On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:50:55 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Harvesting is right. You won't be able to click, prepare and download. > Hence my post about developing software to help automate the process >of getting data off the site and into a database. Where's I've found something that might be useful, I copy the screen information and paste it into askSam (a text database), which makes it possible to search for it and find it again. But with the old FamilySearch I could download a GEDCOM and import it into a lineage-linked genealogy program, which makes it easier to compare with other records from other sources. I don't use my main genealogy file for this, but a research file that covers a particular family or area. The new FamilySearch means I would not be able to do that without a lot of retyping, and one of the main usues of computers for research is that you shouldn't have tyo retype anything, or at least not too many times, since errors may creep in. OK, the 1881 census on FamilySearch has lots of errors, but again, if you import the Gedcom into a lineage-linked program, you can correct them, but the source record is there intact for comparison. If you have to retype the stuff from the new version, I can't see anyone going into that amount of detail, and it will lead to sloppy research. I've created a poll on the new FamilySearch on my blog at: http://su.pr/ADGVVj to see how many people like it, and how many don't. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:7llmk6lruot3g5er187r2v74q92dib2hsm@4ax.com... > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:50:55 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: > >>Harvesting is right. You won't be able to click, prepare and download. >> Hence my post about developing software to help automate the process >>of getting data off the site and into a database. > > Where's I've found something that might be useful, I copy the screen > information and paste it into askSam (a text database), which makes it > possible to search for it and find it again. > > But with the old FamilySearch I could download a GEDCOM and import it into > a > lineage-linked genealogy program, which makes it easier to compare with > other > records from other sources. I don't use my main genealogy file for this, > but a > research file that covers a particular family or area. The new > FamilySearch > means I would not be able to do that without a lot of retyping, and one of > the > main usues of computers for research is that you shouldn't have tyo retype > anything, or at least not too many times, since errors may creep in. > > OK, the 1881 census on FamilySearch has lots of errors, but again, if you > import the Gedcom into a lineage-linked program, you can correct them, but > the > source record is there intact for comparison. If you have to retype the > stuff > from the new version, I can't see anyone going into that amount of detail, > and > it will lead to sloppy research. > > I've created a poll on the new FamilySearch on my blog at: > > http://su.pr/ADGVVj > > to see how many people like it, and how many don't. Hey, the price is right, compared to Ancestry, Footnote, Godfrey, etc. ;>) I can live with the changes.