I find that I need to use both Ancestry and FMP - but as I've already done the bulk of my family tree for London, I can usually find what I want through the versions held at my local library, or on the odd free weekend. I'm now looking at French and Dutch records, and FMP doesn't have any, while Ancestry does have a few. I need both Westminster and LMA records!! I find both search engines very clunky after using university-library type ones in my job, but you can play round until you are getting the results you want. Search broadly, including selecting a "name variants" search, and then narrow your results by selecting filters such as date, locality, and type of record. Admittedly this works best for names that aren't too common. Don't forget that you can sometimes find the same records on familysearch, or on FreeBMD. If they are mistranscribed on one site, they might be correct on another!! And FMP does have a link to the old search. Oh, what is the 1939 register? Jeanette A choice between Ancestry and FMP is not an option for Internet-based research on most London ancestors. Although both providers have all the relevant censuses and transcriptions of the GRO indices, most of the rest of the data they carry is not duplicated. Most of the parish registers (as well as other important local resources) we need are in either the LMA or the Westminster Archives. The former did a deal with Ancestry, the latter with FMP. The Westminster parishes are obviously fewer in number but they served a very large population. Although a subscription to both at the same time is not feasible for many, it is no good pretending that it is simply a matter of choosing one's favourite, like deciding between IE and Chrome. Both companies have, over the last two years, made "improvements" to their websites. The main purpose of these changes has been to promote what I call the "sausage machine model" of family history - i.e. you enter some names, dates and places into boxes and, hey presto, a family tree is generated at the other end. It is true that such a crude tool can actually work in some cases but families, and history, are most of the time more complicated. The most effective way to use these sites has always been to regard them as an online library. To get the best out of this (and any other) library you need (a) knowledge of the historical context and the various records that exist; (b) some effective finding aids to speed up the process; and (c) the engagement and utilisation of the impressive processing power of the human brain. In most cases, looking at one dataset ("book", in the library analogy) at a time is more effective than flipping through a pile of them. Using Ancestry like a library is still marginally easier than FMP because (a) the "card catalogue" is easier to use to find individual datasets; (b) you can quickly and easily compile a list of the ones you use most often, via the Quick Links facility; and (c) they have chosen to credit their subscribers with a little respect by assuming they can read grown up sized type, and can therefore present a lot more information on one page. As I said, it's not quite as simple as "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Most London researchers will want/need both at some point. FMP has got its hands on the 1939 Register (release date not announced yet but probably end of this year or beginning of next) which should keep it solvent for a long time, despite its inadequacies! Caroline . ************************************** Send your List messages using *PLAIN TEXT* and always *DELETE* all previous messages EXCEPT the one to which you are replying. *MEANINGFUL Subject Lines* ie name or topic, date and place with surnames only in CAPS. List Admin can be contacted at: Middlesex_County_UK-admin@rootsweb.com The List Archive, containing all messages posted, can be found at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=middlesex_county_uk . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message