melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote in news:13oaemqja2316f5@corp.supernews.com: > In article <47849254$0$47162$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, > Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> writes: >> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:20:46 -0600, clifto wrote: >> >>> I hate to say it, but what I've seen of LDS so far is highly >>> disappointing. What little tiny fragments of my family tree I've >>> found there are sparse and inaccurate. I've pretty much stopped >>> using their site as a resource. >> >> The IGI and their associated Pedigree and Ancestral files are a waste >> of time because of the inaccuracies and outright fantasy entries. >> It's a resource I rarely ever use now either. >> >> It is only one part of their holdings though, albeit the best known. > > But why criticize the LDS/familysearch for the same problem > one finds on RootsWeb and/or Ancestry? Author Theodore > Sturgeon (Phillip Klass) famously said, "90% of everything is > crap." Wasn't Phillip Klass actually using William Tenn as a pen name? Sturgeon was the correct source of that quote, of course---"Sturgeon's Law" it was called. For some reason the LDS indexers were unintentionally very good to me and included some actual, verifiable links to ancestors of mine in the IGI database. So for me it's been a tool that works pretty well, if used judiciously. I ignore entries that aren't sourced to film and always check film or fiche myself to verify information. Occasionally I've found entries that have been properly indexed but which I missed on my first or second pass through records that have poor film images---for instance, searching for all children of two particular parents. Sure enough, when rechecking the film, there they are. The IGI's usefulness does depend on your ancestral region, of course, and depending on where they're based it might be a waste of time to use it. But occasionally there are hidden gems to be found. ---- saki@ucla.edu