The source information on the database tells the user how to obtain the image, by default it implies that you can't download it I don't understand the indignation though, first what would you rather have, no index or database that gives you the information? And secondly a user can take a screen capture if desired Its not Ancestrys fault if a supplier of data doesn't want the images downloadable is it Ancestry and Findmypast both have a transcript to the census of Scotland 1841 to 1901, they are not allowed access to the page images as scotlandspeople make to much out of them to let them use them There was a similar situation on familysearch with Kent records and Cook County records, both of which restricted access to their images once they realised they had no income once on Ancestry There are a lot of index only databases on Ancestry and elsewhere, they help to find the source of records, what would users rather have, an index only or zero ? Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 05/03/2015 19:30, John Yates via wrote: > All of the "noise" on this list could have been avoided if Ancestry > had just displayed a message that "download of this image is not > permitted, contact <XYZ> to purchase it" Or something like that. > Five minutes from a good programmer would have saved me many hours > of tests, and a lot of you time as well (thanks!). And in the end > it turned out we were all correct! > > I'm cc-ing this to Ancestry as well. Perhaps they will put it on a > punch list to do. > > However, it seems to me that in the past, if a record was found but not > downloadable, you could not get as far as seeing it. There was no > "image" link. (this might be another site, but I thought it true on > Ancestry as well). It appeared to me abnormal, and thus as a bug. > > I brought this up last night with a large genealogy group, and there > were quite a number of astounded members saying that isn't that why > we pay big bucks to Ancestry, to get records? What if all sites decided > to do what SAR has done with Ancestry? It breaks the model. I also > think our exorbitant fees to Ancestry should actually get us the record. > If this is the Ancestry model of the future, it doesn't bode well. > > John