://content.ancestrylibrary.com/iexec/?htx=List&dbid=1174
(Obviously, the above link will not work for those who are not at a library that subscribes to Ancestry Library Edition.)

Linda, if a patron wants to get access to the DNA or Learning Center portions of Ancesty.com, then just direct him or her to the regular (individual subscription) site. Those portions of Ancestry.com are free to all -- no subscription needed -- even at a library.

[Bonnie]

My big gripe with Ancestry is the simple fact that they don't care if the information offered is correct or not.

Also, they are careful to minimize the notification to those who pay for their web site THAT their data will be immediately gathered and incorporated in World Family Tree. It happens everytime you do a search and link with a name on a census etc. It will then be packaged and resold to other people, who can and do click and add your information to theirs, even if it really isn't their family at all.

I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I TESTED THEM... I put up a tree with identificable information... only to me. I then ran another tree and asked for suggestions... within a heart beat I was getting my own information fed back to me as part of some supposedly accurate genealogy information, a composite of trees submitted by subscribers.

If you were robbed, would you say you had submitted your money to the robber, I think not. Even if you make your tree private, some information is still available to be grabbed and used incorrectly. If you remove your tree, whatever they have gotten their money grubbing paws on will remain in the wild... and if you made a mistake and want to correct it... God help you, because you aren't ever going to be able to fix it all.

As far as FREE Roots Web goes, they let people put up living persons information, social security numbers, incorrect data... and say... WE DON'T SAY THIS IS ACCURATE... what garbage.

This latest naked power play with RootsWeb should put everyone on high notice that Ancestry intends to be the only player on the block.

Information is being sliced and diced to the point that a person will have to pay many thousands to do research, because critical pieces are all over the net. They quietly own many, many sites that people believe are independent. Plus the egregious and deceptive use of their "free search" plants on every site you take a look at is an enormous waste of time. By law, every linking with anything owned by Ancestry.com should have to be labeled as A.C. right there on the site, so you don't waste time clicking to go to their advertisement.

As far as those of us who want accurte information and complain about AC... there are a lot of places, state governments etc, that offer the chance to go through documents or indexes and request documents that are the originals. Yes you have to look. After you are done looking, does it make sense that your data should be FREELY and INCORRECTLY linked FOREVER to SOMEONE'S INCORRECT TREE? Those who don't care if their genealogy is accurate should go find another sandbox to play in.

American public records are just that, the property of the American People... not the property of some Private Corporation intend on charging for inaccurate information (dam the errors full speed ahead), inferior OCR equipment, pitifully NON INTUTIVE SEARCHES, which incase you haven't noticed, are structured to jam, buy another data base in your face, WHENEVER you make a search. Looking for someone in America? I guarantee you, no matter how tight and accurate your peramaters, you will get force fed "opportunites NOT to MISS out" right in the middle of your hunt". Results will be mixed in with obviously non related names, dates, locations.

WHAT World Family Tree boils down to is a lot of people put up accurate information based on personal knowledge and hard research work because the information would be free forever. Then it was combined with a lot of half wits who skip through data bases clicking right and left, ignorant of and NOT caring about the basics of good genealogy research and just want to point and click to their little heart and brains content. Just click on anyone with the same name... OH, that MUST be my John Jones, who else could have that name. Research is work, not point and click.

The LDS Church has done two things, they have stirred an interest in genealogy and they have preserved many actual records that are invaluable for true researchers. Kudos to them for that, it is an invaluable service. Hand in glove with this is the absolute disservice to all those interested in accurate genealogy of their acceptance of anything to be put out as "family trees".

This information submitted for SEALING ceremonies cannot be trusted as to it's accuracy because it is driven by religious fervor. Information generated by LDS members in a religious fervor to SEAL people for all eternity, who do not care if they are "SEALING" the correct people together or not. Since the LDS Church believes in reproduction of souls after death, if a person is "SEALED" to the wrong individuals, what do you think happens then.

Enormous amouts of data yanked off the LDS site ends up on World Family Tree and gets repeated ad nauseum by fools who do not do their own research. A careful study of what passes for family trees on Ancestry will make some laugh and some gag. Those of us who are hard researchers with high standards will gag... Others will have trees with 50,000 close relatives... who's data they never checked... and these trees will most likely include lots of todays celebrities, royalty and possibly Adam and Eve, will laugh.

Ancestry, if it stuck to trees submitted with full documentation, I mean census, land contracts, wills, previous vetted documents, it would be very useful... but it doesn't, it promotes bogus family trees... and does NOT deliver on it's promises of documentation... just a citation you are supposed to believe, because it came from a lot of data put together and everyone "knows" it's true.

It's borderline fraudulent on lots of stuff it offers and frankly it should be held to some higher standards... but it won't be. Because there are so many people who like to jump up and say... if you don't like it you must be a cheap jerk... it saves me money. No doubt it saves some money, IF you are getting accurate information, if you are willing to dig, and dig and NEVER take anything at face value and above all, NEVER, NEVER just click and add a tree without doing an indicidual check on EVERY SINGLE PERSON in it.

[Carlos]

Whew Bonnie. Take a chill pill. I'm just glad YOU'RE not in my family tree. I'll take what you refer to as 'fools and half wits' any day. As long as they are nice fools and half wits. ; )

Besides, anyone who tells me to ""...NEVER just click and add a tree without doing an indicidual check..." obviously doesn't check their work for spelling, so I'd be very suspicious of your facts and data too.

[Barbara A. Dethlefsen]

Why didn't NARA enter into an agreement with the LDS to digitize their records? The LDS wants to digitize as many records as possible and make them available to the public at little or no cost.