I Have a Complaint Concerning Many Genealogists

Warning: This article contains personal opinions.

I have a complaint that may upset some people, including some who read this newsletter. I will probably lose readers because of this article, but I don't care. Like many of my readers, I feel so strongly about this issue that I just have to speak out – hold the sugar coating.

Some people are so shortsighted that they manage to ignore certain facts that are blatantly obvious to others.

In short, every time I post an article or someone's press release about some new genealogy data becoming available on a fee-based web site, a great hue and cry arises from the nay-sayers. The comments they post on this newsletter's web site and elsewhere vary in wording but have a common theme: "The information is public and should remain free to all of us and not be the private property of some company."

I am amazed at the folks who actually believe this bit of misinformation. In fact, information that was free in the past remains free today and will always be free. In the United States, this is dictated by Federal law. That is true now, it has always been true, and will always be true unless Congress changes the laws. Until then, the information will remain free to all of us in the same manner that it always has been.

By Federal law, public domain information has always been available to all of us free of charge. All we ever had to do was to travel to the location where the information is available, be it in Washington, D.C. or some other archive. The information is free although we might have to pay a modest fee for photocopying. If we don't want to pay a photocopying fee, we always have the option of transcribing it by hand. That free access is not changing by the simple act of some web site placing the information online. By Federal law, that information will continue to be available free of charge to anyone and everyone who wishes to travel to the location where the information resides. There is absolutely no change to this free access.

What *IS* changing is that we now have more methods of obtaining that information. While we can continue to access it at no charge in the old-fashioned way, we now have new avenues – specifically, online. Companies that seek out this free information and then invest a few hundred thousand dollars in scanners, servers, data centers, high speed (and expensive) connections to the Internet backbones, programmers, support personnel, and all the other expenses are allowed to charge a fee for that access. However, the old-fashioned, in-person free access remains exactly the same as before: free.

Let me draw an analogy: water is free. If I want water, I can go to the local river or lake with a bucket and get all I want at no charge. But if elect to use a more convenient method, the local water company spends money laying pipes under the street and across my lawn to my house. I then have to pay a fee for that higher level of service. The same is true here: the information remains free, but we expect to pay a fee for the expensive "pipes" that deliver that information conveniently to our homes at our convenience.

For me and for most other Americans, it is cheaper to pay for online access (Ancestry.com, Footnote.com, WorldVitalRecords.com, etc.) than it is to take a trip to Washington, D.C. like I used to do. Using one of these online services actually REDUCES my expenses. I am very thankful that commercial services make the information available for a modest fee so that I no longer have to pay exorbitant travel expenses. (Have you priced automobile gasoline or airline tickets lately?)

I am appalled that some people apparently expect a company to spend money gathering free records, spend money scanning it, spend money building data centers, spend money buying servers and disk farms, spend money on high-speed Internet connectivity, spend money for programmers, spend money on customer support personnel, and spend money on advertising to let you know that the information is available, and then expect that same company to make the information available free of charge!

Where did they learn economics? At the Tooth Fairy University?

To quote William Safire, speechwriter to one of my least favorite vice-presidents, these people are "nattering nabobs of negativity."

C'mon folks. It is time to grow up and recognize the simple fact that those who spend money making information available to all of us are allowed to recover their expenses plus a reasonable profit. Those who don't like this are free to get their information the same way that we have been obtaining it for decades.  If you don’t care for the new option, simply use the old method that has been in place for decades. You are free to choose whatever you want, but please don’t complain about new, more convenient options that some of us appreciate.

If any vendors decide to drop out of this business because of the chronic complainers, we all will lose.

Are you a "nattering nabob of negativity?"

- Dick Eastman

Comments

[Lynda]

You are 100% right! Well stated.

[Joan]

Finally a voice in the wilderness that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying the muddy waters for those who wish to continue their hobby in the old fashioned way....yes, they are free to do so. As for myself, I will gladly pay my fee so that I can sit home and "research."

Perhaps the most angst belongs to those volunteers who have painfully helped develop websites such as usgenweb.org, tramped cemeteries, and published books in order to fill the demand for local information. Kudos to them for their efforts. The great part about this hobby is that we are all working side by side to preserve our heritage.

[Trish]

Thank you - you have not lost me as a reader. I commend your candor, and we all benefit when we realize that we get what we pay for.

[Trish]

Thank you - you have not lost me as a reader. I commend your candor, and we all benefit when we realize that we get what we pay for.

[Brian]

Your points are well taken. However, the analogy is a bit flawed in the fact that for the common good the utilities are regulated and their operations are supposed to be transparent to the public. This regulation mitigates fraud especially when only one company is allowed to operate.

I hope you don't infer that genealogy companies be regulated by using the water analogy.

Some people have gripes about companies based on their own perceptions (true or false); which the companies have no reason to address unless they see it as a way to increase market share/profits.
While I sympathize with your complaint and grant that you can say as you wish, your own comments contain large amounts of frustration if not out right negativity.

Beware of the nabobs.

[Trish Poock]

Well said Dick. I am mobilty impaired and have no option other than to do my research via my computer. I think it is absolutely wonderful that for a small fee I can access records from all over the world.

[amy]

Wonderful article, Dick. You explained the issue in a way that should make sense to anybody.

I've been a subscriber to Ancestry since very early on, way before they had the entire U.S. Census online. Many people feel that Ancestry is too expensive, but I find that I get great value from my annual subscription. Not only do I not incur any travel expenses (I'm half a tank of gas away from the nearest NARA facility), I can get more research done in less time and do it in my PJ's to boot. I also can spend more time researching. In the old days, I had to take a day off from work to go to the archive. Now I can research every evening at home. I also appreciate being able to easily save copies of original documents that are much clearer than a photocopy taken from a microfilm.

I also must mention that the Ancestry indexes have enabled me to find more information than I would have been able to find otherwise.

Providing these services costs money, and I doubt many of the nattering nabobs would ever click on enough advertisements to support a site like Ancestry.

[Jan]

Well said Dick. You are "preaching to the choir" here.

[John]

Bravo! Calling it like it is can hardly be termed negative, and you called it like it is. Too many today expect something for nothing. (I suppose someone will now call me a "nattering nabob of negativity. So be it.)

[Guy Porth]

Information may be available and free at national repositories but it is sure not available at many state repositories, specifically county courthouses. Illinois indices & records 1916 to present are closed. Michigan's records are closed and Iowa closed their records last fall. At least Michigan's courthouses will let you look at the indices.
If you want a name looked up in Peoria County, IL, for example, you fill out a form, pay a non-refundable $5 and pray they'll find the person you are searching for. A genealogist does the searching once a week and mails the results to you whether you've submitted the form in-person or by mail. On a positive note, Waukesha County, WI has an inter-active PC where you can look at the indices and records online without involving a clerk.

[Guy Porth]

Information may be available and free at national repositories but it is sure not available at many state repositories, specifically county courthouses. Illinois indices & records 1916 to present are closed. Michigan's records are closed and Iowa closed their records last fall. At least Michigan's courthouses will let you look at the indices.
If you want a name looked up in Peoria County, IL, for example, you fill out a form, pay a non-refundable $5 and pray they'll find the person you are searching for. A genealogist does the searching once a week and mails the results to you whether you've submitted the form in-person or by mail. On a positive note, Waukesha County, WI has an inter-active PC where you can look at the indices and records online without involving a clerk.

[Margaret]

Good on you, Dick. There are too many people around who have no idea of reality. I agree with every word you say.

[Jim]

If they looked around most of the sites that charge offer free trials and even open up new databases free of charge for short periods of time. Granted this is their way of advertising however it is still free. I love my subscriptions as I can go online at anytime and do my research. Let the sour grapes rot and let the normal people enjoy these new avenues of information. Keep this up and I'll subscribe to the PLUS Edition!!!

[Bob Rubie]

Well said Dick, I have just sent a fee to the National Archives in England, for a document, a day later I received the link.
If I had travel to Kew by public transport, it would mean three trains and lots of walking - something I can't do as I am disabled.
I have been a subscriber to Ancestry, Find my Past for more years than I care to remember, and don't mind paying the fee. Ancestry manages to get access to records that I would probably never see.
As one who used to record church yards in bad weather, so that they were freely available in fiche or book format. There are costs for printing etc that have to be paid.

[Diane]

Dick,
Congratulations for saying the things I have said for years. It takes a lot of time and money to truly research. These companies are providing a great service to researchers.

[Mary T]

Loved your article, you have not lost me, finally someone tells it how it is. I remember a time that took almost a year of ordering films to find one census in Liverpool on my family, now I just sit at home and can get it on Ancestry right away, no travel time mailing cost. Just an annual membership, why anyone would think they should get it free I do not know, it cost to make such great web sites. Think of the stamps and paper you save better for our enviroment!

[Linda]

Thank you, Dick! Finally someone with a "voice" has stated the same thing I have said tima and time again.

[Jackie]

Well said Dick! People should realise that without the investment made by these fee-based sites the information would simply be out of reach for most people. These sites have revolutionised genealogy bringing the information to people's homes. Sure if you live near the source repository you have the option to visit and obtain the info for free but for those who can't do that surely these sites are cheaper than travelling across the country! (or the world - I'm in the UK)!

[Lucie]

Kudos to you Dick! It is so annoying to ready negative comments because people don't want to spend to access records more easily. Personally, I think Ancestry.com has done a great job of implementing all of the records it pays dearly to obtain either through purchase, as it did with the Drouin database, or through labor which is costs them either way. I love the integration of all the documents available on Ancestry particularly for someone who uses Family Tree Maker. By a click of the button one can access all of the records nested on Ancestry for a particular ancestor. My father fought in WWI - I had no idea he had to register for the WWII draft but he did and thanks to the records being on Ancestry I now know that and now have a copy of that draft registration.

Keep up the good work!

[Brenda Green]

Spot on. I agree totally with everything you said.

[Roger]

Well said, Dick. As always, you write with complete commonsense.

[Randolph Clark]

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, what I think is going on here is that early in the life of widespread public internet use sharing was motivated by more openness. As commercialization has been phased in it comes as a shock to some.

Randy

[Caroline Horton]

Hello and thanks for saying what I have been saying, although not so intensely, from time to time to those in my genealogical society. May I have pemission to quote a few lines - not the entire article but more the general idea and comparisons - for our next magazine issue? And give you the credit.

[Nufarr]

Well said Dick! I find, most often, the people that complain the most, don't do their homework. They use the "smash and grab anything" method of gathering data, rather than careful research that leads to a source document. My finances permit me occassional subscriptions to differnt websites and by careful analysis of my tree and transcribing the information supplied in the FREE indexes, I know exactly what I need to download and don't waste time surfing while I am paying.
Many of the sites provide free access at different times of the year, or trial memberships, or at conferences and libraries, and by being totally familiar with what exactly is offered on a given site, you can document your family history quite well.
Let's face it, not in our lifetime, will ALL the records we all need be online and good old-fashioned local repositories will still be vital to research. The Family History Centres have an amazing amount of records on microfilm available and your local library may be able to Inter-Library loan films from different archives. There are many ways to do research well and on a limited budget.

[Tim Kerstens]

Dick, It is great to see that you can still give personal opinion, and not just reprint press releases.
But you are wrong. You are not barking up the wrong tree, you are not even in the right forest.

> "The information is public and should remain free to all of us and not be the private property of some company."
I am amazed at the folks who actually believe this bit of misinformation."

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.

"I am appalled that some people apparently expect a company to spend money gathering free records, spend money scanning it, spend money building data centers, spend money buying servers and disk farms, spend money on high-speed Internet connectivity, spend money for programmers, spend money on customer support personnel, and spend money on advertising to let you know that the information is available, and then expect that same company to make the information available free of charge!"

Again, you are wrong. They do not expect companies to provide all their services for free.
They merely they should have access to public records through public (government) services.

Most of them are quite willing to pay a nominal fee too.
Most would not complain at all if the commercial companies asked reasonable fees.

As you can see from other comments, practically EVERYONE agrees with the idea that paying a fee is reasonable.
BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE ISSUE.
Their main objection is NOT paying for a service. 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

That is their real objection, which you did not address at all.
You lied about their objections, and present a patronizing argument for your made-up objection about paying at all.
That is far from the "straight talk" you like to claim to much.

Llet's not even discuss being forced to do business with a company infamous for less than ethical practices, let's stick to the price issue, but don't think it doesn't matter.

No,w I am gonna hold the sugar coating, and give you some straight talk.
I don't think this is your personal opinion at all.
I think that you are DELIBERATELY LYING about their real argument TO CONFUSE the issue.
I think you are doing this dishonest thing because some of the greedy companies advertise with you.

You lie about the real issue, and make a lot of noise about something that isn't an issue. That dishonesty makes YOU the "nattering nabob of negativity".