Joan, You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the link to the actual URL was not easy to find on the first day that I was made aware of it, which was Monday; and at that time the database was available only to paid subscribers. The cached URL made it look as if Ancestry owned the material. Furthermore, the source information that was put at the bottom of each page was generic, relating to the entire collection and of no use in properly sourcing information that you might use. Whereas for other kinds of information, such as death records, the source information names the specific record the information comes from and makes it possible to properly source data you use. Initially, to see the actual URL you had to click on the link to the cached image. At the top of the page there was a tab which took you to the actual page. This is the reverse of what other search engines do. Furthermore, I know of no other results page on Ancestry that has a tab at the top; it is certainly not something that people are looking for. Actually I am not sure that the tab was there at the start because I certainly did not see it till later. In the next incarnation of the collection, Ancestry placed a link to the actual page below the link to the cached URL, again a difference between real search engines and Ancestry. Later they placed a non-hyperlinked address for the actual page at the bottom of each record. It was certainly plain to see, but by that time they had infuriated many people. Surely you can disagree with those of us who were upset without impugning us. I have researched a geographic subgroup of my maiden name for eleven years and have had a Web site for most of that time. I have a database, with sources, both on my own site and on Rootsweb. I have helped many, many people find their ancestors and have provided text reports by e-mail that contain all of my research notes, including record transcriptions. I have sent many copies of documents by snail mail and have never asked for one penny of compensation. I have posted answers on many query boards. I currently moderate a very active Yahoo group of Binkley researchers. I find what is obviously my research all over Rootsweb. I don't think that anyone who knows me would accuse me of screaming "mine, mine, mine." [It is true that I am protective of my brief biographical essays, which are my own creative work.] Many of us may not be as Internet savvy as you are. When we first saw what Ancestry had done, it was very confusing. Furthermore, and not to belabor the point, Ancestry did not present the cached search results in a straightforward manner. Frankly, I could have lived with the format as it last appeared. However, I think that if Ancestry wanted to provide a genealogy-specific search engine, Ancestry could have set one up on its site and called it that. [There is some question as to how genealogy-specific the Internet Biographical Collection was. Many people complained of finding things that were not genealogy related. One person found an X-rated site.] Sara Binkley Tarpley On 8/31/07, JYoung6180@aol.com <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: > > ---- > Right, which is why the whole thing was removed -- but that doesn't make > me > have any more respect at all for mob rule or for people who supposedly are > interested in sharing free genealogical resources with the greatest number > of > people ut who, when a tool is created to help accomplish just that, start > screaming mine mine mine. > > Joan > > >