Commentary About FamilySearch Cooperative Project With Ancestry.com/The Generations Network

Today's announcement from FamilySearch, the genealogy department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and The Generations Network, owners of Ancestry.com, may be monumental for genealogists.

First of all, these two organizations are the biggest competitors in the arena of supplying information to genealogists. The two have not always agreed on various projects and goals in the past. In my mind, that's not surprising; I wouldn't expect a commercial corporation to have the same goals as a non-profit organization owned by a religion. The lack of agreement has created bits of friction from time to time, although the two organizations obviously do not discuss their differences in public.

I think today's announcement is great: these two powerhouse organizations have decided to work together, not on one project, but on many. Each brings certain strengths to the table, strengths that may complement the other's offerings perfectly or nearly perfectly.

Let's closely examine a few items in today's announcement.

First of all, let's examine the announcement that the two organizations will work together to improve their U.S. census records. First, it is no secret that the census images on Ancestry.com are lacking. In fact, when you stop to consider that those images were mostly scanned nearly ten years ago, using state-of-the-art technology available at that time, we shouldn't be surprised that the images are not perfect. The technology has improved a lot in ten years and images scanned today should be much better than those made ten years ago. After all, today's technology is better.

Next, it is always possible for any organization to go back and “scan it again” after a lapse of ten years. However, doing so is expensive. When trying to allocate the funds in this year's budget, any organization will be hard pressed to go back and “re-work” something already performed when there are new projects waiting to be done. After all, new projects are usually more successful financially than re-visiting old projects. The announcement shows that FamilySearch will be giving newer images to Ancestry.com essentially free of charge.  Ancestry.com will have to spend some money integrating the new images into existing indexes but I bet the total cost will be a fraction of that of a total re-scan.

Next, the indexes will be merged. Nobody will remove any data but new information will be added to both sites. For an example, let's say that both sites contain indexes of a typical Irish neighborhood in a big city in the eastern U.S. One particular census page is difficult to read, perhaps the census enumerator had poor handwriting. One site may have indexed a family's surname as “Harrigan” while the other web site has it indexed as “Hannigan.” Which one is correct?

Who cares? Under the new system, that particular census entry will be indexed BOTH as “Hannigan” and as “Harrigan.” Anyone searching for “Harrigan” will find that entry as will anyone searching for “Hannigan.” This may not be a correction but it is very effective nonetheless. I think this is a great, low-cost solution.

The new indexes will also have more fields available for searching. You will now be able to search for names, as before, but also by ages, sex, marital status, and other fields that were not searchable before.

Finally, it should be noted that today's announcement is clearly labeled as work that will be accomplished in the future, not an announcement of work that has already been completed. The work will begin within a few days but will probably require at least two years to complete. We will see some improvements soon but not all the improvements will be online within the next few months. The first project will be improvement of the 1900 census images with other projects to follow soon after.

All in all, I am delighted to read today's announcement. Any time the two largest organizations in genealogy announce that they are working together to improve their products, the result is better information for all genealogists.

Comments

[theKiwi]

>The improved images will become available on both sites, a win-win for genealogists.

I posted on the other thread about the actual announcement on this. In the announcement it says:

"As projects are completed, images will be available for free in NARA reading rooms and FamilySearch’s 4,500 Family History Centers."

This seems to exclude the images being available on http://familysearch.org/ - where of course they'd be available for free in contrast with them being on Ancestry.com for $$$$ of in Family History Centers if you care to drive to one.

Or am I missing something?

Roger

[BJ]

This announcement certainly does sound as though the images will be available only on Ancestry, not on FamilySearch (except at FHC's and NARA). While a joint effort is logical to maximize online records, rather than duplicate efforts, this agreement between the two seems heavily weighted in Ancestry's favor.

I suspect that volunteers for Familysearch's indexing project will be less inclined to contribute their time and effort after this announcement.

A commercial company such as Ancestry deserves a fair profit, but their subscription rates have surged as they've bought or merged with others. In 2002 I paid $99 for worldwide subscription -- now priced at $299.40

[Laura Beeman]

For now at least, the 1900 Census images are included on the FamilySearch Record Search - Pilot site at http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#p=0

[Kathy Petlewski]

As a volunteer who is currently indexing for Family Search, I will have to think long and hard before I resume my work. I have a feeling that at some point I won't even have access to what I have done without having to pay for it. Somehow, that just doesn't seem right!

[Marilyn]

This is right off the FamilySearch Pilot Site for Transcribed Records:
>>Join thousands of volunteers around the world who are helping to make more free records available online through FamilySearch Indexing. Find out more<<

So they haven't updated this prose yet. I am still confused as to where these free records will be available--the FHC or online at home? Personally I haven't been to a FHC for years--I'd rather research at home. I can still use the Heritage Quest census records from my library's site, however.

[Dae Powell]

Subscription fees are voluntary, right? Volunteer not to pay them if they are too dear. I agree that charging for the work of volunteer indexers seems a bit much, but Ancestry has several areas that are free. Mayhap these areas will expand to encompass the work of FamilySearch volunteers.

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

[Linda Johnston]

I'm still waiting for Ancestry's promised reconstruction of the 1890 census, "using their vast resources in documents." I've been waiting for nearly 10 years, so I'm a patient person. This was one of the "drawing cards" they used, to attract new subscribers. As a "newbie" at that time, I subscribed. They dangled that "preview of coming attractions" for several years, until I no longer believed them. I haven't subscribed to Ancestry for a number of years, now, and don't plan to. My research and experience has grown, and I find that I don't need their overpriced subscription rates, in order to expand my knowledge.

The practice of buying RootsWeb (a free site, which had the work of many volunteers, who contributed their hard work) had me concerned. I now find that those concerns were well-founded, as Ancestry has taken census transcriptions, plus many other databases, and used that data to expand their site and increase their subscription rates. Will FamilySearch information be next? I no longer volunteer for such projects, as I refuse to "feed the behemoth", so it can grow and devour hours of voluntary services, without so much as a thank you.

Linda Johnston

[Linda]

Yes, subscription fees are voluntary but I think the point of concern is how Ancestry.com may abuse the agreement as, in my opinion, they have in the past.

Remember, those areas of Ancestry that are free (Rootsweb mostly) were made possible by volunteer organizations/groups whose data got absorbed by Ancestry in exchange for storing and managing the data. It was the volunteers, not Ancestry, that made that original data possible. Volunteers were doing the work with anticipation that is was going to be maintained by a volunteerly run organization. I don't expect the Rootsweb areas to be free forever. For example, Ancestry defaults the new profiles so that only paying subscribers can contact submitters of the messages on the free message boards. Most people are not aware they can change the default so all people can contact you. It is sneaky and unethical in my opinion to default an option to negate what you had before. I don't have confidence that Ancestry will keep the Rootsweb portion free forever.

As far as the argument that the technology has changed. Yes, it has but keeping up with technology and updating your product is part of business. Ancestry has made some very poor decisions in the last few years that have sacrificed the quality level of their service.

Ancestry obviously fears the online competition from the LDS church. I just hope the LDS church understands the legal aspects of the agreement and is able to bring the information online as well as to the FHC centers. And I agree with the point that volunteers are not going to be so willing to contribute to a commercial venture. There are volunteer organizations that are opting out of submission to Rootsweb because of its affiliation with Ancestry.com. Fortunately, Ancestry is not the only game in town as far as census records or any other records. I dropped my 10+ year subscription out of principal rather than money reasons and am doing fine without it.

[Barbara]

I signed up to work on the Family Search indexing project specifically to help make information more freely and easily available to fellow genealogists, seeing the LDS effort as an wonderful alternative to paid subscriptions for those who can't afford them. I also hoped that the new effort would result in a better quality resource than that currently available. It seems with the new arrangement the latter may be true, but if the product of our efforts isn't going to be freely available, I will likely direct my time and skills elsewhere. I have no desire to be an unpaid employee of Ancestry.

[Dick Eastman]

Perhaps I should point out that this agreement stipulates that the indexes will remain on FamilySearch.org. They will remain free of charge. In fact, they will be bigger and more complete indexes than what FamilySearch.org has ever had as they will be the COMBINED indexes from the two organizations. They also will remain free of charge on that site.

In addition, the same indexes AND the (new and improved) images will also be available on Ancestry.com.

- Dick Eastman

[Vivian]

Does anyone reading this have access to LDS chain of command to know whom to contact about whether the images will remain available on a familysearch.org web site? I am most interested, because I am a volunteer for the family search indexing project, but I am not a member of the LDS church.

[Dick Eastman]

The images will be free on Ancestry.com IF you are at a local Family History Center. You do not need to be a member of the LDS church to access them free of charge. However, that access will only be free from a Family History Center near you or from the Family History Library in Salt Lake City.

- Dick Eastman

[Adams Genealogical Services]

It is and will continue to be the policy of FamilySearch to have their information FREE! Indexes that are being created by FamilySearch volunteers will be available on FamilySearch.org and images will be connected to them. With partnership projects like FamilySearch and Ancestry.com, if the LDS Church cannot make them available on their site, the images will be available FREE through one of the over 1400 Family History Centers worldwide. These agreements continue to make the records of the world available without a fee, and the indexes will be available online from home. It is the images that may need to be viewed at a Family History Center, although many, many will be able to be viewed online from home.

[Nancy]

Looks like a "win" for the LDS, Ancestry, and genealogists! I applaud the spirit of cooperation of both Ancestry and the LDS. It seems cooperation has become a rare thing in our world today. And not to worry about the LDS, I am sure they know what they are doing.

[Kip]

There are approximately 4,500 family history centers in the world, not 1,400 as stated in the previous email. See the new view of FamilySearch.org for updated information regarding family history centers (this is not the "new FamilySearch" site which is presently only available to some LDS Church members).

[Bob]

Ancestry.com has seriously crippled Rootsweb. Rootsweb is no longer the source of free information it once was before the Ancestry.com take over. I really don't think LDS has cut a deal with Ancestry.com as Rootsweb did. Only time will tell.

[Dian Robinson]

Please tell me how I can contact people who do ancestory searches for hire?
My family is from the KY and West VA. area.
Thanks you,

[Miffed]

Dennis wrote:
"I wonder how people that have donated their time for the indexing are going to feel about their work going to a commercial company..."
Well, I certainly didn’t donate my time so some commercial company, especially one known for questionable business practices, could make money off my work. And to think that I have to pay to see my own work! Here's to FamilySearch.org: "I QUIT!"

[Mike]

Miffed,

You do not in fact have to pay to see your own work. Your own work was only on the index, and you will be able to see that for free online. What you won't be able to see free online are the images you used to help create your work, i.e. the indexes. The images are the product of the digitization project of the FHL and thus their work which they have agreed to share with commercial providers who will maintain those images and show them free of charge to patrons of the FHL in SLC and regional FHC's, along with some other institutions like NARA facilities.

So again "your work" is an index, not the images which were used to create that index.

Mike

[Miffed]

Mike-
You missed my main point. My paying to see Ancestry's images is only tangential. The most important thing is that my work is being used by a commercial company without my consent. Someone is making money off the work that I freely *donated*. I was not forewarned about this, nor was I given a choice as to what would become of my work.

[Mike]

Miffed,

If the index is available free online, which it will be, what difference does it make if it also is on a commercial site of some kind? People will not be paying a subscription fee to use the index on the Ancestry site, they will be paying for the links to the images, and the Family History Library in SLC and local centers will also benefit.

Another way to look at this is that the Family Search traded your and their work to a commercial provider (index + images), in order to get that provider to maintain those images on their servers and provide *free* access to anyone who walks into a family history center including you. That seems a reasonable trade.

Having said all that, I realize that there could be a *potential* problem if Ancestry were to mislead prospective customers into believing those indexes can only be viewed with a subscription, but that would be an issue between Ancestry and those customers, and would not change the benefits of the deal.

BTW, if you quit indexing are you also going to refuse to view future projects hosted by Ancestry at a local family history center? Just curious.

Mike

[Faye M]

I think that FamilySearch just through the baby out with the bath water!!!! For months now I have been looking so forward to the results of the work that the FamilySearch volunteers have been doing. I tried to imagine what the end product would be - sort of hoping for some user-friendly online genealogy software, maybe even with a small user fee. You know, it had crossed my mind that I would finally be able to carry out my research without the use of subscription sites. The much anticipated steps into the 21st Century have just suffered a major downturn when FamilySearch double crossed their volunteer indexers. Like thousands of other people, I do not live in the USA and have absolutely no access to a 'NARA Reading Room'. As well the nearest FHC is 100 miles away - time, work obligations and the price of fuel prohibit access to that facility. What a sad day for the world of family history research........

[Mike]

Faye,

You said, "maybe even with a small user fee".

Like $15 a month? The price of 3 or 4 gallons of gas? That's what Ancestry costs, and other commercial partners of Family Search even less.

Mike

[Hugin in Texas]

Yes, it COULD be win/win for all, but FamilySearch should know that it has gotten into bed with the devil.

[Penny in Texas]

"One site may have indexed a family's surname as “Harrigan” while the other web site has it indexed as “Hannigan.” Which one is correct?"

In short: The Family Search Index, which numerous volunteer transcriptionists like myself helped create. As a long-time subscriber to Ancestry, I'm well aware of how pathetically inaccurate Ancestry's indexes are. I've lost count of the corrections I've made - virtually all were transcription errors.

What kind of genealogist relies on the index as their source? None who are serious about their work. The image is the source - and that won't be available without paying for it somehow.

For the life of me, I can't see how this benefits FamilySearch. By the way, the announcement from the LDS says something about the enhanced index being free at Ancestry "for a limited time, as they become available". But, hey, since I have to have a subscription to access the image, I'll still be able to access the index. And if I can't access the image on FamilySearch, why do I need their copy of the index? Maybe for better search capability?

My main gripe about the necessary evil - as that's how I see Ancestry.com - is not their shady business practices, not even their exhorbitant subscription rates, but their deplorable search results.

So, what's this all mean for the average rural researcher (e.g. living a much greater distance than 3 or 4 gallons of gas would cover from the nearest FHC and NARA)? Nothin' much. SSDD.

Like other volunteers, I think my time in the future would be better spent elsewhere than FamilySearchIndexing. So much hope - such a sad outcome.