"Cheryl Rothwell" <historysleuth@gmail.com> wrote: > No Richard, I cannot direct you to our private lists. Well, I could but > you > cannot get on them anyway. That's OK. I understand now what was happening. I am more than a bit astonished over the uproar about it, however. It has more to do with the attitudes - some of which are deserved - that people have toward Ancesstry. It could make all of its services free and there still would be complaints. Sign up? Never. What a rotten index. I uploaded my family tree and it's not right. On and on. They never have anything on my family. I don't like the viewer they use for their images. It doesn't have all the immigration ships. In short, genealaogy has always been a "free culture." Along comes someone who charges you to look at census images and it really upsets some folks, esjpecially those who have been among the "givers." > Ancestry got a patent for a robot that spiders sites and lets them grab > copies of pages from those web sites. Yes, I know. The right of citizens and corporations to get patents is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. I want to ask you a questiion. What you say above about what Anescrty is doing is, of course, what Google has been doing for a long time - and Google gets heaps of praises for it (although Ancestry obviously launched its project in a way that invited misunderstanding and criticism). This is a fact: Google uses its (patented?) searh engine to scour the internet for information, including genealogical data, then it _caches_ it so that the searches we ask for will be done more quickly. Now to the point: Google has cached my web site. Has it stolen it? (Yes. You can search "Pence Family History" and you can click on the "also cached" link and see my material under a Google logo. Ancestry did this same thing to a lady and she complained on her blog that the site had ben "hijacked"). If, in your eyes, Google is not stealing, how do you explain this statement of yours: "To me what Ancestry is doing is stealing, taking files without permission. Better it may be a copyright violation if they picked the wrong file." Now, let me ask you again. In view of what you said above, do you think Google is stealing? Has it violated my copyrights? Remember now, it has cached my web site - apparently in its entirety. I don't know if Ancestry did or not. > They put that up on Ancestry and they call Internet > Biographical Collection. The people donated those files to USGenWeb or > ILGenWeb or USGenNet or put them on their private web sites -- and now > they are on Ancestry, free today but only AFTER an outcry and no promise > they will be free next week -- not that an Ancestry promise means much. Please note this fact and acknowledge: The USGenWeb collection on RootsWeb has been, always was and still is free. Never did Ancedstry prevent anyone from accessing it. In fact, they gave it a plug in the current issur of RootsWeb Review. Second, I presume that those who put files on USGenWeb do so for the same reason I do: They hope that as many people as possible will find it of value in their research. That's my goal and that's why I don't think Google is "stealing" my material by caching it. If I read the material that has been written about this correctly, what the Ancestry spider does is no different from what other search engines do - except that Ancestry has patented features that helps it better find and match genealogical information. If it truly does that then why would I object if it found my web site and chached the information on it? That's why it's there - for people to find. Should I really prefer that no search engine ever find my web site? You say: "Not that an Ancestry promise means much." That's called an ad hominem argument. It implies some sinister actlion but provides nothing concrete. What evidence can you provide that Ancestry goes back on its promises? Specifics, please. I'll merely point out that Ancestry took over RootsWeb several years ago and has continued to fully support it and - as ***provmised*** - as a free service to genealogists. I see no evidentce that this will change. Finally, Ancestry's project is no longer free. It's gone. Ancestryannounced late today that it has pulled the - its cached collection of genealogical information is no loner available, free or otherwise. And I was sort of looking forward to trying it out to see if it actually worked as well as they hoped. If it had worked it would have been a nice tool for genealogists. > I suspect this has something to do with the LDS going into competition > with > Ancestry as it digitalizes all its records and puts them online FREE. I saw where someone else said that earlier. I'm scratching my head whondering how this could possibly impact ***in any way*** what LDS is doing. Give me a clue? I suspect it was hoping that the search engine would give it an edge c at least for a while, but that's now gone. Cheryl, I know you don't subscribe to Ancestry. I do, and for a variety of reasons you are familiar with. It's indispensable to me. You also constantly chide Ancestry for charging for its services. Sure it does. but it's not exactly gouging its subscribers. A one-year deluxe subscription to U.S. records costs me less than $10 a month. Before Ancestry.com put its census records on line I used to spend more than that on parking every time I went to the archives to crank the microfilm machine. It is a fantastic bargain. a true bargain and I think it saves me far more than it costs. I want to remind readers here that all of the material on RootsWeb, including the USGenWeb files, all the RootsWeb files, all the personal files and the support for all of the genealogy mailing lists, is not free. It's just that Ancestry is paying for it. No matter the dark fears some harbor, I predict that Ancestry will never charge for its support of RW (at least directly). On the other hand, it may simply shut it down. That way their critics will have one less thing to complain about. We need to remember something else. Ancestry is in business to make money. It has high-powered investors who are constantly putting pressure on it. Ancestry need to be competitive or it will fold. If that is what you want, then I think you should be more careful about what you wish for. Richard

I agree with you that people think genealogy should be free. The issue was that what was free should remain free. I think if people wish to subscribe to a service they should subscribe to the one that works for them. It really does depend on where your ancestors were and what they did as to which works best for you. Someone wrote an article on that once -- if your ancestors did a, b and c then X is the best service. If they did l, m and n then Y is the best service. Do you recall that? I do not chide people for paying for Ancestry. You have me confused. I know you and Sandy think it is gold. Sandy [a friend of Dick and I's] uses it so much she paid the exorbitant fee to have internet on the ship! Garland uses it successfully. I subscribe to Footnote at the moment which probably isn't of great use to many people, at least at the moment, because most of what it has online predates the arrival of the first ancestor of many people. I also use Heritage Quest which has been available free through my library each place I've lived pretty much this century. I also, since you mentioned census records, helped purchase census records to be put online FREE at USGenWeb. Actually the right to obtain a patent to do whatever you want is not in the constitution as you well know. Ancestry is not impacting LDS. LDS is impacting Ancestry. That was my point. You made it backwards. <g> Now I know you can continue this conversation forever but I think we ought to wind it up before everyone's eyes glaze over. Cheryl