Hi all! I guess I'm going to jump in here and ask your opinions. I work for a major library system and Ancestry.com is one of the online databases they are considering to offer to our card holders .... for free! I know there are limitations as to what Ancestry offers but it seems to me as I've been evaluating it, that some of the things they offer are pretty darn cool - particularly if you (our library customers) don't have to pay for it. I guess I'm thinking particularly of the census info (which seems invaluable) but also Maryland Calendar of Wills and other databases. So nice to be able to search easily, to print things out and to be able to do it whenever you want to ... from home in your jammies if you want to! Do you agree with me or do you think that its so limited and sometimes inaccurate that it isn't worth offering to our customers (current buzzword for patrons)? The other option as far as genealogy databases is HeritageQuest's Genealogy and Local History Online - this database consists of books which have been scanned in and are searchable although it still seems to have a way to go - nice but if I had to choose I think I'm leaning towards Ancestry. I'd appreciate your advice as I have to make my recommendation soon. I may be rambling - its late. Thanks for your help! Ellen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carolyn McDaniel" <cmacdee@centurytel.net> To: <AMXROADS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 4:46 PM Subject: [AMXROADS] Ancestry et al > Dear Beej, Marilyn, Jim and Cousins, > Well, first I have to stop laughing so I can type! How does one show that > via e-mail??!! > The problem with Ancestry is that it's become too successful. Will > success spoil internet genealogical subscription services? You bet it > will! When they first were offering their services they were interested in > gaining customer approval. They vowed that -- unlike Broderbund's Family > Treemaker -- any gedcom lineages submitted to Ancestry World Tree would > always remain free and available, and that still applies. It was in > keeping with what genealogy users have traditionally done, which is to > share information. They offered their databases free for the initial ten > days they were put up, which was a good deal. I don't know if they still > do that. If so they don't advertise it anymore. > But I really agree about the misleading information. I was told when I > subscribed to the census images when they were first offered, that they > would have all of them online "by March." I think that would have been > about six months. Well, they still aren't complete! BUT, as I said in my > other posting, the census images are about the best thing going at > Ancestry. I could use the AIS index to lookup many of the listings I > wanted and then browse the images until I found it. But they've sort of > hidden the AIS index. Why, I don't know. And the other day I found that > the 1870 AIS for Indiana is missing completely. Most states go through > 1870 and a couple have 1880 too. > BUT, the biggest gripe I have are those "I may be related" and "comments," > boxes which means you can't copy and paste database information > anymore. AND I agree the customer service is crummy. My account got > mixed up and after writing and writing and writing and calling and calling > and calling, I was told that if I didn't like it, I didn't have to > subscribe! I asked to speak to the accounts department supervisor, and the > guy said he WAS the department supervisor! BUT again, I finally got hold > of the Customer Service Manager, who straightened the whole thing out. (My > account was in one name and my credit card in another.) I doubt if the > accounts manager ever got straight, though. > This is where technology has taken us folks! > This is the problem with our society. The term we're groping for is > institutionalized. The tail wags the dog. A perfectly good service > becomes governed by something other than the service it seeks to > provide. The schools no longer teach children how to think, they provide a > place that hires teachers and administrators and pay them obscene > wages. The education of our children gets lost in the process, along with > the children. Doctors and health care are businesess. If you get > healed by a brush with the business, it is a minor miracle. If you're > Ford Motors, you make a Thunderbird and a Mustang and and then turn them > into hog Cadillacs. The church, well, let's just say the headlines speak > for themselves. So it should come as no surprise that genealogy and > history organizations are run for the benefit of the organization not the > subscribers. This is true of Ancestry as well as some of our formerly > well founded surname organizations. > I have a suspicion that at Ancestry the services are governed by persons > who want to make a buck, have unleashed technicians on the services and > have forgotten the genealogical considerations. Genealogy and history do > not wag, but how to squeeze another dollar. High inaccuracy, > inaccessibility, unfathomable formatting, and loss of usability > result. Too bad. Institutionalization. > On the other hand, Broderbund's World Family Tree and Family Treemaker > has reformed, literally. Now owned by Mattel, which includes The Learning > Company and A & E, they are Genealogy.com, still a subscription service > to view all those gedcoms and CD's, but they do have the GenForum, which is > free and provides a great service for Surname and locality postings. AND, > Ancestry also provides their own surname boards free, and as owners of > Rootsweb, Long May It Wave!!, provides a whole array of free genealogy, > subsidized by Ancestry's commercial side. So it goes. I suppose Jim is > going to tell us now that Scott Peck owns Mattel. > > Love, Your Cousin, Carolyn > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Dear Ellen, Barb, Judy and Cousins, I think Ancestry is a good bet for your library's freebie, because as you say, it does have cool databases, and having the records accessible in time frames that are convenient to the user is invaluable, IF the user actually got what they claim to present. But, let the Buyer Beware! Here are some specific problems with their presentation. As far as I know, the census images are the only original records, and for me, this database is almost priceless. The other databases are secondary records, and then in addition, most have been retyped in order to be included in the databases. Many errors occur here, and it is Ancestry that has created them. Another major problem is that they have formatted the transcriptions into such small pieces of information that it takes back or forward paging over many many pages in order just to obtain the basic information about one person. This is encountered in many of the genealogy type of databases. The one that I have used and valued so very much in book form is Edward Pleasants Valentine's outstanding four volume collection of records for a group of Virginia families, "The Edward Pleasants Valentine Papers." You cannot reference anything taken from this book using Ancestry's version. The volume is not given and neither is the page number. My elusive Smith ancestry is hidden in this work, and the person I believe may be my direct ancestor, Park(e) Smith does not come up on a search, even though his father Francis Smith was the primary reason for the entire EPV lifetime work, and EVP's summary of the family includes Parke Smith. One cannot retrace steps referenced in the work due to Ancestry's confused presentation. Hanover County records are inexplicably indexed under "Chesterfield County," and with no volume given and no page numbers, it is hard to detect where the record was in EPV' s original. The recopying and reformatting has butchered this invaluable, classic Virginia work. And similar kinds of works in typical genealogical format i.e., "Notable Southern Families" is so cut up it comes out as gibberish. Today I tried searching this work for Strother, Watts, Marshall, and Lee. Nothing. I tried "Colonial Families of the Southern States of America," and got a good example, using Watts. Yes, you can print this out without any problems. The difficulty comes if you want to incorporate it into your own files,and compare it with other records you have, which should be a primary genealogical use of any good computer database. The entries for James Watts go over three pages, and after each paragraph (and each sentence for each child) there is a "Add Comments" html entry which renders the section uncopyable. The "Add Comments" and the "I may be related," html is inserted into all the Ancestry databases, and has the same devastating effect on trying to copy them to your computer. You can still copy them, but it is an arduous process, involving saving them as text, and means that you have to make each page a separate file. Misleading descriptions of the databases that lead persons to subscribe for services that contain very little bang for the buck. I was interested in the British Isles Parish records knowing that they were not ALL there to begin with, but when they proclaimed Yorkshire Parish records, I bit and to my dismay found only the "A" parishes listed for Yorkshire Now, several months later, still proclaiming "Yorkshire Parish Records" they have gotten through the "B's." But they don't have any entries for Bradford, where my Holts lived, even though the . To the experienced genealogist these enormous errors and formatting that render the files nearly unusable are beyond frustrating. They thwart excellent, accurate procedure and application. I fear that an inexperienced searcher who gets no matches in these circumstances would believe that no record simply do not exist. I found that huge portions of the Civil War Muster records used the "mustered in" dates in the "mustered out" dates -- a big inaccuracy. I wrote them and nothing happened, and then I wrote again and found they had changed them, or at least the ones I could check. The Revolutionary War service records give no location for the soldier, which makes it impossible to determine the correct identity. And on and on. Finally, take the case of the "Maryland Calendar of Wills," for example. A truly wonderful database. Using my ever faithful primary test case, Henry Pen(n)ington, I tried searching from the main Ancestry page, using the one "n" spelling to see what came up under the hits for "Court, Land and Probate Records." Nothing. I went to the main search page and used the "2n" spelling and "soundex" feature. Nothing. Then I went to the locality search, selected Maryland, selected "Maryland Calendar of Wills," and searched using "2n's" with no given name. I got four hits, James Pennington, John Pennington 1699 with Henry Pennington included in the abstract; Henry Pennington, 1702; and William Pennington. Now I know there are more Penningtons in the MCW because I have used that work a great deal. Here are the resulting errors: 1. Omitted Pennington names of devisees in these four wills are John, Richard, William, Henry, Robert, Jacob, Benedict, Rachel and Rebecca, James and Isaac. Wife Sarah for James, wife Mary for William and wife "Eliza," is given for Henry. None of these appear as hits. 2. Omitted: Francis Pennington who is mentioned in many many probate records included in MCW. 4. Omitted: Henry Pennington is a devisee in Samuel Pilsworth's 1686 will. 5. Omitted. William and Thomas Pennington, orphans of William Pennington of AA County in the will of Samuel Withers. 6. Omitted Henry Pennington in the will of John Rigbie, 1700. 7. Transcription error. The wife for Henry is not Eliza, neither in the original will nor in Jane Baldwin Cotton's volumes. She is Elizabeth and is abbreviated, Eliz.a. Lord knows how many people give her name as Eliza because of Ancestry's sloppy transcription error. These are just the few Penningtons I can check quickly. There are likely more. In Hinshaw's "Encyclopedia of Quaker Genealogy," there are so many omissions because Ancestry's poor formatting renders the work all but unusable. The omissions occur because re-formatting separates children from the parent, etc. which removes the surname entries from the children entries. In "Kentucky Land Grants," which formerly was an outstanding database, the "Add Comments," and "I may be related," html again prevents copying for genealogical comparison, defeating the whole purpose of Ancestry's service. I could go on with each database, but I think the point is made that the services Ancestry offers are broad and wonderful, useful and convenient, but in actuality the majority of the databases do not provide what is offered because of poor accessibility, accuracy and usability. One answer could be to present images for the databases, which you say Heritage Quest does. They are not responsive to complaints or suggestions. Many of the databases could be brought up to par with better genealogical quality control. I keep writing and suggesting myself, but they keep ignoring me! Love, Your Cousin, Carolyn