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

[David]

Hi Dick,

You make some good and valid points.

I just wish that ancestry.com/rootsweb.com did not mess up most all of the rootsweb and usgenweb links. They took something that was "free" and easily accessible and now it is very difficult if not impossible to find the info.

David

[Barbara Dawes]

Re what Tim Kerstens says - Tim could you go back and restructure your message as it jumped about so much as to not make any sense.

A full deluxe membership to Ancestry costs the equivalent of $25.00 per month, DO THE MATH!!!

Randolph Clark - What people forget is that in those early days of the internet, the material found was not original but transcription of work done by others (and I am not knocking it, just saying I like the originals) so as my membership renewal to Ancestry is coming up, I applaud them for the records they provide me with access to.

Dick Eastman - My hat is off to you, well said.

Barbara

[Ellen Healy]

Thank You. I guess some people have to have an outlet to vent their personal angers. I just get very frustrated when they use your blog to totally get off the subject to vent their displeasure. It is your blog! Your opinion! Thanks for putting so much information out here to us.I, personally, agree with this view also. Thanks to those who work hard to make genealogical research more accessible to the rest of us.

[Marie V Melchiori]

I agree with you completely Dick.

I have researched at NARA in DC since 1975, but have never been able to convince them to let me in at mid-night. At $20/day to park my car, not even taking the current gas costs into account, Ancestry and Footnote save money in the long run.

The hour that I spend on the road going to and another hour returning is two+ hours I can spend on research. With the 2 Civil War Pension indexes on line I can locate the information and fill out my forms before I leave home.

This frees up time at NARA to work on the MANY, MANY records that are not digitized.

[Mary Beth]

Thank you, Dick. Now I'll stop grumbling at the computer screen every time I read a letter from one of these naysayers. I was lucky to start genealogy only a few years ago and signed up for ancestry.com right away. I'm away from my office right now, but I estimate I've printed out 20 linear feet of data from that site for my extensive tree. If I did the calculations and divided my subscription by the number of pages, the cost/page would probably come out to something like $.000001. I'm working smarter now and not printing much of anything, but at first I was afraid that the info would disapppear (or ancestry would). Now I download and store images on my computer, making subscription sites and renting FHL microfilms even more of a bargain. I might add that I drive a 22-year-old economy car, don't subscribe to cable television or magazines, and don't drink bottled water or soft drinks. The money saved more than pays for my genealogy "habit."

[David Frazier]

I have no complaint about paying for genealogy services from a company. However, 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 complained for years to Ancestry about the census data for Hardin county, Tn being listed under the name of another county and was completly ignored. (it's probably still wrong) While it is expected that the census index will have errors due to minimum wage transcribers it does cast doubt on the value of other data. If I search for a "Joseph Daniel Smith" on Ancestry I get every Smith in the entire site regardless if I add date of birth, marriage year or any other explicit information. Some of their "databases" consist of a image of a card with a name on it. How does that help anyone? You certainly can't prove from a name that that is the person you are searching for. To make a long story short, I don't mind paying but I want to get what I pay for. If anyone else wants to spend their money for erroneous data that is your choice.

[David Frazier]

I have no complaint about paying for genealogy services from a company. However, 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 complained for years to Ancestry about the census data for Hardin county, Tn being listed under the name of another county and was completly ignored. (it's probably still wrong) While it is expected that the census index will have errors due to minimum wage transcribers it does cast doubt on the value of other data. If I search for a "Joseph Daniel Smith" on Ancestry I get every Smith in the entire site regardless if I add date of birth, marriage year or any other explicit information. Some of their "databases" consist of a image of a card with a name on it. How does that help anyone? You certainly can't prove from a name that that is the person you are searching for. To make a long story short, I don't mind paying but I want to get what I pay for. If anyone else wants to spend their money for erroneous data that is your choice.

[Arnold DeEllion]

Thanks for your comments Dick. I personally have alsways ignored those who complain about the cost of fee based research. I fully understand those costs. I live in west central British Columbia and research across Canada, the United States, England and Ireland.

My local Family History center closed over a year ago and the closest available to me is 165 miles away. You cannot consider it cost free to bring in rolls of microfilm from Salt Lake City and travel 330 miles to to read it as no cost except the rental of the film. To reach decent libraries or archives I must fly to Vancouver or Victoria at an air flight cost of $600 plus my accommodation and meals. My paternal family were immigrants to New Netherlands and my major research is in New York state. A flight from here to New York is now $1800, never mind accommodation and meals. And to pick up my Irish and English ancestors is prohibitive.

God bless the fee based sites around my world, I could never do genealogy without them as the cost is just too great.

[JG]

Thank you for restoring perspective on a topic meaningful to all of us.

[Cheryl]

Please people, keep in mind that a lot of local libraries offer access to Ancestry at certain branches, and also make available the use of Heritage Quest, America's Genealogy Bank, etc.. for free online, in the comfort of your own home with a library card and passcode. I don't have the money for a lot of these services but you can sometimes narrow down information by using the free searches and then paying for what you need, Footnote comes to mind. I don't pay an annual fee, but pay for each item as I find it. We don't have the right to expect the services that Ancestry.com and others provide for free. We wouldn't do the work for someone else for free unless we had tons of spare time and were independently wealthy.

[Kim]

Let me see if I've got the Dick Eastman School of Economics math correct......and I'll just focus on the good 'ole US of A - where I'm supposing the ignorant pubilc masses attend Tooth Fairy U....

Since most folks live to be about 72, it would be reasonable to assume that the same applied to genealogists. Since most genealogists are not genealogists from birth to death, a reasonable average research lifetime for a genealogsit would be a ten years.

Current cost of annual subscription to Ancestry US Delux Collection : $155.40; over ten years that would easily be $1,500;

Cost of annual subscription to Footnote.com: $59.95; over ten years that would easily be $600.00

Cost of annual subscription to WVR.com: $49.95; over ten years that would easily be $500.00

That means over ten years, a genealogist could reasonably spend $2600 just on subscriptions.

According to the IRS, there are about 120 milllion US households that pay income tax. And most research I've read indicats that 60% of the US population enganges in some form of family history research. Reduce that number to 10% to account for usuage of all three databases over ten years, an overall population of 300 million, and the fact tht not everyone pays taxes.

That would be a number of 1.2 million tax paying housholds. Or about 4% of the population.

And, just to be on the extreme side of a safe estimate - let's reduce that by three quarters.

That's about 300,000 genealogists.

Heck - let's just go with 100,000. If WVR can get 30,000 suscribers in less than a year - that figure is way, way in the ballpark.

So - 100,000 genealogists. Over ten years. For a total of $2600 on subscriptions. Assuming subscription costs don't go up.

That is a total of $260,000,000.

If those same genealogists were given a choice to pay the $2600 dollars to a government fund to mass digitize archival material that will last a LIFETIME and beyond for their children's children's children - are you honestly telling me that $260,000,000 would not get the ball rolling in a big way? If Ancestry.com sold for $300 million - and the compnay is well into the black - it's safe to say they've managed to accomplish what they have for less than $75 million dollars in outlay soley for digitization. So, again, $260,000,000 should go a pretty long way.

And, just for fun, let's just say that this fund was opened up to all Americans to donate into. Let's say a $5 optional donation was provided for on the tax return - right next to the $2 Presidental Campaign fund option. If 1/3 of tax paying Americans selected this option, one tax year alone would yield another $200,000,000.

Am I the only one that sees the potential for a win-win here?

Yes, the nature of information and how we access it has forever changed. Yes, folks want access to more and more digital records because it's simply easier to use them. But why do we have outsource this opportunity to a corporation? You are talking about records that should be digitized by and for the people. In the short term, the corporate model makes sense. But what will our g-g-g-grandchildren think? We built the Interstate system and put a man on the moon. We can do that, but we can't do this? We can't have a federal-level initiative - with the National Archives blazing the trail - to digitize our national records and help the states with theirs?

I believe we are losing our national vision on this one in a regretable way.

Kim

[D Saunders]

Thank you Dick for setting the record straight. I am one who appreciates you 100% in your efforts to keep us informed. I personally cannot travel long distances because of health problems and I appreciate that I have a choice to do research by computer. I intend to remain one of your faithful members.

[Faith]

Dick:
Please always feel free to be upfront and honest about anything. How blessed we are to be able to access so much information at our fingertips. People who provide a service should expect to be compensated. If there are those who want the public information for free without going to the actual repository should ask the various government entities to provide it on line......free.

[frank.forward]

Very well said. I used to work in a library & got like complaints from students. E.g., where was the *one* book or journal article that was gonna give them *All* the info they needed to write the paper due @ 9am tomorrow morning? "U mean I have to look in indexes?" "Then I hafta write down the call no., and then actually walk around and find the magazines?" "You mean I hafta go thru this entire file of maps to find the one I want?"
This was not true of the majority, but there were always a few who thought I could "magic" out an answer in very short order.
We Americans are too easily addicted to "instant gratification; results NOW!" (look at the kinda stuff that's popular on TV! And how many people actually *prepare* meals, instead of buying pre-cooked everything?) I do *not* exempt myself from this observation. We all have busy lives, but, sometimes, I wonder if the underlying fault isn't in our inner spirit. Or, maybe we're just justifying laziness.

[Jeff]

One needs to be thankful that there is a State of Washington Digital Archives available FREE with 33,000,000+ records available and for similar repositories of information. AND there is no free lunch anymore either.

[Delia Furrer]

Thanks, Dick for the courage to stand up and address this issue of negativity in the Genealogy community that is frankly tiring.
Everytime I log into my paid subscription, I am eternally grateful that these types of websites are at my beck and call! I can choose for myself what subscriptions I want and what will benefit me most. I have found information in areas that I would have never found if I was searching "manually". Remember the frustrating hours of microfilm reading and not finding anyone? If these so-called public records are free why does the State of Oregon charge $20.00 for a vital record whether they find it or not and can you trust that they even really tried to look up the record? What about the $75.00 fee for a pension file from NARA? I hope that someone soon will obtain these files and make them available on their site.

[Bob Lefers]

Beau Sharbrough is right. No namecalling. Dick started it himself, but we should still restrain ourselves and show that we are better than that.

[Ellen Davis]

Tim Kerstens got it right - we want to pay a nominal fee, not be overcharged. Dick totally misrepresents that.
Kim got it right. I don't know how accurate his numbers are, but it is certainly the right way to think about this. Dick totally ignores that.

Those who calculate that $ 300 a year is less than 1 a day - wake up. What if I want just one record?
$300 for a single record is rather expensive...
What is the minimum you have to pay these companies to even know they have a record of interest?

[J.M.]

Thanks, Dick, for voicing what I have thought. My fees for internet access has paid off many times over. I can now spend my travel budget more efficiently, (both time and money).

One item of concern:
I have not seen any discussion about the U.S. government policy that has seriously pushed for privatization of government services. This has been going on for at least the last seven years and has resulted in the reduction of government agency budgets, personnel, and free services.

I do not want to argue the pros and cons of this policy. But those who want the same government services now that were available in the past may choose to "follow the money". It may be time to contact Senators and Representatives at both the state and U.S. level to voice our need for free access to public records, either on-site or thru the Internet.

I doubt that Federal Agencies will have the budget to do their own digitalizing of records unless there is a great enough grassroots pressure to reverse the current policy of privatization. And, reading opinions here and elsewhere, it appears as though privatization results in our paying both government taxes and business fees for what we used to get for our taxes.

J.M.

[Rose Mary Keller Hughes]

There will always be those who think everything should be free . . . but I truly believe that the majority of us understand and appreciate the wonderful benefits of the Internet. I can opt to either pay or not . . . I can also opt to sit in front of my good friend, Helpful Computer, or travel to the source of the information. At the cost of gas, it's a lot cheaper to purchase the services of genealogy sites. Without the Internet, I would be nowhere in my genealogical search!

[Linda]

I've just renewed my annual subscription to the Ancestry World Deluxe package precisely because of their digitization effort at NARA. When my Footnote subscription comes due, I will gladly renew that too! Way to go Ancestry, Footnote and Dick Eastman!!!

[Bart Devile]

What bugs me even more than Dick's whining about these comments - if you don't want comments, turn them off! no one is forcing you to turn them on! -
is his underlying message. We can comment on the press releases, but please don't speak your mind if you don't like Dick's advertisers.
He reverts to insults to impolitely tell us that we should censor ourselves.
Freedom of speed, Dick, freedom of speech. It is our constitution.
You don't like the comments you get? Turn them off.

[Michelle]

You're right on!

[Chuck Hield]

I quite agree with you, Dick. However, Ancestry.com can be free too and you still don't need to travel to Washington. All you have to do is travel to your local library and use their computers to access Ancestry.com. The library is free and access on their computers is free. Not all libraries have subscribed but I think most have - in my area anyway.

[John R]

I would not have thought it necessary to write such an article. It is only thanks to commercial enterprise by learned societies and web providers that I can sit here in southern England and research my forebears arrival and spread through New England. Without this material coming on line, I would have to fly to New York or Boston, suffer the indignities of the border controls, get ripped off by taxi drivers and have to spend a lot of money on board and lodging whilst I dash round from archive to library to the LDS, to a museum and a few grave-yards. Instead, for several hundred dollars a year, I can sit here, do a little on-line research, e-mail a few relatives, do a bit of gardening and enjoy my hobby.

[Michael]

Great article Dick.

As a long time subscriber to Ancestry and several other commercial sites, I've always felt that my hard earned money is not only giving me a good personal return but I'm doing something to help the larger community as well. Ancestry regularly posts collections which don't help me in my research at all. For example, I don't have any French Canadian or Quebec heritage. But the fact that Ancestry acquired the Drouin Collection, published it online, and made it available at prices much cheaper than any other option makes me happy because it will help others in their research. My subscription and the hundreds of thousands of other subscribers made this possible. When they publish something that I find useful, I realize that my subscription alone would not have covered even a tiny fraction of the costs to bring it online and I am grateful for all of the other subscribers who helped provide the means to make that one database, even that one single document, about my family available to me.

I get the same feeling when I contribute to my local PBS television station. I like watching a number of PBS shows. If my local PBS station doesn't get enough viewer contributions they won't be able to air many of the shows that I like. But I also know that my $50 yearly contribution to my PBS station isn't going to pay for even a single minute of a show like NOVA. It takes many viewers who are willing to contribute so that we all can enjoy the PBS material. Now, yes I understand that Ancestry isn't a non-profit organization like a PBS station -- but Ancestry also doesn't get government assistance like a PBS station. Does Ancestry make profit? Certainly. We should be happy for them. If they are a healthy company, hopefully they will continue to provide a good service to consumers. Commerical sites like Ancestry, Footnote, and WorldVitalRecords, need subscribers if they are going to provide these services. If you find these commerical sites useful it is because you, and me, and thousands and thousands of other people are providing the financial means to make it possible. I feel a degree of pride in seeing genealogical content become more and more available online. As a subscriber to commerical sites, I understand that I am helping to make it possible.

[Jean Tauer]

I read this line of dicussion with some interest.  Like most discussions I feel the truth lies somewhere in between the two arguments.  I have in the past subscribed to Ancestry as well as other online sites.  I understand Dick's argument that this is a business and they have a right to make a profit and recover their costs.  No one can argue the convenience of the service.  You get what you are willing or able to pay for.

On the other hand as I approach retirement, I see the need to prioritize my expenses.  If I had to guess, I would say that many, if not most family historians, fall into the same category and age group.  What might be considered a small expense by some might not be for another.  While I understand a company's need to make a profit, I also understand the frustration of some researchers in the increasing fees that are charged both locally and by commercial sites.

Lastly, Dick, while I have always enjoyed your column, don't disagree with you your statements, and understand your frustration with some of the whining that goes on, I do feel that you could have made the same points more diplomatically. It was rather ironic that while you were complaining about negativism that you did it in a very negative way.

[Kim Gyuricsko]

Bravo. As a new researcher I would not have kept (or even started) researching had I not been able to get some sort of "excitement/kick" from finding information right away on the net. Some of us are able to travel and some not. At the price of diesel today, it makes my subscriptions one tank of diesel for the pickup!
Keep it up Dick!

[Judith Reesor Hutchinson]

Dick:

I live within commuting distance of Washington, DC. I have spent many a day driving down to the nearest Metro station (or taking the MARC train), parking my car, waiting for the train, changing at the appropriate station, then taking the escalator up to the Navy Memorial and walking across Pennsylvania Avenue to enter the National Archives research area. Then I go through security, have my cell phone checked, and walk into the research room. There I choose a microfilm reader, leave my notebook at the reader, go to the drawers where the census Soundex microfilms are, take one back to the reader and load the film. Then I crank and crank until my arm is sore, and try to read the index film (many of which have faded to unreadable). Then I eventually find what I want, unload the film from the reader and take it back to its drawer. Then I search for the census (or military) film I want and return to my reader to repeat the loading and cranking. It is soon lunch time, so I lose a half hour or so of research time. Then back to the old grind. By 4:30 pm I am tired, with a bad headache, so I pack up and leave the building (after going through security again), then retrace my journey back home via the Metro and the highways. On some of these trips I have found only a few bits of data, and the photocopies of the scratched microfilms are not very readable.

(On one Saturday while I was in the new first floor microfilm room, the fire alarm went off three times. After having to leave the building three times - in good weather, fortunately - and waiting half an hour to get back in each time, I gave up and went back home. I had retrieved only one record that day.)

When Ancestry.com started posting all the available Federal censuses online, I took a look at them and realized I could get my data much more quickly and easily (especially in the middle of the night when the internet is relatively quiet). I save a lot of time and money by doing my research online. I figured that the amount of money I spent on about three or four trips to DC was more than a year's subscription to Ancestry.com. And the number of databases available to subscribers is increasing all the time. It is also convenient to look at the data online on one screen, then switch to the appropriate screen in Brother's Keeper (my primary and favorite genealogy program) to enter the data, without having to write the data down on paper and take the risk of maning an error by reading an illegible or questionable note I have taken while using a microfilm reader.

I appreciate what Ancestry has done and do not begrudge the money I spend on my subscription. I have also found links there that have lead to finding obituaries online at other web sites. Some of these I have had to pay for, but the cost of those are minimal and I have always gleaned important data from them for my research.

I am a senior citizen now, living on a fixed income, but I find that the subscription is well worth budgeting for.

[Doris]

Well said Dick! The majority of my research has been done at home, and I for one appreciate the dedicated hard-working "historians" who make more and more information available more easily to the masses. The subscription based fees I have paid so far have been far less than what it would have cost me to physically get to these out of state locations, not to mention that it would require more flexibility in time constraints. After I put my two young children to bed, I can sit in my pj's late into the night much more easier than getting to a physical building during normal business hours.
We know we cannot please 100% of the people, 100% of the time, but I for one can honestly say my research would be no where near what it is today without the use of the internet resources that have been made available to me, with or without an incidental expense.

[Concetta]

Hi Dick!

Your information is right on. The only comment I disagree with is:

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

Please. If anything, they've proven they just don't listen to the complainers by the continuance of problems that have been complained about for years.

If anything, other vendors are more a victim of acquisition than by complain and close.

[Jay]

I am generally in agreement with you, but I do think our gov't should do more (it is our tax money after all) to put the public information in its possession online. Putting info online might actually save us the public expense over the long term if the gov't would concurrently reduce its staff and costly physical facilities where the information is currently housed and dispensed to the public.

Now, one bone I do have to pick with your water analogy. No one can simply go to a river or lake with a bucket and take water. It's not free. Someone owns that water. We are paying a water company for the water and the convenience of having it delivered to our tap.

[Ancestry Insider]

Thanks, Dick. Great job. Ignore the rudeness of the emotional and ignorant few who lack civility.

I think Mr. Kerstens probably has some valid issues to contribute to this discussion. How unfortunate that the name calling, baseless accusations and lack of facts in his approach obscures his conclusions, biases readers against his arguments, deprives us of supporting facts and gives us no logic upon which to judge the validity of his points.

If I understand correctly, the main purpose of your article is to inform the public that the arrangements between private firms and government agencies allowing the addition of commercial access to public records do not change the previous, public access. This is an incontravertable fact that can be verified by independent investigation. Some may disagree with details of these arrangements, such as prices charged. Others may object to these agreements altogether.

While Mr. Kerstens is willing to pay a reasonable amount to access the records online, he and I disagree as to how much is reasonable. Despite its title, your article, "Why Isn't It Free?" (http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2007/11/why-isnt-it-fre.html ), also addresses the question, "Why does it cost so much?" I invite those who feel that commercial genealogy companies charge too much to read this article before responding. Yet, this issue is ripe for intelligent discussion.

In my article, "Expanded access to NARA records," (http://ancestryinsider.blogspot.com/2008/04/expanded-access-to-nara-records.html ) I point out that agreements with NARA do more than add commercial access.

- The digitized copies of these records become freely accessible at *all* NARA reading rooms.
- The agreements are non-exclusive, so should the taxpayer, the government, FamilySearch or a private benefactor decide to allocate money to digitize the same records, it can be done.
- Many of these commercial genealogy sites can be accessed for free at thousands of libraries and family history centers across the country.
- After 5 years, NARA can publish the digitized images and indexes for free. Without these agreements, I sincerely doubt as many records would have been digitized.

With the contract terms government agencies have negotiated in these agreements, the public is definately not damaged. If it will make you feel better, imagine that these agreements had not been made and that the campaign to congress and the public for funding, plus the work of digitizing and indexing will take 5 years. Don't buy or use subscriptions from these private firms. Don't use their databases at your public library or local family history center. Don't accept help from anyone that does any of these things. Continue the old way for 5 years. You won't be harmed by these agreements and you won't be helped. Hey, whatever makes you feel better.

-- The Ancestry Insider
http://ancestryinsider.blogspot.com

[Rose Marie]

Way to go Dick !!!

[Rita Pollock]

While I understand your explanation that people can still access the information from the actual sites for free, many of us never did have the money to go to the destinations to receive information on our families. Unfortunately, many of us that are retired still do not have even the nominal subscription fees as required through Ancestry.com as an example.

However, even before this information was available I recall ordering seven Death records which cost me at the time $7.00 a record. That went up exponentially, putting it totally out of my ability to pay.

The information in government records are records that were already paid for when originally produced so we are charged again to access our own families. I understand because costs have increased through the years, the government had to increase their rates but I think what they now charge prevents many of us from accessing it because of the costs and I think they are gouging us too.

Instead of governments using private enterprise to access the records and then charge us a fee which includes their profit (and I think we are talking about BIG profits), government should have done the work themselves (and many volunteers in the past, have done the data entry so they could gladly allow other geneologists to use it). If government did it with volunteers as some organizations did, they could charge reasonable rates covering their actually expenditure and personnell but WOULD NOT HAVE TO MAKE A PROFIT.

Government records are supposed to be for the benefit of the public and not for personal profit.

So though your argument makes sense on some levels, it means many of us just do not have the wherewithal to do the research we need to do.

So as usual, only those with above average incomes can do the same research. And those who have that capability do not understand the frustration coming from those who do not have the same affluence.

We started with a system on the internet where many volunteers freely exchanged the information they had researched so it was available for everyone until the opportunists found a way to make profits off our backs.

I think that is why many people are frustrated. Geneaologist are mainly very enthusiastic individuals and gladly share information, but now many are curtailed with the system that is taking over the wonderfully egalitarian system which had been developed before the Carpetbaggers took over.

PS:
I don't mind my e-mail being exposed: rita_pollock@telus.net

[Adrian B]

"What they object to is that the government FORCES them to use commercial services"
I can't be certain of the situation on your side of the Atlantic. But I know we can turn up at the archives to see a census or PRs, etc. And I've never been turned away yet to be told the data is only a/v on a commercial web-site. Maybe I missed the stories of people being expelled from archives in the US.

"GREEDILY OVERPRICE their services" - err - the last time I thought about this, the fair price for something was what people were prepared to pay. Anything else becomes a social service not a commercial transaction. If you feel Family History should be given to people as a social service, fine - but I can think of many things that government ought to be spending their money on first.

I have HUGE respect for people who give time and effort to create things for free. But I am not going to be able to live on their efforts nor would I survive if I were giving all of my time thus.

[Carol]

The nay-sayers are the same people who complain about the cost of gas at the pump and blame the oil companies.

[Carol]

The nay-sayers are the same people who complain about the cost of gas at the pump and blame the oil companies.

[Floyd Martin]

I had previously this morning made a comment that was apparantly stricken from the record.
I referred to the distrust of many about corporate greed and the many things that Ancestry has done such as using data bases on the rootweb usgenweb archives after they have been abandoned. The recent move to move Roots web onto the Ancestry site and the fear a lot of organizations have that Ancestry will charge for their county data. I mentioned that in my state about half of the counties is ion the process of moving their county sites from rootsweb usgenweb to keep Ancestry.com from charging for their data in the future. I also mentioned about the backfiring of Ancestry.com with dropping the Family Search from their site and the LDS site coming back with a super effort with Volunteers to serve the public for free. This will cost Ancestry customers. They came back later and offered some locations of the LDS free use again but not all.

[Richard Heaton]

Hi Dick,
A great topic for discussion, very refreshing, along with many of the responses above I absolutely agree with your comments. On a personal level I do my best to make information (over 800+ very rare - sometimes unique - British & Irish newspapers) free on the web (still only a fraction of what I have) - simply because I can and do choose to do so. I'm not a commercial organisation - only an individual passionate about family, local, and social history, who values these records (certainly a lot more than some previous owners), and who believes strongly that knowing the past helps people cope with the present.

By contrast I work in commercial organisation's (currently in a very fast paced US owned confectionary manufacturing sales and marketing business here in the UK). Information costs money - data collection costs money - data storage and retrival costs money - lots of money. So also on a personal level, while I'm very, very grateful when information is provided free - I don't expect it. And while in an ideal world government agencies (supported by our taxes) could provide the information currently offered by commercial businesses (such as Ancestry) - lets face it we'll be dead before it happens. So the choice is ours - (a) we can do our research ourselves in person (costing time and money) and which we may always need to for access to some records - (b) for the more popular records (basic building blocks of family history) go to a commercial family history organisations (saving time and money). (c) Avoid all research costs and make up our family tree. Its a no brainer !

Best Regards
Richard Heaton

[Toni]

Did not read all the comments but when sleep will not come and all else fails no matter what the time I can log on and enjoy research anytime day or long into the night. For those who think stuff should be free WAKE UP NOTHING IS FREE that gives convenience and pleasure!!! Thank you Mr. Eastman for your comments.

[Carlos]

I have to agree with Dick on this one. All he needs to do is publish anything at all about Ancestry and all the Socialists, Communists and cheapskates come out of the woodwork and start shaking their fists and whining about corporate greed. The only reason they spew here is that they can spew for free!

[Linda]

Dick,

I respectfully disagree with you and others who have made generalizations that those who object to the NARA partnership with genealogy services don’t understand the economics of technology and are just highly critical of the subscription prices.

Let’s review. NARA is responsible for the preservation of the PEOPLE’s records. The paper records are fading. The filmstrip technology is usable but quickly becoming archaic. With the records aging and fragile, digitization is the best method. Your argument seems to be that the only way they will be digitized is if some genealogy service makes an agreement to digitize them. Under this plan, NARA patrons get access to those records on sight in Washington D.C. You also imply that anyone who disagree with this approach must not want records digitized, don’t understand the economics of technology, and must hate genealogy services for the subscription prices that they charge.

Having records digitized under the partnership plan on the surface seems good but if you digest it a bit more, the partnership plan may be shortsighted rather than those of us who don’t agree with it. I DO want digitized records but I want the government agency responsible for the preservation to have more control over the quality of the processes used and maintain control of the databases. The partnership approach does not provide any standards or quality process guidelines for the service providers to follow even though that information is what will be available at the NARA facility.

I DO understand the economics of technology. I am a retired manager for an online legal service provider that provided access to court records that were scanned by another vendor responsible for meeting the quality standards of the government. Our company purchased rights to distribute the records to our subscribers offering them the convenience of searching multiple courts at once and offering additional search criteria options not available on the government websites. We remained profitable and had many subscribers that realized that they could search at a lesser cost directly through the government site. So in addition to understanding the economics of technology, I also understand the business model used by Ancestry in selling access to many records that are already available online for free or through alternative services at a smaller subscription price.

We should all encourage NARA to preserve the records through digitization. Again, I do not agree with the partnership agreements. I would instead support competitive contracts for digitizing the data with oversight for quality by NARA and NARA’s rights to retain ownership of the databases. Under the terms of a competitive bid, the vendor would recover their costs plus a profit for digitizing their records. Those records would be available to the public for free or for a fee on government websites. Under my proposal, all genealogy services would have the right to purchase the database for use on their websites for a subscription price to their customers. They could enhance the search capabilities or add indexes to further separate themselves from the government access site or their competitor sites. As with my old company, they would not suffer!

I am looking at the long term with the competitive bid approach. With quality standards in place for digitizing the records, the preservation of the records can be accomplished for the long term. With control over the database structure, processes, and quality through the execution of competitive bids, the government can be assured that standards are being followed and the fragile records will have to be revisited as little as possible. With any company dissolving or merging, the government will still have control of the databases. Companies come and go, merge, etc while NARA will always be there in some form or another.

As for the price of subscriptions, the market will help dictate the price based on the value to the researcher considering subscription. I was an Ancestry.com subscriber for 10+ years and found value in it until I could no longer handle the poor quality of a few of their indexes and the images and started going to alternative sites out of mistrust. I could write another long comment on Ancestry! However, I am not putting down the services need to charge a subscription nor the value they may have for researchers. I have other subscriptions. But my experience with Ancestry does give me concern about the quality of the digitization processes and is a root cause for being so supportive of a more government controlled contract with different terms than the partnership agreement.

Unless I’m currently subscribing to one of the partners who has the NARA data I want, I would rather pay the government a fee for downloading a record from their own database or for download privileges for a period of time. This would save me from subscribing to and subsequent cancellation of the genealogy service sites of multiple “partners” to get data from multiple sites. Fee collection for government services is not a new concept.

Dick and other ready to support the partnership agreement, open your eyes to the alternatives. We all have similar goals for research.

Linda

[Frances]

I am so glad to have the online services. I have found information that I would never have known about and found distant family members who have found be by using Ancestry. Infact we are going to a reunion in June in Idaho of family members. Don't forget that many libraries have subscriptions to the online sevices. Some budgets for the libraries can't afford it. If 10 or 12 of the library members interested in genealogy got together,they could each put in a few bucks for a years subscription. It is well worth it.

[Cathie]

Hear! Hear!...Very well said.
You are very well spoken as usual.
Thoroughly enjoy all of your newletters, and I am a paid member of your PLUS EDITION. Well worth it.
Keep on informing and teaching us.

[Frances]

One more thought for all of you who don't want to pay for info. If all of this info is supposed to be free because it is the people's information.....Why does the US government charge when we request a social security record........why does a state charge for a death cert or birth cert.
Genealogy is like any other hobby or interest, it costs money.

[Elyse]

I kinda agree with you...

I don't have the problem with Ancestry or any other website charging. Do I think they charge a TON of money? Well yes - especially as a poor college student I think they charge a ton of money. But how much they charge is their choice, which I respect but still don't like.

And while I could do the old way (HA! I can barely afford to not live off of easy mac and tomato soup), it is way more convienent and in our times - just way more practical.

Alot of states are beginning to feel the crunch as more and more people are turning towards the internet and not towards them for the records. So, it is becoming harder and harder to access the records the old way.

I guess my problem with Ancestry is not that they charge (I can't blame them - its expensive), but how they commercialize it. I hate it when companies put the fine print in language that only a Harvard Law Proffessor can understand.

And what kinda bugs me (well...really bugs me) is that Ancestry takes all the family trees and information that people upload onto their family trees and then puts it into a brand new database. (Cough: OneWorldTree...) This database is full of mistakes - EVERYWHERE. And since so many new genealogists are educated about sources and such - it creates a mess.

I just wish that Ancestry had more of a "family" oriented idea to it. Instead - it seems as if they are just in it for the money. That is what makes me sad.

Oh well...guess I got on a tanget.

[Dick Eastman]

---> I had previously this morning made a comment that was apparantly stricken from the record.

Nothing posted here has been "stricken from the record." All comments posted so far are still here and are still visible to everyone.

I will remove comments that contain strong profanity, personal attacks, violate copyright laws, contain spam, or are significantly off-topic. That hasn't happened so far in this series of messages.

I did remove a couple of messages several days ago because they contained spam promoting some product that had nothing to do with genealogy. I haven't removed anything since.

- Dick Eastman

[shanhouse]

Finally, a voice of reason in the wilderness. "Nattering nabobs": was that by Spiro Agnew?

Linda

[Bette Butcher Topp]

Dick - I wonder if you ever thought you would get this much reaction for simply stating the truth and willing to take the flak over it. You sure will not lose me. It needed to be said and hopefully all will take the time to think it all over and "ingest" it. Since I started in 1974, I spent alot of postage, time, stamps, travel expenses,and time, time, time just waiting for the records I needed. I far prefer this method and yet still travel for my hobby. If you really rationalize it - Ancestry (pick one) costs less than $1.00 aday and I certainly get that much good from it. It is all about choice. Congratulations on your article and it is about time.
Bette

[Sharon Seaver]

Even when government entities offer documents and data online for free, it is not really "free". All taxpayers pay to provide this service!

[Maggie]

In recent years our government has had a hard time bringing itself to provide a variety of public services -- caring for National Parks, other public lands, museums and the National Archives. There has been an off and on significant effort to identify jobs performed by Federal employees for "competition" against the private sector -- i.e., those who might perform accounting for a federal agency might have to compete with a private firm to keep their job. As citizens I personally believe we all must keep our eyes wide open to potential conflicts of interest -- and major problems with contracts that get way out of hand once made.

I have not attempted to find out the deal Ancestry has; but I do get the impression that NARA will also have the product of their work -- at least, I certainly hope so! It is NARA that is charged with the preservation; but they are not funded to get their own job done. Whatever deal Ancestry cut with NARA, it seems clear that one provision of the agreement is that they MUST make information available to the public in some sort of reasonable way. If NARA were "fully funded" to perform its functions, it would/could have used tax dollars and this info would be available on its website year round. So, this is just the facts of life -- how do you allocate scares resources (tax money) and how do you decide what government functions are contracted out -- under what terms and at what cost; and then, in this case how to give the public some shot at getting the info using modern technology.

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. I leave it up to the Inspectors General, us as taxpayers, and our Congressional representatives to come to terms with what our Constitution and laws mean and how they impact the day-to-day lives of citizens -- those who have concerns about Ancestry's "deal" probably need to see if they can get a copy of the contract -- or policies involved, and voice their opinions at a federal level. If they are being at least subsidized by NARA, and required to make info public, are they living up to their contract? It is as simple as that. What are the terms of the deal?

Ancestry has a variety of rates for subscribers, and it is designed to make a profit, period. The current government saw a way to do business, and did it. As I said before, why not just charge a nominal fee for providing a government service - just like Social Security and others we use. If NARA said make it free, then, yes, Ancesty can say it is free to anyone who can afford the equipment to access their website.

I hope, in my previous posts, I made it clear, that my problem is with Ancestry's program to harvest every single search and -- in my personal opinion only -- make a database with no inherent integrity. That is what we are all contributing to each and every time we search for anyone at the Ancestry website (not just military records). At least that is how I understand their disclosures. To the extent that they may have gained free or inexpensive access to federal data and use it, in part, to create something that appears to me to be less than stellar out of it; I can only say, I am disappointed. That does not mean that when I have the bucks to sign up again, I won't do so. It is frustrating to feel that this is a "second form of payment" -- not only my cash, but my own personal and private genealogy effort goes to them free of charge.

Perhaps the kids of today have no problem in revealing their guts and finances, and goodness know what else to a bunch of computers designed to mine the dickens out of it. Buyer beware. User of "free" services beware. You are giving away parts of your right to privacy. Period.
Maggie

[Maggie]

In recent years our government has had a hard time bringing itself to provide a variety of public services -- caring for National Parks, other public lands, museums and the National Archives. There has been an off and on significant effort to identify jobs performed by Federal employees for "competition" against the private sector -- i.e., those who might perform accounting for a federal agency might have to compete with a private firm to keep their job. As citizens I personally believe we all must keep our eyes wide open to potential conflicts of interest -- and major problems with contracts that get way out of hand once made.

I have not attempted to find out the deal Ancestry has; but I do get the impression that NARA will also have the product of their work -- at least, I certainly hope so! It is NARA that is charged with the preservation; but they are not funded to get their own job done. Whatever deal Ancestry cut with NARA, it seems clear that one provision of the agreement is that they MUST make information available to the public in some sort of reasonable way. If NARA were "fully funded" to perform its functions, it would/could have used tax dollars and this info would be available on its website year round. So, this is just the facts of life -- how do you allocate scares resources (tax money) and how do you decide what government functions are contracted out -- under what terms and at what cost; and then, in this case how to give the public some shot at getting the info using modern technology.

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. I leave it up to the Inspectors General, us as taxpayers, and our Congressional representatives to come to terms with what our Constitution and laws mean and how they impact the day-to-day lives of citizens -- those who have concerns about Ancestry's "deal" probably need to see if they can get a copy of the contract -- or policies involved, and voice their opinions at a federal level. If they are being at least subsidized by NARA, and required to make info public, are they living up to their contract? It is as simple as that. What are the terms of the deal?

Ancestry has a variety of rates for subscribers, and it is designed to make a profit, period. The current government saw a way to do business, and did it. As I said before, why not just charge a nominal fee for providing a government service - just like Social Security and others we use. If NARA said make it free, then, yes, Ancesty can say it is free to anyone who can afford the equipment to access their website.

I hope, in my previous posts, I made it clear, that my problem is with Ancestry's program to harvest every single search and -- in my personal opinion only -- make a database with no inherent integrity. That is what we are all contributing to each and every time we search for anyone at the Ancestry website (not just military records). At least that is how I understand their disclosures. To the extent that they may have gained free or inexpensive access to federal data and use it, in part, to create something that appears to me to be less than stellar out of it; I can only say, I am disappointed. That does not mean that when I have the bucks to sign up again, I won't do so. It is frustrating to feel that this is a "second form of payment" -- not only my cash, but my own personal and private genealogy effort goes to them free of charge.

Perhaps the kids of today have no problem in revealing their guts and finances, and goodness know what else to a bunch of computers designed to mine the dickens out of it. Buyer beware. User of "free" services beware. You are giving away parts of your right to privacy. Period.
Maggie

[Ida French]

Dick, I don't have a problem with the price of Ancestry. I love the fact that I can find so much information any time of the day or night. My problem is the customer service. When you report a problem or try to find out info. Recently I sent them the following e-mail regarding the new tax records they added.
"The new database you added shows in the information that there were records available for Kentucky but you did not add these. Will these be added"? Thanks, Ida French
This was the reply: Dear Ida,

We appreciate your message. I do not know if we will be adding records for Kentucky. If we have them we will.

If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.

Christi
Member Solutions
Ancestry.com

What kind of answer is that!!!!! I have worked in custmer service and you should never say I don't know. Long story short I picked up the phone and made a call. It was renewal time after all. I patiently waited on hold and then was told there was a glitch and it should be working soon. That was over a month ago. Guess what - It still doesn't work.
The other problems I have found in the past got the same type of Auto-response.

Other than the customer service I love Ancetry. Ida

[Miriam Salmon]

Linda said:
"Dick and other ready to support the partnership agreement, open your eyes to the alternatives. We all have similar goals for research."

Linda, I congratulate you on avoiding the insulting and arrogant "if you don't completely agree with me you are dumb" attitude Dick start this thread with.
Very well argued, and nicely said!
I could not have replied so diplomatically as you did.

[Dick Eastman]

---> "Nattering nabobs": was that by Spiro Agnew?

The words were uttered by Spiro Agnew but he was simply reading a speech written for him. The speech, including the words, "nattering nabobs of negativism," was written by William Safire who later became a rather famous journalist.

- Dick Eastman

[Linda]

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

Hmmm...that is not exactly how the market place works. To remain in the genealogy service business, a company needs to have a good business product that appeals to enough people seeing the value is worth the price of the subscription. To have a good business product, it is important that there are quality processes in place to ensure the data is as accurate as possible, images are readable, access is consistent, there is communication with the customers, and there is good customer service. If there are a lot of complainers and not enough subscribers, yes they will go out of business but no, we won't lose. That would just means that they were not able to maintain the product to satisfy the number of customers needed for profitability. Any databases of value will be purchased by other vendors or open the door for new vendors.

But a debate about how and by whom public records should be preserved has nothing to do with the survival of a company or not or even the complaints about the subscription prices of services. As I've stated before, there are alternative scenarios for the digitization process that can all benefit the service providers as well as the genealogist. Partnership agreements are not the way that is feasible.

[Monica Foggin]

Tim,
There is no need to be rude! Dick does a great job bringing us the latest doings on the genealogical internet. He has a right to his opinions, as have you. But they can be expressed politely and still get your point across.

[9MileQuilter]

Sitting far away in the northernmost US State, there is no way we could have undertaken our research "in person". Even being able to rent the occasional reel of microfilm from LDS Archives was small help. So, the overpriced subscription to Ancestry has really helped. That being said, we are continually struck by Ancestry's careless transcriptions. Even finding records takes extraordinary deviousness and patience. Considering the quality of the transcriptions we continue to be struck with idea that Census work been farmed out to non-English speaking workers, whose knowledge of European naming conventions (both given and surnames) is non-existent. Then, whole pages of various source document are simple missing or mis-placed, not accessible via inquiry, and the images not available on the Web. But, as we just found out (on an extended trip thru four states in the Middle-West), the local repositories of source documents are just hanging on: counties are broke, and maybe don't have the staff time nor funds to safely archive their treasures. And, there are the local genealogical societies who are steadily losing ground, as their members quit paying dues and research fees. They often have really good archives of source documents (turned over to them by counties), but no way to properly house and catalog them. So, the problem is far greater than simply travel cost vs. Internet archive subscriptions.

[Don Larson]

I use my public library to use Ancestry and other data bases for free, and also pay to use other services at home. People can check their own library and save money.

[Maddie]

Point well taken, I'm just annoyed that sometimes info is seemingly offered and then tacked onto the next page is the 'small fee'.
And, for all of us who are on the so called 'fixed income' which includes a large percentage of older genealogists, we cannot justify the cost of many of the favorite sites. Still, we are happy that so much on the internet is free.

[Dale Mower]

Dick, extremely well put. As a user of a couple of the subscription sites, I find the subscription prices to be very reasonable for the convenience to research from my recliner in the middle of the night in the comfort of my own home. I would never be able to afford to visit, either financially or in terms of time, all the various repositories where the original documents are located. Heck, I find it hard to fit in a trip to the local public library to do research. I often do talks about researching on the Internet and when it comes to the subscription sites, I always caution people to weigh the benefits against the subscription fee. No one is forcing researchers to use these sites - it's a personal choice.

Additionally, let me say that as one of the many genealogical volunteers working on posting select genealogical information on the Internet for others to access for free as a USGenWeb volunteer, a frequent submitter of gravestone photos, webmaster of a few genealogical and historical websites and blogs, I probably have a greater appreciation of the time, energy and let's say it, work, that goes into providing this information to others to use. It is a heavy commitment and to think that a company would be willing to make the type of investment in technology and time to access, digitize and indes the massive amounts of original documents that these websites make available is just plain nonsense. After all, it is this service that we are paying for, not the original documents.

[C. Normand]

I fully agree with your comments. My background is electrical engineering and I when attending seminars, I was amaized at the amount of money that is being spent on data facilities to support the web. Does anyone ever think about how this information is being stored for us to access on the Internet. Someone has to pay the bill. I am totally amaized at how much information is free on th web, at least let us be thankful for what is free.

[Bob Peterson]

I am somewhat surprised to see any dissenters to your position Dick. It is simple common sense. However, it seems that one thinks that either the government should supply the online information free of charge, or that the government should regulate anyone who does supply it.

Sorry Tim, but it is not the function of government to subsidize your genealogical activity. It is also not a function of government to decide what those who do supply this information should charge. The government is not forcing you to use online facilities. As Dick pointed out, the government supplies facilities that you can go to to obtain the information you desire. You are simply one of those who want someone else to pay for your lunch because you don't want to pay for it yourself.

Kudos to those who were willing to build the databases and other facilities that have done so much to save time and money for those who want genealogical information. They have enabled us to make progress with our research which was simply not possible before the advent of these facilities. A pox on those who seem too selfish to admit that people should be well paid for delivering the products that help us so much.

[R. Buettner]

Right on, Dick. I started genealogy in 1990 and I spent a lot of money on travel expenses, postage, telephone calls etc. I was so happy to find Ancestry and some other sites. I can get more done in a week on the computer than I could in those long trips to sometimes uncooperative people and places. We should be grateful for what we have now and stop complaining. Keep up the good work. RB

[Judy Moulton]

Dick, you are right. I have been researching for over 40 years. I am one of the lucky genealogists, I live only 2 hours away from one of the best genealogical libraries in the country in Ft. Wayne, IN. I remember when printed census indexes came out - how great they were. However, would I ever have thought that a great-uncle would have moved from Michigan to DeKalb Co, IL or 10 years later been in Oregon or ten years after that in Arizona? I never would have found him. I have ordered LDS film, and taken time off work to visit Salt Lake City, the archives in Washington DC, numerous libraries and courthouses in Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New England. My annual Ancestry subscription is miniscule compared to the travel expenses of these trips. Plus it is available whenever I find 15 free minutes. Until volunteers can transcribe all this information or our tax dollars can make it all available online for "free", paid sites are the greatest thing since "sliced bread".

[Gwen McCullagh]

I don't disagree with your position but my appreciation of the National Archives of Ireland bringing on line the entire fully searchable 1911 census of Ireland completely free has skyrocketed. It can be accessed in Dublin for free of course but now online too at no charge!

[Joan]

Thanks so much for saying what I have been saying for a long time. I have been doing genealogical research for many years, so I have done it the old way. Travel to a location, hope you can catch someone in the office when you can be there. Spend hours scouring records -- of course, not indexed -- trying to find something that may or may not be there.

I will of course be staying in a motel and eating out which even back then was expensive. Of course, I am hoping all along that the people who are in control of the records will actually let me access public records. I found many who were very personally involved with the records and didn't want anyone touching the records-- especially someone from out of town... one of those crazy "genealogists". Small towns have small town ideas.

I am a FHC director and when ancestry.com was removed from the free list, there was a lot of growling and grouching. Many times I had to remind them that the company had to make a profit, they had to pay employees, etc. as you explained. It wasn't easy, but finally they understand. Not that we didn't enjoy the "free" site, but I certainly understand.

Come on guys, lets be kind and considerate to each other. Do we all agree, of course not, but we sholdn't run someone down for their ideas, things they want to share or what they believe. I appreciate hearing about what is going on on all websites. Does that mean that I am going to subscribe to all of them, no, but at least if I need to I will know where to look. I am grateful for all the wonderful sites online, pay and free, we are certainly blessed to live in these unbelievable times.

[Mariann]

Has it occured to anyone that the complaint is not the fee that Ancestry charges as you can either pay or not as you wish. However, 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.

[Priscilla Paul]

Dick,
Thank you for speaking your mind about those that prefer not to pay for genealogy services, which is their right, but then complain to those who do prefer to pay. If I choose to pay that is my right. I gladly pay my 10.00 per month to Ancestry.com. The joy I get when I read a will written by one of my great grandparents, or see a family member in a census record when no one knew where that person was for years is an overwhelming joy. I have found civil war accounts in family members own words. To be able to store the images on my own computer, to do this in the comfot of my own home is a blessing I never expected 15 years ago. So I also paid the price of giving them my gedcom. Big deal...they turned it into something the world can use and benefit from for years to come. I used to rent microfilm then haul it to my local library only to find it unreadable or when printed too dark or too light. No more, Ancestry provides beautiful copies in an instant! Keep up the great service to all of us, Dick. You are appreciated.

[Hugh Watkins]

Tim
the issue of government spending is a matter of choices

EG
Do you spend on food and medicine for the poor or, on more free records on the internet for us hobbyists?

The free Canadian census record images are free but not of as good quality as the best of ancestry or the (new) familysearch

NARA's prime task is preservation (yes I know mistakes have been made) of records of government activities.

Their primary user is the US federal adminstrators themselves

the secondary users are the scholars and US citizens in the reading rooms

Us hobbyists are not important except to ourselves

So naturally we pay a reasonable price for access to a server from TGN from library or home, in my case, in Europe

In Denmark church book and census images are free http://www.arkivalieronline.dk/default.aspx but we pay a lot more taxes and expect a much higher service niveau, including free unlimited medical insurance and a modest pension when we need it and free univesity education (only pay for books, board and lodging).

[Frank Pafume]

Thanks for your comments; however, it is sad you needed to post this. It goes to show that common sense is lacking today. I am sure, from the number of posts you will receive, most of have use common sense. However, I am also sure the number of posts to which you allude in your comments are multiplying because people don't use common sense.

[Linda]

Bob said: " it is not the function of government to subsidize your genealogical activity. It is also not a function of government to decide what those who do supply this information should charge. The government is not forcing you to use online facilities. As Dick pointed out, the government supplies facilities that you can go to to obtain the information you desire. "

I don't believe the government fulfilling it's responsibility for long term preservation of the PEOPLE's records through digitization is "subsidizing your genealogical activity". In a post yesterday, I argued that there are alternatives to the partnership arrangement that would accomplish digitization and distribution of the data by the government through competitive contracts. That is not unusual! There is lots of data online on government sites...civil war photos, soldier indexes, national cemetery indexes, etc. Much of the data is on paid sites as well. Pay service subscribers pay for the convenience of searching multiple databases at once.

Each time the records are handled by vendors, their is risk to the long term preservation of the original records. Why not let a single vendor contracted by the government digitize the records to fulfill the government's preservation requirements and then sell the data to vendors for their use on their websites. The vendors then could utilize them in their website any way they want and add indexes or other features that would help set them part from the government site and their competitors.

I understand the reason for the subscription prices. Under my proposal, a vendor could bid to digitize the records and get a profit. All vendors would be able to purchase the data digitized by the government contract for resale to their customers via subscription. Most importantly, the original documents would be handled once and the quality of the scans and indexes would be of a higher standard with the government oversight benefiting genealogists who choose to use subscription services. Ancestry botched the import of a NARA WWII Enlistment index available on NARA's site and have much poorer census scans than other services. How can we possibly trust them not just to rush through and put quanity before quality?

I also don't dismiss the possibility that the government might need to develop a fee structure for using the records or downloading the records. Just as I'm willing to pay a use fee for the National parks, utilities, or downloading federal court records, I would be willing to pay based on use for a few records rather than paying for subscriptions to multiple vendor partners under their current plan to get a few records. As a retired manager of a profitable company offering government data to subscribers at a greater price and more efficient methodologies than they could acquire it through the government websites, I understand the business model of Ancestry and other and technology costs. The government data we accessed was scanned under government contracts and was of very good quality.

No, it should not be a choice of just going to multiple vendors or traveling to the NARA facilities. We should have the third choice of accessing the records online through government sites! It is feasible! NARA is short sighted.

[Miriam Salmon]

Linda said "NARA is short sighted."

You are so right. You hit the nail on the head.
If only those with on soapbox had the same vision.

[Betty]

I sense a bit of a Pollyannaish undertone here when so many people jump on the band wagon in support of genealogy subscription sites. Furthermore I am hearing agreement in silencing genealogists who dislike the commercialization of genealogy research. This is outrageous.

I have always appreciated the lone dissenting voice. Many take a watch dog approach to what is happening with genealogy today and I for one want to hear what they have to say. They are not restrained by their allegiance to a business partnership. It is such an insult to reference their concerns as “Whining”.

I have a subscription to Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com and Footnote. I have been researching for over 20 years. Commercial sites have serious limitations. I am finding they will never replace the information that can be gleaned browsing through the dusty backrooms of small town courthouses.

Subscription sites do rely on transcription and I find them frequently in error. There is a huge amount of information on their site that I pay for which is totally not relevant to my search.

I am retired as are many here and living on a budget. Ancestry.com, if not checked, will raise its prices to the point where few can afford it. Unless we pay attention they will pull the wool and many will be convinced they are getting what they are paying for. Not so!

Currently, Ancestry.com has a monopoly. Someday soon they will have serious competition. I am looking forward to that day.

So, good for you dissenters! Evidently you will be the only ones who will hold these corporations accountable.

[Marie Peer]

Hear, hear, Dick! I cringe every time I read a post or hear someone grouse about the high cost of accessing information through online genealogical services.

I've always wanted to suggust that those people return to researching the way I did in the beginning. It is fun, it takes longer, and it would save the angst about the 'high cost' of having information brought into your living room with the ease of a few key strokes. The old fashioned way is open to all those who are upset with cost.

I've been enjoying genealogy for 24 years. I'm very grateful and glad to pay for genealogical services. They've saved countless hours and expense for me. In addition, I enjoy using them.

Thank you for your truthfulness and clarity, Dick. I thought I was the only one who was irked and amazed that people would not know that it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide information electronically.

Marie Peer

[Golden]

Right on Dick! For those who don't like what you said, or what they think you said, "The Truth Only Hurts When It Ought to!" Unfortunately, some people are so narrow-minded they can see through a keyhole with both eyes. Thank you for your candor and all your articles in this newletter!

[Mariann]

How very interesting how many pots are calling the kettles black. The attitude seems to be not to discuss this but to call names of those who don't agree with you; how juvenile. I belong to several sites where I pay for the information, including this one, but that is not the point. The point is, as has been said by others, Ancestry a) is not perfect, b) is developing a monopoly which in the end will hurt all genealogists, and c) Ancestry did not gather this information at their expense and is now selling it, but it was handed to them after being gathered at others' expense. So if you are looking for "narrow-minded" "nattering nabob of negativity" maybe you should try a mirror. By the way, since my family only goes back two generations and then all my records are in Italy, neither the cost of Ancestry nor the trip to NARA, or anywhere else, is a concern to me but freedom of speech is and without the name calling children.

[Doug Little]

Tim Kerstens has some valid points but the problem that gets me is the difficulty to unsubscribe. There have been too many cases where it has been necessary to cancel a credit card to get out of a service. Genealogy sites are not the only ones guilty.

This problem has made the trying of sites a costly concern - not only moneywise but the frustration in the amount of time necessary to get unsubscribed.

[Shari]

I don't mind paying to use websites that have gathered information for my convienience. I have voluntarily transcribed and scanned records and walked cemeteries because I love to do it and I want to share any information that could help others. "You scratch my back I'll scratch yours." It is my opinion that some sites are overpriced, especially when some of the information found on their site can be found for free or for less cost in other places online. Not all researchers have the money to subscribe to these sites. I only subscribe to the US records at Ancestry because of the cost. A lot of people were very disappointed when Ancestry stopped free access through Family History Centers because it was the only way for them to access it. I guess I believe if you truly love the "work" of researching, profit shouldn't be the main concern. Helping others share in the joy of finding family members is a reward in itself.

[Kim Watson]

Well stated Dick. I stand by your words. Never mind the greedy generation that gives you so much flack and wants everything in life given to them with no work or strings. And again thanks for your research and your newsletter. It can be tough to 'help people with a service'.

[David A. Grosland]

Well-said, Dick, however, I believe you omitted one relevant fact. The information (i.e., raw data) itself is free and accessable as you noted. However, according to copyright law, as I understand it, the display, editing, editorializing, indexes, and organization, per se, etc., added and/or created by the writer (e.g., the individual writing a book and/or the company offering it in print or on the internet) is copyrightable. I believe the indexing and software permitting access probably would fall under the copyrightability provisions. In other words, the author can charge for the book containing the data -- in effect, for its indexing, organization, and "value added" -- but cannot prevent the raw data itself from being copied, etc., as long as the copyrightable portion is not used in violation of copyright laws. Therefore, while we may disagree with the amount charged and/or refuse to purchase a product, we cannot reasonably dispute the right to charge for accessability and format provided by a company.

[Joy Rich]

That's a good question, Frances. I suppose on the federal level that it's because our tax money is being spent on war.

"One more thought for all of you who don't want to pay for info. If all of this info is supposed to be free because it is the people's information.....Why does the US government charge when we request a social security record........why does a state charge for a death cert or birth cert.
Genealogy is like any other hobby or interest, it costs money.
Posted by: Frances | May 23, 2008 at 04:45 PM"

[Bobbi]

Right on Dick!

For those who do not like to read your postings they always have the option of not doing so. If it is so agonizing, why do they continue to do it?

And yes, I think the price on Ancestry can be steep, but that is why I take a furlough between subscriptions. I gather what I can and then wait awhile before going back for more. In the interim I make use of other resources.

And yes, sometimes the indices are way off. Even so, I have found many with ridiculous mistakes. But they still were found. I've even found many records on my cousins that I would not have thought to look for.

How many times have people asked for a look up because they don't subscribe and someone else will do it for them? The naysayers should remember no one is forcing them to use any subscription service.

[M Grosso]

I agree.. I do not mind paying a fee.. but not the exorbant fee that Ancestry.com charges. I have switched !!

[Maggie]

Dick, The "Wiki" world may turn out to be a winner -- I am not familiar with all they do; but I do like the enclyclopedia approach -- identifying information that is presented appropriately, requiring support - references, documentation, and providing forums to iron out some issues. Has this been discussed in the genealogy community?

The Ancestry Insider talked about a method to start repairing computer glitches -- I personally hope we can all work for a common good. Look at genuine issues, and find ways to utilize the absolutely huge good will of genealogy buffs. We all want to solve problems -- especially within our family trees. The government agencies have to work within legislative requirements -- surely as citizens we can encourage - in appropriate forums, ways to "help" ensure that really good solutions can be reached -- with accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The computers are messing up family trees; Foreign indexers are causing us not to be able to find our ancestors when we do search -- i.e., my Isaiah is indexed as Tonich in one census, and Jsaiah in another, and Isaah in yet another. I thought he was really lost until I took time to do surname only in geographic areas where he might be -- what about all those who have NO idea where their ancestor lived? How can we overcome incompetence -- it is in both the government and private sectors. Sometimes I just have to give up for a while I get soooo frustrated. Seems to me that is happening to many others as well.

We are not all equally gifted in ability, finances, easy names or available documentation. This discussion has headed into liberal vs conservative attitudes by some posters. I truly hope all will start looking at the real issues to be resolved. Money is important - certainly to me; but value is the most important. Some still can't afford computers -- so I sure do understand when they hope to find quality results when they go to the library to do a "free" search!

[Peggie]

Thanks for the great article. Any of the "nattering nabobs of negativity" could have done the same things as these organizations - started a business gathering information. I think it's a great advantage to be able to search online.

[Moi]

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

This subject comes up on many of the Rootsweb lists from time to time, and it makes me crazy, too. People DON'T want to pay for information on the internet. There ARE a lot of lazy people - personally, I find research a lot of fun, but that's me.

The *government* doesn't "force" people to do or to use *anything.* You can choose or not to use whatever you want. You can go to the places, you can not go. You can pay a website that localizes everything FOR you, or you don't have to do that.

The government isn't "forcing" me to buy Ancestry. Besides, Ancestry is not expensive, relatively speaking - I don't pay for the World version, I don't need it (yet) - I think I pay $15+- a month for the basic subscription. If you purchase a given version of Family Tree Maker you can get a year of Ancestry for free. People make choices as to what they want to spend their money on. These people pay a heck of a lot more than that for internet, cell phones, cable, etc. and no one bats an eye.

The work Ancestry did saves me time, which saves me money. I have no problems paying Ancestry for that work for me. The price of gas alone makes their work worth it.

But - some of the local historical societies make people pay out the nose for information, and no one complains about them. They didn't do that work in a lot of cases - many of them are monitoring work that government put together. I have never paid just $5 to anyone to research anything. It's always a LOT more than that.

The Delaware County PA courthouse charged me $15 a PAGE for a copy of a will from 1827. If you want to know if someone is buried in East Harrisburg Cemetery, they make you pay $25 to pull ONE index card from a box. Dauphin County Historical Society has very little holdings in their office other than public record, but they charge $10 a visit, and they aren't open more than 4 hours at a shot, 2 days a week (if that). $10 is twice what Lancaster County charges for a WHOLE day (and they are HUGE).

If you don't like how things are, you can make things happen yourselves. Click on my name to find a link for a movement to get PA's older vital records online. Many counties already have them - but we want the state stuff like death records, birth, etc.

[Louise]

Well, this has been very interesting. I don't entirely agree nor do I entirely disagree. You have not lost me either, Dick.

This subject is very close to my heart. I have some real issues with Ancestry and as the head of a genealogy department in a public facility I am often heart broken.

My staff, both in their 70s, spend all their working hours FOR genealogists. True they are paid (a little over $7.00 a hour) for it and for servicing the walk-ins, but they and I give very special personalized service when it is apparant that the patron could use it because they are traveling and on a tight schedule. Perhaps they came without properly educating themselves and because of that they went to cemeteries or courthouses first, when if they had come to our genealogy department first they could have accomplished what they spent 5 or more hours doing in 2 hours here, then if they still had time, they could go take the photos of tombstones -- that they can now find much faster. Because we have so much concern for saving history and genealogy we are very atuned to sources they would probably never have the time to devote looking for (many from newspapers NOT digitized or on the internet) or have any inkling is out there, they might stay an extra day mining our unique sources. If we know the family descendants or others working on the line we will tell them and give them contact information; call their attention to sources we have that would very likely fit their research, even look up a few things for them in between all our other work. My two staff constantly cut and paste obits we have brought in to us, xerox them and put in notebooks, then index them and give to our overworked techie dept. who will eventually put the index on the web with a form so the public can order a copy with.

We go so out of our way for the public that one time a researcher went home and wrote a lovely essay and put it on the web, wherein she said that when she used out collection and we were so helpful she "thought I had died and gone to heaven."

Myself, I only work 14 hours a week now; although in the same age bracket as my tiny staff, I have a lot of physical problems. But genealogy is my love and I go all out on certain patrons if I note they are working on a name that I can be especially helpful on (I am not suppose to be working with the public now, have other work to do and am always behind but I can't help myself sometimes).

What hurts me is the fact that some people will come and use the collection for hours or days and do a lot of photocopying and then when they pay at the end of a day say "Keep the change, it's for a good cause." That change is usually 5 cents to 35 cents. It feels like an insult. We don't charge for walk-in service but really appreciate those people who give us (our facility) a nice tip of $5 to $20 for all our services, the special local collection we constantly build and give us praise our help and for the collection.

Our web obit index is free but if people live at a distance and send for a copy of the actual obit we request a LSASE and hope to get a donation for the service. About half the people realize a donation is appropriate and do so, some only $1.00 per obit, other several dollars per. We have a portion of the site that urges them to read it. At the end of the read we have a portion about genealogy etiquette, which boils done to the fact that while it is free, donations are gratefully received for all the work done.

BUT when we get to ANCESTRY I have my quibbles. I've been around, involved in genealogy for 35+ years (20 working in public sector 4 days a week) and for the as long as I can remember Ancestry has made problems for people. For a while they "cleaned up their act" but have regressed again. Back about 1998-2000 I was getting all kinds of complaints from patrons about Ancestry, mostly the "free offers" that required your giving credit card info. If you didn't cancel immediately at the end of the last day of your free trial they automatically billed you for a cycle and it was almost impossible to contact them and get it straightened out.

I went to the big conference in Iowa in 2001 (on Sept. 11) and one of the first things I did was look up the Ancestry display and asked to speak to the most senior person there. He pleasantly listened to my complaint for other people and said that "We recognize we have some problems and are trying to clean up our act." I was glad to hear that and they did. It got where you could easily contact them, listen to the menu and easily access the subscription department and things were taken care of properly.

Well, I hear they are at it again, pulling the same baloney, automaticly billing and being inaccessible.

Not only that but when they bought out RootsWeb the contract, as I understood it, was that since RootsWeb was entirely built by volunteers Ancestry could never charge for things on it. Well, one of my favorite sites that was on RootsWeb is GenForum. Now if you type in genforum.com it changes to genealogy.com No problem with that. A year or more ago, it all operated basically like it use to. But a month or two ago, for the fun of it, I went to the ancestryforum they created and typed in one of my surnames that I had put in genforum to see if anyone else had posted something about the same person/family on ancestryforum. Lo and behold, to my great surprise, what came up on ancestyforum but my entry from genforum!!!!! They stole it as far as I am concerned and have NO right to it; I posted it on genforum as a public service not only to myself but to others. They have violated the agreement!!!! And if they say differently I will not believe them. There have been too many thinigs I have heard from people over the years. We get about 1,000 people a year in our facility and tho' only a few a year complain (if time to talk general genealogy is available in their schedule it might come up) it doesn't mean more aren't as uncomfortable or downright upset with Ancestry.

Just a few days ago a gentelman was telling me about his automatic billing problem; he can't get hold of them to cancel, he tried many times and ways. He even went so for as to contact his credit card company and ask that Ancestry's charge be removed due to fact that he hadn't authorized it. The credit card company said they couldn't do it and he had to go through Ancesty. He repeated again that he couldn't contact them; the credit card company still refused, so he canceled his credit card with them and said he refused to pay that particular charge.

Ancestry and some others charge too much. Too many of us don't have time to work on our genealogy every month, or maybe more than one day every month or two. We can't justify buying by the month, year etc. Because of that. I like the "charge for an item" IF we can ascertain FOR SURE that it is who we want or what we want.

I have always sent $3 for one obit, $5 for two, along with the FULL date and LSASE to a library that had to look it up for me. They were happy and so was I. IF I received exemplary service when I traveled TO the free source, I usually left a tip of $5 or $10. (This was back in the 1970s-1980s) When the office or facility said they definitely couldn't accept it I got the name of the head of the department and sent a box of special candy for all in the office after I got home. Some offices were so delighted that they actually sent me a thank you note for he candy.

I sometimes work with our patrons on an exchange basis. Send us your information or let us copy what you have with you on our local people, and don't give us any donation. (I don't say that but work it out that way.)

I agree with Randy above, re as commercialization phased in big time, it shocked people. But people have to realize what they are saving by being able to access things without traveling, be it a commercial site or a public sector site like libraries that don't charge (where they -- the researcher -- should at least give something to compensate for the work to render the service.)

By the same token, the commercial sites, Ancestry being the worst I've run into, should not gouge people.

Enough said.

[Glenda]

Genealogy is my hobby and my entertainment, and even though money is tight (I'm an older widow who works to support myself), the cost of my subscriptions for access to "public records" on subscription sites each year is less than most people spend on movie rentals, going to the movies and/or pay-per-view movies watched in their homes over that same period of time.

I've paid subscription fees to Ancestry.com for six years, and currently also have subscriptions to footnote.com and worldvitalrecords.com. Why?? Convenience.

I know that if I want the convenience of being able to sit comfortably in my own home where I also have access to my physical records and the convenience of my own coffee pot and bathroom, then I'm going to have to pay for it. On an annual basis the cost is less than regular trips to a Family History Center or the closest library with Heritage Quest, Ancestry, Footnote or World Vital Records access, and it gives me the ability to do my research at my convenience... whether it's 15 minutes on the laptop in the kitchen while dinner is cooking, a couple of hours in the middle of the night because I can't sleep, or an 18 hour session because I found the link that broke a brick wall. I don't have to be dependent on a place that keeps hours that aren't convenient to me. A place to which I would have to haul notes and binders, and which would charge me 5 or 10 cents a page to print what I found (and I have printed thousands of pages of reference materials).

It's all a matter of priorities, and people are willing to pay for the things that are important to them. Those who aren't willing to pay the price aren't serious about their work.

If others don't want to pay the fees, fine! They don't have to, and no one is going to force them to. It's their right to refuse to pay for the service. It's my right to refuse to read their whiny complaints and demands that subscription sites should be free to them.

[Trudy Kennedy]

Those of you with money to burn have no need to read this post. Genealogy use to be an inexpensive hobby that empty nesters, retirees and the disabled living on limited incomes could do to occupy their time, record and document their family history and keep their little gray cells active. Now we hear that an annual subscription of about $200.00 a year to just one genealogy website is nothing compared to the cost of travel, hotel rooms, food, etc… Is one genealogy website really enough? Then, there are those conferences where one can take a cruse and learn to be a better genealogist or take a class and perhaps have access to special archives – or not. Then there are those expensive CDs that offer possibilities, but often deliver nothing in exchange for your time and cost. For those of you in need of instant gratification, subscription websites may be the way to go.

I began my ancestor search acquiring birth, marriage and death records then using census records, books and publications accessed remotely and for free through my public library; HeritageQuest has been invaluable. When I began helping others with their genealogy, I purchased a subscription to Ancestry for around $200.00 to speed up the process, although all the information they had on my family was contained in the census records; so the freebie met my needs.

For many, retirement has brought with it the time and opportunity to take classes and put that information to use. I took a genealogy class and with the acquisition of each document, became more hooked on solving the family puzzles, locating each preceding generation and getting to understand their circumstances, successes, illnesses and losses. Most importantly, the class provided valuable information about how to conduct an ancestor search without using computers and pay websites.

For instance, you can telephone many government offices and research facilities to see if they have the information or documents you need on file and at the same time inquire about fees. Follow-up the phone call with a letter ($.42) requesting the document needed along with a self-addressed stamped envelope ($.42) and requisite fee, and your expenses will be considerably less than travel and annual subscriptions to genealogy websites. And don’t forget, you will have a document to show for your efforts that will provide clues as to the direction your ancestor search should take.

I have sent donations to many facilities because their staff provided documents and service far above and beyond the call of duty, but most of those checks were returned to me. On several occasions, I sent letters to government offices for vital records and government workers sent back the documents requested along with related documents and materials that I had no idea existed - for no extra charge.

My point here is that there are many ways to conduct an ancestor search, it doesn’t need to be costly and there is no need to accomplish it in a week. The dead aren’t going anywhere and you will find them if you are persistent.

I offer best wishes for success to everyone conducting an ancestor search and condolences to everyone unable to take advantage of the plethora of information available online because of the skyrocketing costs associated with documenting a genealogy. (Reminder: an undocumented genealogy is probably fiction).

Suggestions: use all the free online websites such as GenWeb, Google, Family Search and check to see if there is an LDS Family Search center near you. Write letters to historical societies use your public library, search government records and use your telephone to contact facilities out of the area! Telephone cemeteries that don’t list their burials online, take a genealogy class so you can get help if you need it. Instructors and other students with access to subscription websites may do look-ups for you and as you develop your research skills, you will be just as helpful to them in return.

If you can’t find the information you need for free, purchase a one month subscription then GET VERY BUSY on that genealogy and don’t waste your time, because time is money and in this economy, it is worth less and less and less every day!

[Cyrus Dantel]

It is good to see that not everyone agrees to whatever black-and-white image Dick Eastman paints, but that there are still thinking people out there willing to point out that the world isn't black and white.

[Cornelia]

Dear Dick,
Thank you for saying this. Your points are well made.
I have spent years working on building a database that some folks think I should now hand to them free of charge, instead of my asking that they buy the resulting book, which is being sold at cost.
This was a labor of love, and I was glad to make the information available, and surprised that people think all genealogical data should be free once someone else has had the expense of locating it, transcribing it, and publishing it, be it on the Internet or elsewhere.
We are all happy to help each other, but yes, the cost of making something available should be passed on, or we can't afford to do the projects.

[Marian]

Dick,
I for one cannot travel any longer so relying on these companies to do research of documents and post them for my use is greatly appreciated. Without them the growth of my family tree would have come to an end some time ago. I thank you and all the others for all the information I have been able to locate.

[Kim Watson]

Just so you know - my comment has also been 'stricken from the record. And as far as I know; it contained no spam, profanity and was on point. Never - the - less I still agree with what you wrote - even the "Nattering nabobs". If it was good enough for Agnew's speach writer - It's good enough here....

[Dick Eastman]

---> Just so you know - my comment has also been 'stricken from the record.

No they have not. No comments here have been stricken/deleted/changed. As of this time, 195 comments have been posted and every one of them is still here in its entirety.

- Dick Eastman

[Chris]

> 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.

Maybe but much more data is available online now because commercial companies digitise it and sell subscriptions. Voluntary efforts will never match the sheer volume of data now being transcribed, scanned, indexed and put online.

[Concetta]

I have read all of the comments now and see that the issue has quickly become "the lazy ones" vs. the "educated ones". Nothing could be farther from the truth!

I'm a couple years out of college, making a decent salary, but don't exactly have money to burn. My problems with Ancestry are threefold:

1. The difficulty in unsubscription. No company should legally be allowed to harrass and hold onto its customers in the manners that Ancestry has practiced.

2. They have continued to use a horrendous search algorithm which doesn't find quality results, and encourage people to just click and add, resulting in thousands of genealogies that are "click and paste" rather than any research going into them. One in particular links my great-great grandfather to a historic family that is rife with errors, and I have no way of fixing this other than to let the person kindly know their information is wrong, due to X, X, and X and then have the person reply back with "Ancestry posted it, so it must be right".

3. The fact that they have heard complaint after complaint about not offering lowered prices to people with low incomes, cutting off access to many genealogy societies and FHCs, etc. and did absolutely nothing! Furthermore, there has been complaint after complaint sent to the company about issues with transcriptions, them promising content they don't have, the errors with MS Vista, etc. and they have STILL done nothing.

And yet further is the mistreatment of Rootsweb.com, USGenWeb, many genealogy societies, et. al. are other issues. But that's another post.

My problems with several of the other sites - World Vital Records, Footnote, etc. are somewhat lesser because I think they have actually listened to what people think is wrong with Ancestry and tried different ways to fix them. And I firmly believe they are good competitors to have.

I am perfectly happy to pay for my genealogy habit. However, when I put money into something, I want to make darn sure I know where that money is going. When I pay a librarian for a record, I know the money goes to operate the library. When I pay a government official for a record, I know the money goes to the upkeep of those records. When I pay a cemetery official for a photo or burial record, I know the money goes towards taking care of a cemetery. When I pay an FHC $10 to rent a film, I know my money is going straight back into the genealogy section to make more films, digitize more films, and further genealogy causes.

If I pay Ancestry.com $250 I get...TV ads? Why are our monies not going for new content and helping increase the rate of preservation? The NARA partnership is the first one in a long time where the company is actually might be going to do something useful with the money they have.

No thanks. I'll stick with paying for records, getting on the phone, writing emails and letters, and doing research instead of "click and paste" genealogy. It might be more money to do that, but in my opinion, its much more rewarding and definitely "worth it".

[Ellen Davies]

THE REAL WATER ANALOGY

Government contracts water supply out to just one company.
Company abuses monopoly to demands the price of vintage champagne for water.
Company spends some money of advertising, including Dick Eastman's blog.

Citizens demand affordable water (imagine that!).
Dick Eastman says he has a complaint about these citizens. Dick Eastman says he will hold the sugar coating.
Dick Eastman lies that these citizens keep claiming the water is everyone's property and should therefore be free.
Dick Eastman claims that he "is appalled" that these citizens expect their water to be for FREE.
Dick Eastman patronizingly "explains" that running a water plant costs money.
Dick Eastman insulting calls the citizens "nattering nabobs of negativity".

[E Thorne Morris]

The government information that is open to the public is free, and if the same information is "sold" to commercial programs, it is still FREE for public use.
I don't like to take a day off to travel to archives, pay toll fees and parking fees just to get to the papers I want to read. But for one dollar a day I can scan the world at 2am, in PJs, cat on lap, snack food on table, and no interuptions.

Also, with some archives closing records to the public, forcing the use of indexes, what gets forgotten is the number of thefts and damages to these pubic records by the tremendous numer of searchers who use them. I know that the files of an ancestor in Ulster Co, NY, no longer exist: letters of adminstration concerning out of state relatives - and had they been microfilmed, others could read them today. It was one of the few times I visited a NY surrogate's holdings, and the papers were in such fragile condition they could only be copied by hand. When I wanted to read the rest of the file a year later, it no longer existed...I would gladly pay to see that file if someone did film it.

I also did a lot of research in a county archive and some items I saw and read were not to be found a month later, someone was looting the older record fragments and the clerks had no way to lock up the hundreds of miscellaneous boxes. Then in a space saving move the "loose" records from the eighteenth century were stored in a garage, no heat, no temp control, and broken water pipes. I complained and an article was written in the local paper. A few years later the county built an archives and salvaged most of the records, but some of the books from the Revolution were globs of jello. So film, I'll pay.