Follow-up: I Have a Complaint Concerning Many Genealogists

On the evening of May 22, I read one too many comments complaining about "the high cost of online genealogy services." I wrote a knee-jerk reaction article that pointed out what a bargain these services are. I posted that article online in this newsletter's web site and went to bed.

I guess I struck a sensitive chord: I awoke the next morning to find dozens of newsreaders' comments posted at the end of my article. I watched in amazement throughout the day and evening as still more and more comments were posted. As I now write this new article 4 days later, 210 readers' comments have been posted, more than quadruple the number ever posted to any other article in this newsletter over the past twelve years!

If you haven't yet seen those comments, you might like to see what everyone is writing at http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/05/i-have-a-compla.html.

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to offer their views and suggestions. The experience of reading all those comments was heartwarming.

Next, while roughly 95% of these messages supported my views, a few did not, a few asked follow-on questions, and still a few more made statements that I feel were erroneous or vague. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the comments posted.

I will offer the reader's comments in quotes and then follow that with my observations:

"I don't think anyone ever claimed it became Ancestry's PROPERTY. The real misinformation here is your claim that THAT is what they believe."

Actually, the truth is just the opposite. If you look at the comments posted on this newsletter's site in the past two or three weeks, you will see several people who posted comments claiming that the records became Ancestry's property. You and I are in agreement: those records are not Ancestry's property at all. Those records are public domain and will always be public domain, despite the stated beliefs of some people.

"What they object to is that the government FORCES them to use commercial services that abuse their near-monopoly position to GREEDILY OVERPRICE their services."

I can offer several comments here. First, there is no monopoly and never has been. You can always access those records in the same manner as we have for years. The old-fashioned method remains available, all we are talking about is the additional options that we enjoy today. They remain just that: options.

By Federal law, the agencies MUST provide information to anyone who asks for it. The agencies may charge a fee to cover costs, but they cannot be selective. That is why you see the same census records on Ancestry.com, HeritageQuest Online, FamilySearch, and most recently on Footnote.com. There is no monopoly when at least four different online sites are offering Federal census records and more.

If Ancestry.com asks a U.S. Federal agency for information, the answer will always be "Yes." If Footnote.com asks for the same information, the answer will always be "Yes." If World Vital Records asks for the same information, the answer will always be "Yes." If still another company comes along and asks for the same information, the answer will still be "Yes." NARA and the other agencies are not allowed to say "No." (I am deliberately ignoring a few exceptions here, such as classified information, restricted personal information, and previous agreements that specify exclusivity for a few years. NARA and other agencies may grant exclusive arrangements for a few years but cannot deny access forever.)

The fact that there is no monopoly is the reason that we see U.S. census records on Ancestry.com, on HeritageQuest Online, on FamilySearch and on Footnote.com. There is no monopoly. These four organizations and more are completely free to offer the same material.

Several people posted comments suggesting that the Federal government should post information online directly and not partner with commercial firms at all. 

I think this is a very bad idea. First, there is no requirement for the government to offer the data online at all. In fact, given today's Federal budgets, there is no way that any governmental agency is going to spend millions of dollars for web servers, disk farms, data centers, etc. to offer data online. Even if they did, current Federal law would require the government to charge fees to cover their costs of providing that data. (The same law is the reason we pay outrageous fees to obtain application forms from the Social Security Administration.)

Experience has shown that commercial firms that partner with government agencies generally are more efficient and provide services at lower fees than what the government agencies can do on their own.

For instance, Footnote.com charges $1.95 to view one document. The Social Security Administration (a government agency) charges $27.00 to obtain a photocopy of one document, the Original Application for Social Security Card (SS-5). In both cases, we are talking about a copy of a single sheet of paper.

To obtain a photocopy of a Union soldier's Civil War pension record, you first pay the National Archives $75. (Last year the National Archives proposed raising that fee to $125 but later rescinded the proposal.) Commercial firms do not yet have all the Civil War pension records available online; but, when they do, the fees to access them will be a fraction of NARA's exorbitant $75 fee.

Which fees do you prefer: The outrageous high fees of the government agencies or the more reasonable fees of commercial partners such as Footnote.com or even the free access of FamilySearch.org? I hope the government agencies NEVER offer information online themselves since I probably won't be able to afford it!

"I don't personally subscribe to Ancestry or any of the other sites. My objection is NOT cost, though it may be prohibitive for some. Rather, even when many of these (so-called) services offer (so-called) free information, I find I must FIRST post on their site vast amounts of the family information that I HAVE LABORED FOR YEARS TO COLLECT."

I don't believe that Ancestry.com has ever required anyone to contribute anything. You can obtain all the information you want from Ancestry.com and most other commercial genealogy sites without contributing anything. Some sites may invite or even encourage people to add their personal genealogy to the online resource; however, that is never a requirement.

"I do have a complaint about paying for information and getting superficial and erroneous information. The data on several subscription sites are rife with transcription errors that the companies have no intention of correcting."

I agree completely and can offer only one piece of advice: Complain! Call them and demand your money back. All corporations will react when their customers start demanding refunds!

"I recall a news item about the Smithsonian, I believe, in which someone there actually gave rights to information to a TV channel -- thus pre-empting their competitors from getting similar access."

The Smithsonian is not a government agency. It is a charitable trust and therefore is not subject to the laws and regulations that govern Federal agencies. The rules are different.

"...the government handing information gathered at taxpayer expense to a company for profit is NOT acceptable practice. If Ancestry BUYS the information and the re-sells it, that's different."

As explained above, Federal law stipulates that government agencies MUST supply the information at no cost, other than asking for reimbursement of actual expenses. The National Archives and Records Administration is legally bound to supply the information to Ancestry.com, Footnote.com, FamilySearch.org, WorldVitalRecords.com and anyone else who asks. However, the National Archives and Records Administration typically does charge a steep fee (thousands of dollars) to cover the agency’s expenses in making that information available. (I am deliberately ignoring a few exceptions here, such as classified information, restricted personal information, and previous agreements that specify exclusivity for a few years. NARA and other agencies may grant exclusive arrangements for a few years but cannot deny access forever.)

"May I have permission to quote a few lines - not the entire article but more the general idea and comparisons - for our next magazine issue?"

Certainly. I'd be flattered. In fact, all Standard Edition articles in this newsletter may be republished elsewhere for non-commercial use although I do ask that you attribute the source of the article. For details, go to most any page on this newsletter's web site at http://www.eogn.com, look at the menus in the upper right corner of the page, and click on COPYRIGHTS.

"If you don't like the program on the TV, turn it off."

Amen!

I will also add comments about two things that perhaps should have been in the original article:

1. Ancestry.com is and was an early leader in the field of offering genealogy information online. As the first company to dominate the field, Ancestry.com had the luxury of setting its own prices, and those prices were high. I will not argue that. I recently paid nearly $300 for a one-year renewal of my Ancestry.com subscription. That's a lot of money. However, the world runs on competition, and we are now beginning to see the benefits of that.

New players have entered into the online genealogy marketplace in the past couple of years and are now offering information at much lower prices. Footnote.com charges $7.95 for a one-month membership (and an annual subscription price of $59.95). WorldVitalRecords.com has a somewhat more complicated pricing structure that starts at $49.95 for a two-year subscription to the U.S. material. The online services in the United Kingdom are also becoming very aggressive in their pricing.

To be sure, Ancestry.com got a big "head start" in offering information online. The newer services have not yet obtained as much information as what Ancestry.com already offers. However, the newer online services are adding millions of records per month, and I suspect the financial impact is already being felt at Ancestry.com headquarters in Provo. History has shown that competition is a great thing in the commercial world, driving prices down over a period of years. I believe the lower-cost services will take away some of Ancestry.com's business and then the inevitable will happen: Ancestry.com will be forced to lower prices in order to match the competition. I doubt if that will happen this year but I am certain that it will happen.

I'd suggest that we not lump all commercial services together and consider them all to be too expensive. Only one major player has high fees. Let's also not assume that the pricing will be the same forever.

By the way, experience also has shown that governmental agencies rarely reduce their fees. Also, experience shows that the National Archives’ fees are much, much higher than those of the commercial firms. Who do we REALLY want to obtain information from: an agency or a competitive corporate partner?

2. Many of the for-pay services are available at no charge through local libraries. Your tax dollars may have already paid for a subscription that you can use. HeritageQuest Online, Ancestry Library Edition, Footnote.com, and others may be available to you today at no charge. Some of these libraries will even allow you to sit at home and access genealogy information by logging into the library's web site.

I'd suggest you check at your local library to find out. If the closest library doesn't offer these databases, ask if another library in the region offers such access. For instance, I live in Massachusetts, and I discovered that every Massachusetts resident can obtain free access to HeritageQuest Online from home. Other states may have similar arrangements.

I was once told by a senior executive of one of these online companies that 90% of all Americans already have free access to his company's offerings. He then admitted that most Americans were not aware of that availability. You just might be one of those 90%. Ask!

In closing, I’ll add a comment to those who took offense to some of my words about those who “ignore certain facts,” as I put it. You may recall that I added a caution right below the title of that article:

    Warning: This article contains personal opinions.

I pledged to “hold the sugar coating” many moons ago, and I am committed to offering my readers this genealogy buff’s opinions as long as they find them helpful. Judging from the majority of comments, I think enough people support this approach for me to continue doing just that. I don’t censor opposing comments on my blog, so it should come as no surprise if I provide my own strong opinions when I feel the need to do so.

Did I sway any current opinions? Maybe not. However, all too often a vocal minority can appear to be larger than it is, only because the satisfied majority is not as noisy. Many of those people spoke out this week in agreement, and it’s encouraging to see the extent of support, both for my efforts and for the commercial services that benefit so many genealogists who cannot travel to repositories because of time constraints, budgetary restrictions, or physical limitations. Thanks to all of you! Perhaps most importantly, many who have wondered if these services are, in fact, a valuable investment may have a better perspective when choosing their own research methods.

Comments

[Linda]

Dick, you said in regard to federal government offering data online: "Even if they did, current Federal law would require the government to charge fees to cover their costs of providing that data. (The same law is the reason we pay outrageous fees to obtain application forms from the Social Security Administration.)"

Your examples make no sense. Social Security Application forms are searching individually by hand. Other examples you've given involve the manual retrieval of records. Of course, it is going to involve high fees for manual retrieval. Commercial vendors, if doing the same manual process, would offer even higher fees than the government.

Let's look at a better comparison. Federal court records are online and there is a per page fee that is not that bad. As far as I understand, those records were placed online under a government contract with the digital records remaining the property of the government. Digitization is not something that the government hasn't done in the past. If you go to several government sites, you will see records that have been scanned and indexed. Much of it is free. I'm guessing that data was scanned under a government contract where the government retained the ownership of the data. Even NARA offers data online already.

NARA is RESPONSIBLE for preservation of the records. No, there may not be a requirement for digitization and search ability online. But not to do it under a government contract with quality requirements and retention of the ownership of the data by the government is short sighted. The original records have a life and if handled over the years by multiple commercial partnerships will endanger the preservation of the records. The government will be more efficient if they can offer online services vs. manually retrieving dats in response to single requests. The public will benefit in being able to more quickly retrieve data from a government charge for a small amount of research and yet have the choice to go to a commercial vendor if they do extensive research. Choices are good. The partnership method only adds the choice of subscribing to Ancestry and/or whatever partnerships have the data a citizen wants.

You say that commercial companies can digitize more efficiently. Maybe some could but as a taxpayer, I want any partnership of the government to be under strict quality standards and this partnership agreement does not provide it. There is nothing in the agreement that provides quality standards. Based on Ancestry's history, they need oversight. Ancestry couldn't even import a NARA database (WWII Enlistment records) correctly and they obviously didn't follow quality processes in developing FTM 2008? Is that the type of vendor you want to handle masses of the PEOPLE's records? In handling the precious PEOPLE's records, I would rather see a commercial concern have some oversight by the government with a standard database structure and retention of ownership of the data by the government. Or else, we are going to be paying those "outrageous" copying fees forever whenever that lack of quality results in our inability to find the data under the subscription. Then another company will go in there and scan and index records reducing the life of the originals even further. Is that what we want?

As I have argued before, Ancestry, Footnote, and whoever can purchase the data digitized directly under a government contract and resale it to the subscribers. Heck, Ancestry has a lot of data that is available for free on government websites already. It is the convenience of searching multiple databases at once that is part of the justification for subscribing. You say competition is good. You bet it is. Even if the government offered the data online for a usage fee (no doubt far less than for individually searching, copying, and mailing), the services will not suffer and will be able to pay for their own storage and retrieval expenses with the subsciptions. I noted in a previous posting that this business model is done with government available court records that are available on government sites and through commercial vendors. It works for the government and for the commercial vendors who buy the data! It can with NARA's records too.

So again, open your eyes to alternatives. Don't dismiss a business case that has already been proven successful in other digitization projects. The comments in the previous thread you started seemed to be a debate of whether commercial genealogy vendors offer good services rather than focusing on the question of whether NARA made the best decision in offering UNREGULATED partnerships with commercial vendors. So, I wouldn't say they necessarily agree with the idea that the partnership is the BEST AND ONLY way to digitize the PEOPLE's records.

[Elyse]

Here is my only issue with Ancestry.com:

They take the information that I gathered after hours, years even of hard work and put it on a CD and charge people to see it.

They take the information that I have given and try and combine it with someone else's in a new database. I understand the basic concept: if you have a bunch of descendants of Joe Johnson then it makes sense to put all of the information on Joe Johnson together so that people can see everything on that person and all of the sources. However, Ancestry is KNOWN for their mistakes, combining the wrong people, not requiring sources, and putting out HORRIBLE transcriptions. Honestly...I'm paying hundreds of dollars for them to take my hard work, charge other people for it, and mess up my hard work into some database with misinformation.

I don't want them to put my hard work onto some CD and sell it for $12.95 - I worked hard to create that and I don't mind giving it out for free as long as people give me credit.

It's like if I took your articles, reproduced them, didn't give you any credit, and then sold it with a bunch of other articles from professional genealogists for a high price. It's just wrong.

And if they are going to put my hard work into a database - that database better be free (I can't remember if the OneWorldTree Database on Ancestry is free or not...) and it better be accurate. If you are going to combine my information with someone elses - then list the similiarities AND differences so that other genealogists can make an educated decision on whether it is probable or not and whether to research the possibility.

All I ask if that I'm going to pay a ton of freaking money for the information and to view the images and to view the indexes - Then they better be ACCURATE!!!!

I don't think that is so much to ask...

[Donna]

I don't understand the people who complain about Ancestry "taking" their work and charging others to see it. How did Ancestry get the information in the first place? Didn't those individuals hand it over? If you post your research on Ancestry, you can't complain about what happens afterwards.

I've seen a lot of my research turn up on the Internet, posted by others, and it's been missing sources and riddled with errors. If I know who posted it, I try to contact that person to make corrections, but it's not always possible. Basically, once you give out the information you've gathered, you have no more control over it and how it is used.

[Tony]

As you rightly say the commercial pressures are continuing to grow in the UK with Ancestry and FindMyPast challenging each other and trying to get more esoteric sets of data. Whatever your views of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, their familysearch website suffers from opposition from parts of the Anglican church in England and Wales. Some diocese are also taking an interest in what happens to the information in parish registers. Even if the parish register has been deposited in the county record office it is still the property of the church and can be removed or have other restrictions places upon it.

The cost of collecting this parish register data is high due to the fragmented nature and difficulty to transcribe. This work has been the area of local Family History Society. Who have been able, under licence, to fill this niche to provide search services to supplement their income from membership. These societies are starting to feel the commercial pressure and will become less viable unless they respond by attempting to capture their share of the world market through website marketing of search services and CD sales. This could be $15 to $25 price of a parish transcription, or a search of a database covering a whole county. Will this price pay for the taxi ride from home to the airport for a visit to the UK to do your own research?

You saw the Family History Society stands in one corner of Olympia this year, some may not be there next year due to the change of dates or the lack of return for their expenses. They were dealing in the real nitty gritty of family history research, records, records, and more records.

I have not said which Society I am from as I believe this applies to all.
We briefly met on the Saturday of WDYTYA this year, just another face in the crowd, but one who puts effort in supporting others in their family history research.

[Penny in Texas]

I must note here that I've gotten copies of compiled military service records from NARA , from commercial military records vendors as well, and now from Footnote. The clearest and best copies I've obtained were downloaded from Footnote. The worse ones were practically unreadable and were obtained directly from NARA; and Nara did not send all the cards, either. Two separate commercial vendors provided copies with quality midway of those two extremes. The price of two CMSRs will pay for a years subscription to Footnote.com and I consider that a real bargain. (I can't imagine what it would have cost to obtain my 4xG-grandfather's Revolutionary War pension records from NARA or from a military records vendor - it's 80-something pages worth.)

My point being that sometimes a bit of comparison shopping brings a pay-site's value into clearer focus. I hope and think that Dick's right ... the price of some of these subscriptions will go down in time due to competition. I also think NFS will continue to put a great deal of pressure on all the pay-sites, as more and more of their records become available online.

At any rate, the added venues for researching makes the hobby much simpler and more fun than it was 30 years ago!

Penny

[Sue]

I love Ancestry.com. I have made more discoveries than I can count over the years via Ancestry and could never have made it so far in my research without the digitized records offered there. The annual subscription is less than the cost of one trip to a repository (although those trips are still essential when time is available). Well worth the price!

[Sherry]

I have enjoyed all the exchange on this topic. I hope that all those on both sides of the free issue are participating in the free market by voluntereing to do local look-ups, taking cemetery photos, or helping to index local material. I know I should be doing more.

[Tina]

Ancestry has a special offer available to LDS Family History Center Patrons. If the FHC is logged into Ancestry Institutions; an email may be requested from Ancestry to the patron's home for reduced subscription fees. The savings for the patron for a yearly subscriptions is $50 - $100.

Also, the FHC may have access to a number of the other subscription sites that the patrons may use for only the cost of printouts. My local FHC can view Footnote, World Vital Records, Godfrey Memorial Library, Heritage Quest and Genline.com (Swedish Parish Records) using a portal site.

[Margaret]

My complaint is not that I have to pay for informaion, I belong to Ancestry and a couple other groups, My complaint is that you see an advertisement that you can get information "free" and when you click and find what your looking for the next screen says you can have all the info for
$39.95 or some such amount. Now how is that free?
You know, you do not have to send your information
to Ancestry or any other group if you're afraid it
they will charge for some one else looking at it.
And as some one else said there is a delete button
on the keyboard and very easy to use.
Margaret

[Diane]

Quite frankly I don't get the hang-up people have about sharing their family history. If the quality of my research meets my standards when it leaves me, I really don't care what someone else does with it. (In fact I'd love for some close relative to use my research and write a book, so I wouldn't feel so guilty for not having done it myself, yet! I'd purchase it with glee!) If someone posts my tree online even if a few errors are added, so be it. I don't care about credit, all I care is the information is available to others. If this concept upsets you, don't share your family history with others. Let your kids toss it in the dumpster when you die.

I have spent numerous hours and thousands of dollars on obtaining documentation for my findings. We've traveled all over the US and Canada researching. I know the quality of my research and I share all my findings and copies of documentation with each family member I come in contact with without charge. Many send a thank you renumeration, but I never ask nor charge one. I've gained information, photos, obituaries etc and a much better understanding of the specific family group by developing these partnerships with previously unknown relatives. I've discovered over the years sharing the family story is the greatest reward of my genealogy work with brickwall solutions a close second.

[Bill Colcord]

Dick;

I don't know if many have commented on this previously, but I have refused to subscribe to ancestry.com in the past because of their questionable practice of forcing you to take positive action to cancel trial/free subscription periods. The concern may stem partly from my potential lack of "do diligence" in the short term, but I feel this practice has a propensity to take advantage of the general public, therefore they are not getting my business in the long term. I haven't check recently if this is still their policy.

Bill Colcord

[Sharon Lowry]

Australian researching is looking better every day, most of out States have free access to records including BDM's (Births, Deaths & Marriages)plus a wealth of other useful documents, if we want extra information that is only available on a certificate then we pay a fee for the certificate, but if we only want the parents of a birth then we don't need to buy the certificate as the online records shows the information, same goes for marriages, just look it up on the States website. We can even download military records at no charge.

God Bless Australia - we are free.

[Mary Beth]

For those looking for compiled service records and pension records for Civil War ancestors, ask around at your local genealogy or history society and find the name of someone who lives in D.C. who will look up and copy the records. I found someone through such a recommendation. For many pages of service records for five Union soldiers (I had already ordered the pension records from the govt), the man I used charged $68.57. This included all copying at $1/page and priority mail. I had a fat envelope full of copies within a week!! I can't include his name here because I don't have his permisssion, but I've heard other genealogists who have used different researchers with the same happy results. There are always different approaches to the same problem. What makes a person a good genealogist who's able to solve thorny problems should serve you well to figure out how to get info as cheaply as possible.

[Linda]

Folks....while I have many sympathies with those of you who are unhappy with Ancestry and their practices, you all seem to be avoiding the issue of whether NARA's partnership agreement is the best approach. Your concerns about Ancestry and other vendors may say something about NARA'S lack of standards in selecting partners BUT the real issue here is whether NARA is acorrect in offering partnership agreements.

In my opinion, NARA is short sighted in that they allow access to the fragile records without imposing quality reproduction standards and with only the commercial vendor having ownership of the digitized data. As I understand it the partners allow NARA to use the data at their facility but the future of the distribution of the data is dependent upon the vendor. For the person who said the NARA copy of the record was of poorer quality than Footnote's, realize that NARA was probably searching filmstrips and we all know that the filming for filmstrips and copies from the filmstrips was not nearly as good as modern scanning and printing techniques. The aging technology of microfilm points out that NARA needs to replace it with scanned images. The government has done this with federal court records and resold the data to commercial vendors. States are able to digitize records and offer them online for free. I bet they did that through competitive bids with commercial vendors. I think the Arizona and Missouri death certificate images and government websites are done very well. The images through federal court sites for a fee are also done very well especially when you consider scanning imaging was not nearly as good 10 years ago as it is now.

I offer an alternative contract method. The alternative is what the government does all the time....have competitive bids to SCAN the data and provide search mechanisms on the internet for either free or fee access via a government website. The government would set the standards for the digitization project which BECAUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGY will exceed the quality of the copies you get now. Any fees will be offsetting the costs of technology for multiple records vs. some poor government worker manually going through filmstrip and paper records and copying individual requests that take hours and may actually be done multiple times. Some of the costs will be offset by the resale of the data to genealogy services. This creates competition and the services will compete to provide additional indexes and search mechanisms not available on the government site. Subscribers would benefit of having additional databases there for the convenience of searching multiple databases at once. Non-subscribers who want just a couple records could go to the government site and download what they need either for free or a fee depending upon the budget of NARA.

Another advantage of having a government contract where the government retains ownership of the digitized data is that the data will be there for a long time and the records will have a minimum of handling which helps NARA fulfill its responsiblity for preserving the records. What if the "partner" dissolves? Under the current partnership approach, who is going to rescan the images when customers find that there are a lot of records that have been poorly scanned? Are other vendors going to be allowed to go in with their own digitization projects? How is this going to affect the lifetime of the fragile records that NARA is responsible for?

Whether you love or hate Ancestry and other commercial vendors, the partnershp agreement is short sighted in my opinion. Write to your representatives and senators and let them know that you want NARA to preserve the records through direct contract relationships with commercial digitization vendors rather than through the partnership agreements.

[Joyce]

Dick,
I want to thank you for your comments and I agree with you totally. I do subscribe to Ancestry.com and would not be as far in my research if it wasn't for them. For the price I pay I have gotten so much and will more than likely get alot more. I don't have the sources to be able to take trips to my ancestor's places of birth etc. so have used the internet in most of my research.
I also want to thank you for your comment on Footnote.com, I had just received an e-mail to subscribe to Footnote for a year, them giving me a discount of $10.00 (which according to your price would NOT have been a discount at all but $2.00 more) I THANK YOU FOR THAT. Again thank you for your blog I read it on a daily basis and have used ALOT of your suggestions.

[Joni Martines]

To Elyse, May 27th....Ancestry gives you the option all the time, of whether you want to accept what they found for you. They always have information that you can compare your records with. The site is pretty amazing if you ask me. It saved me tons of money, and I got alot of true facts from them, that I proved, by afterwards sending for the records. I can't drive, so to pay the price of all these web sites to do the hunting for me, knowing that I will have to do alittle more research to see if they coinside with mine, is alright with me. Most people don't know that ancestry has a " Get to Know Them " part in their site. Just click on there, and they will take you through a whole mess of ways to do your research.
I understand what how you feel about all your hard work you put into your research, but I've often spent days on Ancestry researching one fact, just to make sure everything was right.

I love it...............It's all at the tips of my fingers, Just be careful, know what you are doing, and always send for the original records. Ancestry is almost always right. I found that the family trees are where people mess things up. They get to excited to add that next person on their tree, and don't research it. Then when you go to research, their info will come up. Just remember, it's your right, whether or not you want to add that info or not. If you don't add it, and you find out later that you should have, it's still there.
I think those who have gotten some wrong info from Ancestry never took the time to research the results. I've done that when I was a Green Horn on the site, Now I know better, and I don't get stung anymore.
To me, with Dicks advice, Footnote, Ancestry, Cyndi's List, and all the other great web sites out there, One can simply not go wrong.

[Ken]

This discussion has been framed with regard to US federal governmental records. Other governmental juridictions even within the United States have different rules concerning information and access to it. Private entities such as churches and comercial firms have still different rules.

An observation: We have become so used to having our cake and eating it too! (And that applies as well to firms with business models that have favoured "exclusive" access to information.)

A few small comments:

1. Information is free. When information is arranged for ease of access or for ease of analysis, effort has been expended that must be compensated, or (eventually) no more effort will be expended. In this sense, energy in the form of money must be injected in order to keep the arranged information available. In the govenrmental system, this money comes from a combination of taxes and user fees. In the commercial world, this money comes fromsome form of business model. Those of us who subscribe are not paying for the information, but for the ease of access or analysis.

2. As you have pointed out before, we always have the option of going to the govenrmental repository and searching the records ourselves. This will cost us money (and user fees) - our injection of energy into the system. Or we can sit at home and pay for the convenience of searching in our house coats. Again we have added energy to the system.

3. There are transcription errors. There will always be those errors. The transcriptions, extracts, abstracts, indices, etc. are only as good as those who are doing the work. I would guess that much of what we have online is based on the efforts of unpaid society members. Good on them! We should all do our part to increase the amount of information that is available, and to reduce the errors that are in the information that is already available.

A prediction:

The world will not be the same in 2 years. Firms with a fee-for-exclusive-access business model will be forced to change that model.

[Claire Kluskens]

I'd like to respond to your comment about "NARA's exorbitant $75 fee" for a copy of a Civil War pension file. The real facts are: (1) Civil War pension files easily AVERAGE 100 pages each; (2) it takes a fairly long time to INDIVIDUALLY copy 100 pages (can't just run archival records through a document feeder you know); (3) the fee includes postage, copying, and labor costs. You're welcome to come do your own copying -- bet it costs you more in time and travel!

[Ray Friess]

I haved the same complaints about Ancestry.com as many others do .. or similar to those complaints.

Let me preface my comments by saying that overall, Ancestry has very good content. I check it when I am at family history libraries, but I will not subscribe to it myself for home use because of what I consider less than honorable marketing practices.

First, I am highly offended by their bait and switch tactics. They offer a "free" search of their databases. Yes, the searches are "free" and that is the bait. Then they pull the switch by demanding that you pay to see the results of the searches.

Second, if you fall for their request to send them your data, they give you no consideration at all when it comes to subscriptions or anything else. Once you send it it, you have to pay to see your own data or anything else. They should have enough consideration to give you a price break on subscriptions once you give them your data. I object to that taking your information and turning around and selling it to others, including selling it back to you if you want to view it online.

I am glad to see that some heavy competition is coming Ancestry's way. And, through a combination of other places, including some truly free ones, or ones I can access through my public library, I can get the same information that I can get in one place on Ancestry.

A business can only pull the wool over customer's eyes for so long before the public gets wise.

Now, with the LDS Church going full speed ahead with their digitization of records, I think that Ancestry will soon find a very small group of people available that they can pull the wool over the eyes of. I look forward to that day.
The church has the right philosophy. They insist that any projects they participate with others in MUST be available to the public either free of charge of for a very nominal cost to recoup certain costs. Those cahrges are a far cry from the exhorbitant costs that Ancestry charges.

[Dae Powell]

I was going to post, but Ken just said it all. WTG, Ken. My thoughts precisely!

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

[Marilyn(Lynn) hilty Sewell]

I belong to Ancestry.com and find it useful to some extent as it back up some of my research.

Dick, Do you have any itea as to when records of those who received a federal government retirement pension( not SSDI) will be posted. My father and many of my family were federal govenment workers and received a GS rating. I can find no where where these were listed.

[Bev Culp Epstein]

I didn’t see anyone point out the fact that Ancestry has page tools on the left hand side of the screen. I have on several occasions used that feature. Most of the time it is to correct a name spelling. On one record the census taker had listed the name of Grover as George. This was not a transcription error, but the census taker possibly hearing or writing the wrong name. Another correction was for a relative whose name was Zaida. It had been transcribed as Jaida. By using the correction tool I have been able to have the correction featured in the search. It will appear as a second name in brackets under the under the original name transcription. Many of the census records can be hard to read even if you know the name…can you imagine how hard it would be to read those all day and not make an error? Each time I have made a correction or comment I have received an email thanking me for taking the time to submit a corrected name to Ancestry.com so that other Ancestry members can also see the information I have shared. All corrections to Ancestry at this time are user supported, indexed and searchable. If we take the time to help correct these transcriptions we will all benefit.

[Becky Smith]

I generally don't read comments because I have no patients for whining. If you don't like what Ancestry.com is doing don't use their service. Spare us.

[Phyllis C. Stehm]

I would like to add my two cents to this discussion. Ancestry is a commercial business that provides a service for a fee, which is the usual mode of Amercian business. They are entitled to make a profit!
Users need to be aware of the pitfalls of the service. I teach an internet genealogy course at our local community college. My co-instructor and I make sure that our students are aware of the pros/cons of subscribing to various subscription services. We alert them to the "patron-submitted" areas and caution them about the information found there, as well as cautioning them about submitting their own family files. Ancestry does not require you to submit your family data files. I've been a member since 1999 and have never submitted a family file!
On the other hand, Ancestry does a marvelous job of putting up new and interesting databases. When I review old research to see what is now available, I am always amazed at new discoveries because these new databases have become available.
We advise our students as "Thrifty Genealogists", before subscribing to use "Ancestry Library Edition" for free at their local library to get a feel for it. This helps them discovery how much they might be able to use Ancestry.
Personally, I estimated the cost of driving (gas, mileage,tolls) to the nearest large genealogical library, plus 1 hour driving time each way, at about $50.00 per trip. In just three trips I have paid for my Ancestry US Deluxe Records subscription and had access to many databases not available at that large genealogical library. I used to make 10-12 trips a year to this repository, mostly to view census microfilm. Now I only go when I need to consult books or microfilm not available online.
The key to using any online subscription database is to be an informed user! And if you don't like all the advertising now on most subscription databases, just don't click on it.

[Dotty Hunt]

I believe, and am part of a new generation of genealogists who don't question the wisdom of paying for a subscription to websites such as Ancestory.com. I pay for the world deluxe version at $300 a year. That comes out to $25.00 a month. I can't get everything I want from Ancestory and it is only one avenue to secure data but $25.00 is more than reasonable. Currently, for example, the State of Iowa raised their fee for a death certificate to $15.00 and the application then has to be notarized, adding another $5.00 if I don't have access to a free notary service. But Ancestory is not the only source to secure documentation to my data and it shouldn't be. I can get "free" information through numerous, too many to list here, web sites where dedicated volunteers have taken the time to gather information and make it available to all who are researching in that location. In 5 years I have been able to gather more research than folks who have done this wonderful hobby for 20 years. You DO NOT have to make your information public on Ancestory. That is strictly a personal decision. You also have the luxury of never putting your information on there. If a person chooses to do that and makes their trees private it still gives other researchers a way to make a connection and ask for more information and vice versa. I too have spent a fortune on research and am not going to just hand that over to just anyone. I want something in return should they have something to share. I believe most comments and opinions about genealogy pay websites are un-informed, as is the case with many situations. There is just this knee jerk reaction to something they know nothing about. I appreciate and applaud your taking on this subject and being honest and up front about your beliefs. I couldn't agree more.

[Gordon Banks]

There is one other response to competition rather than lowering prices. That response is to buy the competitor out. This is the classic Microsoft strategy. Have we seen this in genealogy data companies? You bet.

[Doris Saunders]

I don't have anything to add at this time. I just wish to express reading all the comments has been helpful for me. I would like to add that I purchased George Morgan,s book on Ancestry.com and it has helped me greatly. I recommend this book to everyone. Doris

[Barbara Batchelder]

Well said, as usual, Dick! A couple of months ago when it was announced that Ancestry was going to place banners on all the USGenWeb pages hosted at RootsWeb, I was amazed at the backlash against Ancestry and voiced some of these same sentiments at a discussion by USGenWeb hosts for the area in which I volunteer. I had not realized there were so many that perceived Ancestry to be "the Evil One."

I live in Virginia, but my research centers around New York, several of the New England states, and Canada. Costs aside, I do not have the time to travel to the various locations I would need to visit to accomplish my research. Also, one can only accomplish so much visiting libraries and records halls in a given day. It takes time to identify what you want and to wait for someone to access volumes and bring them to you for review. You can spend hours reading through material that may or may not provide the information you seek. So, as much as I enjoy pouring through old volumes of town histories and other records, I can't get as much accomplished as I can online now that so much information is available. I also find my online research often provides some clues or facts that help to identify more specific items to research when I do get a chance to visit somewhere, so I make better use of the limited time I have at a particular location.

I have belonged to Ancestry for a number of years as well as the NEHGS, and I joined Footnote in the past year. There are other sites I subscribe to on a periodic basis when I find a need for them. Yes, Ancestry seems expensive, but compared to the costs to me in time and money, the cost seems nominal for the wealth of information I have found there. And, I am talking about access to digital copies of primary records not just names and dates someone may have posted that may or may not be accurate. I have also NEVER had to post any of my own information on Ancestry. Also, for me, one of the main advantages of Ancestry and other online services, is the ability to search or browse through census and other records. They may have information that is available elsewhere, but being able to search in one place is of extreme benefit to me. Yes, I have occasionally found errors in a transcription, etc., but I send in a correction and the error gets resolved. Also, Ancestry does offer some content on their site which is available for free, not just a free search. I recommend to anyone who is interested in a paid service like Ancestry to sign up for the free trial or pay for just one month (don't forget to cancel) when they really have the time to use it, and they may find a wealth of information during that time and not be out the cost of an annual subscription. Or, they may decide it is worth the cost to upgrade to an annual subscription.

As an IT professional and family history enthusiast, I know it takes a lot of resources to digitize and manage any type of information, and as Ken stated above, "Those of us who subscribe are not paying for the information, but for the ease of access or analysis." Every time Ancestry, or one of the other services to which I belong, posts something new online I immediately have another chance at learning something more about someone in my family tree, or at finally finding the key that will unlock the door on one of my "brickwalls."

I, for one, am glad there are so many resources available online and will continue to support them.

[Fred Lancet]

Even after being by called out on this by several readers, you are again comparing online commercial against off line governmental.
That is not straight talk, that is indeed deliberate dishonesty.

I dare you to be honest and compare comparing off line commercial against off line governmental and. online commercial against online governmental.
And not just federal records! There are many more records.

By the way, am I the only one who noticed that this blanket "reply" of ours you ignores Kim's cost calculations?
I see several rebuttals from Linda already, whose arguments you also ignored.

[Maggie]

Dick, I appreciate your post today and willingness to step back just a bit and respond to some of the issues raised. I do feel the need to respons regarding the Smithsonian "trust" and use of its assets - the following is from Wikipedia - to the point. It IS an entity of the federal government and charged with caring for our country's treasures. The reality is that taxpayers pay; federal employees are doing 80% of the work, and the Trust is not there to just serve up the assets to business without regard to their REAL customers. As I have noted before, I do not mind paying for services I need -- on top of my tax dollars. I am a realist. And I do believe competition will level the playing field. I do need to understand more about the purpose of your blog, and I certainly do totally understand and grant you the right to freedom of speech. You are in a position to answer multitudes of questions from common genealogy folks like me -- but I also realize that is probably not part of your own business plan. I wish you well -- controversy is good for the soul.

Administration
The Smithsonian Institution is established as a trust instrumentality by act of Congress, and it is functionally and legally a body of the federal government. More than two-thirds of the Smithsonian's workforce of some 6,300 persons are employees of the federal government. The Smithsonian is represented by attorneys from the United States Department of Justice in litigation, and money judgments against the Smithsonian are also paid out of the federal treasury.

The nominal head of the Institution is the Chancellor, an office which has always been held by the current Chief Justice of the United States. The affairs of the Smithsonian are conducted by its 17-member board of regents, eight members of which constitute a quorum for the conduct of business. Eight of the regents are United States officials: the Vice President (one of his few official legal duties) and the Chief Justice of the United States, three United States Senators appointed by the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate, and three Members of the U.S. House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House. The remaining nine regents are "persons other than Members of Congress", who are appointed by joint resolution of Congress. Regents are allowed reimbursement for their expenses in connection with attendance at meetings, but their service as regents is uncompensated. The day-to-day operations of the Smithsonian are supervised by a salaried "Secretary" chosen by the board of regents.

[Davine Roberts]

Dick, your state, "For instance, Footnote.com charges $1.95 to view one document. The Social Security Administration (a government agency) charges $27.00 to obtain a photocopy of one document, the Original Application for Social Security Card (SS-5). In both cases, we are talking about a copy of a single sheet of paper."

Does Footnote have Original Applications for Social Security Cards (SS-5) on their site. If they do I couldn't find it. Were you just giving this as an example of the amount the SSA charges, not meaning that these records are on Footnote.com for subscribers?

[Paul Hodges]

As my Aussie friends would say -- GOOD ON YOU!! -- Sure I think some fees are high. My Scots grandmother forever looks over my shoulder. However, as you and others point out, the alternative to using your own choice of online info fountains, is the long flight or drive, hotel stay overs, etc at multiples of on-line costs. Stick to your guns!

[Arvina Copeland]

I agree with Diane's post. You are NOT required to post or supply your information. Why do you want to look at the information of someone else when you are so tight with your own? Just confine your looking to the actual copies of records and then you will not have to worry about the accuracy. As for the price of the service, just use the "other" means of research, the "cheaper" way, and tell the rest of us what fools we are for our online subscriptions to a bunch of inaccurate, overpriced records. I, personally, wish that the online services were more in my price range. They are not overpriced, I am just underfunded. So, I buy what I can afford. I also share freely with other researchers without wanting a moment of glory. I always heard it said, "Some people would gripe if you hung them with a new rope."

[Maddie]

Dick, I think you discovered several things here. 1. That people do read every word of your Newsletter, and 2. Genealogists are very passionate.
and 3. We all have our own opinions, which we love to discuss. Thanks for letting us all have a say.

[Maddie]

Dick, I think you discovered several things here. 1. That people do read every word of your Newsletter, and 2. Genealogists are very passionate.
and 3. We all have our own opinions, which we love to discuss. Thanks for letting us all have a say.

[Cheryl]

Ancestry has shot itself in the foot by its less-than-above-board business practices. When following a link recently (I should have known where it would lead), I found myself being offered a free trial period. All I had to do was give them my credit card number, then let them know if I needed to cancel my "subscription" later. As if! I subscribed to Ancestry for several years because it was the ONLY way past the brick walls of online searches. Every path leads to Ancestry (or used to). But the organization just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

I am very glad for the rapid growth in online research and other options for hunting down that elusive information that will tie a knot in the broken branches of my family tree. For a passionate genealogist, no stone can be left unturned, so I'm sure I will swallow my Ancestry hairball and resubscribe in the future--when they lower (instead of raising) their subscription fee.

Ancestry is working with NARA--what else is there to say? The deed is done.

Thanks, Dick, for your opinions and for your very informative newsletter.

[Eileen Souza]

Genealogy websites offer different experiences. I use both free and subscription sites. I have to acknowledge that results on my particular family lines have been negligible on the free sites, yet I have obtained a wealth of data on Ancestry over the last ten years and continue to do so. Yes, it is expensive, but it has saved me thousands in travel expenses to do this research in person. What you are paying for is the personal labor and costs that they are saving you. If you like to research yourself in person and have the money--it is up to you. I choose to let my fingers do the walking at greatly reduced prices.

[Rosanne Ricks]

I think you are 100% correct!

[Bill Wolfe - Longmont, CO]

Dick, As I read through the responses and your answers, I do not understand why some feel they are being taken advantage when all of thsi data can appear at their wish at the desk in their home. It looks like magic but it is not. It costs developmental money to implement the technology, people to travel to and negociate with the archives etc etc. Also, it costs more to obtain information from government sources, archives, libraries etc. because they do not have the budgets to hire the staffs that the website are able to do. I am 73yrs old and if I had this technology and spell check in College, I would have been an outstanding student and everything would be handed in on time. Hey folks count your blessings. (I didn't spell check.)

[Linda]

BUT...if you read my argument....my dispute is not with genealogy charging subscriptions for the convenience of searching multiple databases. There are alternative CONTRACTUAL arrangements for digitization that would not be as short-sighted as the partnership agreements with multiple vendors. Direct contracting for digitization and retention of the digitized data by NARA would

1) provide users with more choices (government sites and all genealogy service who want to purchase the data)
2) Allowance of purchase by multiple genealogy vendors.
3) Greater competition to improve the search mechanisms and delivery of the data by commercial vendors of genealogy data.
4) Improved quality through standards enforced by the direct contract. There are no quality standards in the current partnership agreement. Ancestry has shown that their quality standards are low and I'm not talking just about transcription errors. They made errors in importing WWII Enlistment records from NARA which they have acknowledged yet failed to correct. The quality standards used in developing FTM 2008 were obviously poor. Government agencies have very strict quality standards included in their contracts.
5) Digitized data preserved by the government (or by contract directly accountable to government) rather than digitized data owned by a business entity that may or may not be in existence 5 years from now.

Those who support the partnership agreement argue that it is a choice between spending lots of money researching or making requests for manual searches through NARA OR subscribing to one or more genealogy services who are recovering their costs of digitization. Have you read the partnership agreements? Do you understand that this is not the usual type of government contract for digitization?

NO...there are alternative choices to pay for the digitization costs. I was a manager at a company that provided services to subscription customers for searching and retrieving data from multiple databases. I understand the costs and I understand the business models used by Ancestry and similar companies. Direct contracting with vendors for digitization services rather than the current partnership agreement will benefit the genealogy services, genealogist researching large sets of data, individuals who want only a small set of data, promote competition, and give us choices. I suggest you write to NARA and your congressmen to let them know you want your records preserved for the LONG TERM through digitization.

[Carla]

Ok folks hold your guns, er pens, at bay for a moment. One big complaint is that Ancestry and others Sell you your genealogical info back to you for a fee. Over the years I've found they are NOT SELLING your info back to you. They are selling the info you gave to Cousin Cate or, Cousin Jake your 3rd cousin 4 times removed back to you that they put online after they got it from you. How's that you say? Well remember a few years back you shared with Cousin Cate, and later when you shared with Jake? And perhaps the same info you got from Aunt Gertie was also given to Cousin Jake who gave the info to his Cousin Mack, who you never heard of or have an inkling he's even alive. So is all this info really yours? Did Aunt Gertie do you a disservice by sharing her info with others? Did you do Aunt Gertie a disservice by saying all the info you had - including what info she gave you which covered 300 years of ancestors - was yours? So did Cousin's Cate, Jake or Mack do you a disservice by sharing the info with others? Or heavens forbid by posting that info on Ancestry, Genealogical dot com or the LDS? Or did they do you a disservice by publishing a family history book that doesn't even include you? What if someone then added the info in that book some where and it ended up on some internet site or service?

Think about it before you get your knickers in a bunch and answer yourself truthfully.

I say SO WHAT to all of the above. Isn't the whole point of doing family history to find those elusive ancestors and make connections to other researchers whether they are close family or not? Isn’t it true that you want your descendants to know about their ancestors?

So what. If the data researchers are looking could be acquired online for free (and there is plenty online for free) how many companies would feel the lucrative urge to place it there? I won't rehash all the great suggestions already mentioned by many posters already. They've already said it more eloquently than I would at this moment. But I will say that compared to 20, or 10 or even 5 years ago there is a lot more available then there used to be and a lot more ways to acquire that info. Not just US records but records from many countries.

I don't know many researchers that can jet around the country, or to foreign countries to search out that one elusive record that might prove that family story that your related to the family in the next town who spells their name a different way, but you've always had a feeling they were. But go ahead, pack up your notes and run right over there. As for me, I'll do that when I don't have another option. Until then I'll waste my money on sites like Ancestry and etc., and save my pennies for those things I can't find online or to visit a distant cousin in another country who will perhaps be interested in family history and who will perhaps tell me the old family stories.

Oh and before you send Aunt Gertie a poison pen letter for sharing what ever info she and others accumulated - probably before you were even interested in family history - GET A GRIPE ON IT. Send her a THANK YOU letter.

Why? Because if it wasn't for Aunt Gertie and others how would you or your cousins even know about their history. More importantly how will your grandchildren, great grandchildren or even your grand nephew twice removed know about their history? Even if some of the 'facts' they find are in error at least there is something of your family history to be found somewhere. It may be just a enough for them to feel they too can add to the history, to continue the story of many people, from far flung places who are actually descended from someone or related to someone. Not just their parents, but perhaps hundreds of people. Perhaps they'll even find info on you - long after your gone.

Isn't that the REASON we do family history?

Just another 2 cents.....

[Rob Armstrong]

Dick, I think you've covered this topic throughly and I agree with you. One point that alot of people don't really think about is the bind in which most government agencies live. They have a fixed budget, and there are usually two things they need to do: preserve records and make them available on-line. Their patrons are usually screeming for making the records available on-line, but they have a fixed amount of time to preserve or the records will literally turn into dust.

Most of these agencies choose to spend their budget on preservation because if they don't no one else will. Conversly, they know that commercial entities will often jump in and make the material available on-line. So they keep opting for preservations, which is the decision I want them to make.

[Gary Lowe]

Sir, perhaps it's my lack of searching skills, but it seems I spend a lot of time with Ancestry.com trying to narrow my search, and still get nothing or way to much to filter through. If I ask for info on a certain county, it seems I still get multiple hits all over the state.

[Melvyn]

I have subscribed to Ancestry since the days when all they had was transcriptions, no images. I have not been required to give them any of my data. I have posted my data at WorldConnect at RootsWeb (now owned by Ancestry). I have been contacted by a few distant relatives (and non-relatives) who found their ancestors in my data. A good thing. Mostly these are people younger than I am, who were able to connect the people they knew of with the people they did not know of because of my data online. I should add that mine is a "community" tree, containing data for all the people in the small rural community where I grew up.

Last year, I decided to research the family history of my 93-year-old pastor (He had no descendants). Within one week of research, I was in contact with the daughter of his first cousin through a tree she had posted at Ancestry. She gave me information I'd not heard from him. I was able to verify that with him before taking off on a wild goose chase. He passed away this year, almost a year to the day after I presented his family history to the congregation. I live across the country from where I grew up and his mother was born in a small town about 90 miles from my hometown. Who knew?

I am still waiting for a relative to contact me regarding my paternal grandmother, about whom we know little beyond her name, dob, and where born. (Hannah Jones, b. 1881, Hudspeth, Chicot County, Arkansas, in case you run across her..... )

[Lois Woody]

I am a senior working on family history and genealogy off and on for 40 years. I am slowed down by brick walls. I hired pros and on a couple of lines they got nowhere on the brick walls. I PAID FOR A WORLD SUBSCRIPTION TO ANCESTRY specifically looking for potential LIVING DECENDENTS of those lines as a last resort to get new information. I figured it would be worth it to get the exposure on the site particularly at the MANY LDS FAMILY HISTORY CENTERS AROUND THE WORLD. I fed in information and inquiries and a short time later a lot of the exposure I was counting on came to a halt. I recall no warning given and all of a sudden I was paying for something I expected and was not recieving.
I did not renew my subscription.

[Janessa]

Well said, Dick! Thank heavens for people who are willing to speak their mind -- you have clearly struck a nerve here. I have been doing genealogy since before there even was an Internet, and you are right--the resources we have now are amazing--at just about any price. And for everyone complaining about errors on Ancestry, please look up the difference between original and derivative sources. Anything less than getting your hands on the original document, which includes pretty much everything online and other people's research, are only roadmaps, not the destination itself. If genealogy were easy, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

[Rod Nordberg]

Thank you, Dick, for acknowledging the potential tyranny of the vocal minority.

[Karen]

Dick,
I helped my mother with her genealogy research for many years before her death in 2003. We always used FamilyTreeMaker. At that time I put it all away because of lack of time and desire. Now I am thinking of getting back into it with my father-in-law. I have a new laptop and I am looking for software that will allow me to juggle a lot of information from different family lines. It is important to me to be able to record family stories as well as data. In my befuddled brain I am not sure I want to have internet access. I can do that from my desktop. I have spent years with garbage coming in to my desktop and I want to preserve my laptop for information only. I am an amateur so I don't always know what is best.

Can you suggest software that would be appropriate? Thank you, Karen

[Joy Rich]

A few of the many websites that have FREE genealogical information on them or link to free genealogical information are

"101 Ways to Research Your Family Tree for FREE" at genealogy.about.com

"FREE Genealogy Databases from Lorine" at Olive Tree Genealogy

and "Access Genealogy, A FREE Genealogy Resource" at Access Genealogy

You can find more websites by searching Google and other search engines, using search terms such as

"free genealogy"
"free genealogical"

and by using "Easy Google Genealogy Searcher" and "FREE Genealogy Search Help for Google"

Joy

[Joy Rich]

PRESERVING THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL RECORD ACT

"May 14, 2008—H.R. 6056, new legislation to preserve the American historical record, was introduced in Congress today and referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."

Goals include "the creation of a wide variety of access tools, including archival finding aids,documentary editions, indexes, and images of key records ONLINE."

"Current Status
H.R. 6056, "To authorize the Archivist of the United States to make grants to States for the PRESERVATION and DISSEMINATION of historical records" was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on May 14."

"Current Action Alert
(1) Ask your members of Congress to sign on as an original sponsor. (2) Tell your Representative in a few sentences why PAHR will benefit his or her constituents—that means you, your organization, and your researchers. (3) Urge your friends, local government officials, relatives—everyone!—to contact their Representatives as well."

"Background Information - A 2-page document that makes the case for supporting the legislation."

"How Much to Each State? - A PDF document that details the specific amount of funding to your state if the bill is authorized and appropriated at the proposed level of $50 million."

Go to the home page of the Society of American Archivists, scroll down to PAHR, and click "more."

You can help move this bill along if you simply SEND E-MAIL.

ENDORSED BY:
American Association for State and Local History
American Historical Association
American Political Science Association
Capital Area Archivists (NY)
Charleston Archives, Libraries and Museums Council (CALM)
Consortium of Iowa Archivists
Delaware Valley Archives Group
Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
History Associates
Kentucky Council of Archives
Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference
Midwest Archives Conference
National Coalition for History
New England Archivists
Northwest Archivists
Organization of American Historians
Palmetto Archives, Libraries and Museums Council on Preservation (PALMCOP)
Society of California Archivists
Society of Florida Archivists
Society of Georgia Archivists
Society of Rocky Mountain Archivists
Society of Southwest Archivists
South Carolina Archival Association
Southeastern Archives and Records Conference
Southern Historical Association
The History Channel

Joy

[dee]

I subscribe to several sites, including Ancestry.com, WorldVitalRecords.com & Footnote.com. My issue with the latter two sites is that I find it too complicated to find items I'm looking for - with WorldVitalRecords, even the home page is overwhelming.

When I've tried to find people with common names at Footnote (such as for Rev. War Records) - yikes, it would take at least an hour to go through all of the results.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong with the other sites but I'm much more comfortable with the way the search results are laid out at ancestry.com.

[Gary Schueren]

Just my two cents worth. I use Ancestry at my local Library which subscribes to it.
If you have found anything through Ancestry you are very fortunate.
They only have what is available through their collections from the Internet. They do not get down to the nity grity at the County Court House records, where only you can find your true data.
You have to travel to get what you what, Ancestry is not going to hand it to you at their rediclules pricing.
The free service they offer now and then is a trap to get your personal data, and then you have to unscribe or get billed. This is happing all over the USA, if you order one item and the Internet they hook up up to their annual or monthy deliverys, and you end up paying to ship it back. Good business for UPS and USPS.

Wise up all you genealogists, this is now a money making business, especially at the City, State and Federal levels.
I love genealogy but you have to go out to get the true records at the local repositories where it resides. I am fortunate most of my data is with in a 100 mile radius.
My last point is: why don't they let you searce for your records freely, and if there are any, let you pay a small price for each piece you can verify. You sign up for a year and and what little you find will be all you find, they will not come up with any neew data later. (I could be wrong)

[Patswisha]

Ancestry.com and others, although charges may seem rather high, I find my subscription to Ancestry.com.au is a lot cheaper than airfares and other expenses required to travel to find the information that I can get on line from them.
Cheers, Patswisha.