Hi Joe - The FHL created the all new census digital images not Ancestry. They are swapping data - images/indexes and the better FHL images & indexes will now be on the Ancestry site. The FHL is getting the Ancestry 1920 index and will "re-index" it again to make it even better. I wrote abt it at: http://blog.genealogybank.com/2008/07/familysearch-adding-1920-census-online.html How are things in San Antonio? Pouring rain here. Tom On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Joe Bissett <jbissett@hot-peppers.com> wrote: > Hi Sybagram, > > At 10:08 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote: >>I am indexing for FamilySearch. I recently found that FamilySearch is going >>to let Ancestry.com have the images that I and others are typing up for them >>on their paid site. This made me very angry and I am now deciding if >>I should >>continue taking the time to give a paid site information that I thought >>would be on the net for free. > > My "understanding" is that Ancestry.com actually digitized the images > from which folks are working. If that is correct, then they > certainly deserve to recoup their investment and make a reasonable > profit. I also understood from one announcement that I received from > Ancestry.com that these FHS images would be available for free for a > limited period of time after posting on the site. > > I am partner in a VERY small business that digitizes old genealogy > related books. Our scanner alone cost $35,000, and the computers, CD > writers, employee paychecks, etc., are all additional costs. A > quality scanner for digitizing microfilms runs, I think, in the $60,000 range. > > Quality scans like I access daily on my Ancestry.com fully paid > subscription are not the result of somebody laying a paper copy on an > $89.00 flat bed scanner from Best Buy. They require top notch > (expensive) equipment, and most of all, employees that will take the > time and make the effort to maximize the quality of each individual > scan. It is through this type of a process that we are now seeing US > census scans that were originally blackened, or heavily blocked out, > actually being produced now as readable images. > > Users then depend on a quality index to even find a person, and then > to point them to the proper image. That is the thankless task that > you are performing, and for which future researchers will bless you. :-) > > I know that many folks seem to object to Ancestry.com as a paid > service. It is my personal experience that a full subscription to > Ancestry.com is the best and least expensive facility that I have > found to move me forward in my personal research. More importantly, > as the Rootsweb Administrator for the PIGGOTT, CUMMISKEY and KERSLAKE > surname lists, I am always doing searches to help our list > members. Ancestry.com permits me to share up to five images for no > charge with other e-mail addressees. > > So as I was sitting here at 5:25AM this morning searching the brand > new 1891 Canadian Census for my Grandfather and his mother and > sister, I can assure you that the thought of spending $4.00 a gallon, > spending an hour each way to the FH library, paying $9.00 for a film, > waiting in line for a scanner, then waiting in line for the film > printer were the farthest things from my mind. :-) > > Anyone who takes the time to do a cost / benefit analysis of the > ability to access Ancestry.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will > usually discover that the cost is a great deal, when compared to other methods. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Regards, Joe > > >

Hi Tom, Great to hear from you again. Thanks for clearing up this issue. Actually, now that you've straightened me out, I remember reading this (possibly on Eastman's daily letter). Hopefully the 1920 index will be much improved; it needs it. ;-) ;-) ;-) At 12:35 PM 7/23/2008, you wrote: >The FHL created the all new census digital images not Ancestry. > >They are swapping data - images/indexes and the better FHL images & >indexes will now be on the Ancestry site. > >The FHL is getting the Ancestry 1920 index and will "re-index" it >again to make it even better. > >I wrote abt it at: >http://blog.genealogybank.com/2008/07/familysearch-adding-1920-census-online.html > >How are things in San Antonio? Pouring rain here. We're still the same. Herb had some serious elective surgery and is in full recovery. Wanda is still down for the count with her spinal problem. I'm still out working my pepper farm. Our book project is obviously temporarily on hold. We seem to have lost total contact with the Godfrey, but that's more my fault than anything else. I'm waiting on the much needed rain from Dolly, who went ashore down south just a while ago. Warm regards, Joe

Hi folks, I surely do not want to renew the age old bash Ancestry / defend Ancestry dialogue that pops up from time to time. Each individual hopefully makes their own decision based on their own circumstances. That is why I ended my note with the below quote. At 11:36 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote: >Just my 2 cents. Having said that, let me state flatly that I have spent a considerable sum on gathering certificates, copies, images, etc., as has anyone who has been pursuing their roots seriously for any period of time. I totally understand, but do not necessarily agree with a position that consists of not wanting to give those documents the widest dissemination. Why? you might ask. Well, my GOAL is to learn as much as I can before I pass on about the heritage from which I am the result. It is my personal experience ( I am not trying to apply this to anyone else ) that despite having personally paid for something, when I share it, I normally end up receiving equal value in return, in the form of other document copies, or more importantly, finding the trail to a new cousin. I have also transcribed for "for pay" entities, as well as a very small contribution to this wonderful Brooklyn list. Personally (and again I am NOT trying to push my feelings on to anyone else) I could care less where my work ends up, because the net result is to further the total available knowledge for other researchers. Imagine! I have a certificate for the marriage of a PIGGOTT grand cousin in New York City in January 1879. All family members completely disappear for the FREE 1880 census, and I am at a standstill. I can just imagine that some clue that I need is in a sealed LDS record, or was found and transcribed by someone who for personal reasons does not care to share. If that record could be accessed by me, whoever worked on it in the first place would immediately have access to the 20+ years of research and document gathering that is my database. I would hope that such a perspective is at least considered in the overall decision whether to share or not, regardless of the entity involved. Again, just my 2 cents. Joe

Certain sections of Ancestry.com are free e.g. 1880 census (also at family search). The Mormons have said many times that their databases will be free. I have no doubt that what you working on will be free at both sites. MIKE maurmike1@verizon.net -----Original Message----- From: nybrooklyn-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nybrooklyn-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bissett Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: NYBrooklyn@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BKLYN] Ancestry and Family Search Hi Sybagram, At 10:08 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote: >I am indexing for FamilySearch. I recently found that FamilySearch is going >to let Ancestry.com have the images that I and others are typing up for them >on their paid site. This made me very angry and I am now deciding if >I should >continue taking the time to give a paid site information that I thought >would be on the net for free. My "understanding" is that Ancestry.com actually digitized the images from which folks are working. If that is correct, then they certainly deserve to recoup their investment and make a reasonable profit. I also understood from one announcement that I received from Ancestry.com that these FHS images would be available for free for a limited period of time after posting on the site. I am partner in a VERY small business that digitizes old genealogy related books. Our scanner alone cost $35,000, and the computers, CD writers, employee paychecks, etc., are all additional costs. A quality scanner for digitizing microfilms runs, I think, in the $60,000 range. Quality scans like I access daily on my Ancestry.com fully paid subscription are not the result of somebody laying a paper copy on an $89.00 flat bed scanner from Best Buy. They require top notch (expensive) equipment, and most of all, employees that will take the time and make the effort to maximize the quality of each individual scan. It is through this type of a process that we are now seeing US census scans that were originally blackened, or heavily blocked out, actually being produced now as readable images. Users then depend on a quality index to even find a person, and then to point them to the proper image. That is the thankless task that you are performing, and for which future researchers will bless you. :-) I know that many folks seem to object to Ancestry.com as a paid service. It is my personal experience that a full subscription to Ancestry.com is the best and least expensive facility that I have found to move me forward in my personal research. More importantly, as the Rootsweb Administrator for the PIGGOTT, CUMMISKEY and KERSLAKE surname lists, I am always doing searches to help our list members. Ancestry.com permits me to share up to five images for no charge with other e-mail addressees. So as I was sitting here at 5:25AM this morning searching the brand new 1891 Canadian Census for my Grandfather and his mother and sister, I can assure you that the thought of spending $4.00 a gallon, spending an hour each way to the FH library, paying $9.00 for a film, waiting in line for a scanner, then waiting in line for the film printer were the farthest things from my mind. :-) Anyone who takes the time to do a cost / benefit analysis of the ability to access Ancestry.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will usually discover that the cost is a great deal, when compared to other methods. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Joe ___________________________________ The Bklyn Info Pages Website: www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/ List Administrator: NancyL916@aol.com Post to List: nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com ___________________________________ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYBROOKLYN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I am indexing for FamilySearch. I recently found that FamilySearch is going to let Ancestry.com have the images that I and others are typing up for them on their paid site. This made me very angry and I am now deciding if I should continue taking the time to give a paid site information that I thought would be on the net for free. I contacted Family Search and here is their reply: We have really appreciated all of the work you have done on the indexing, and hope this will answer some of your concerns about who has access to our indexing. The FamilySearch offers millions of indexed records and images for no charge directly through Record Search. Additionally, in order to increase public access to massive genealogy collections worldwide, FamilySearch will provide free services to archives and other records custodians who wish to digitize, index, publish, and preserve their collections. You can search the indexes of these record collections for free on FamilySearch, and the records custodian's site will provide access to the images for free or a fee depending on the needs of the archive and those assisting in the digitization. When the images are accessed from a record custodian, the link that takes you to the image will take you to a different website to view the image. You will be instructed there what you need to do to be able to access the immage. Unfortuanally some record constodian's charge fees for using their informaton, but be assured this won't happen with our record search sites. Thanks again for all of your work please EMail or Call us if you have any further questions. Our Toll Free Number is 1-866-406-1830. **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

I agree with Joe. It is not that expensive to use Ancestry.com and being available 24/7 makes it a real good deal! Cathy -----Original Message----- From: nybrooklyn-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:nybrooklyn-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mark Lomax Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:37 AM To: NYBrooklyn@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BKLYN] Ancestry and Family Search Hear, hear! Well said. Mark Lomax California On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Joe Bissett <jbissett@hot-peppers.com> wrote: > Hi Sybagram, > > At 10:08 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote: > >I am indexing for FamilySearch. I recently found that FamilySearch is > going > >to let Ancestry.com have the images that I and others are typing up for > them > >on their paid site. This made me very angry and I am now deciding if > >I should > >continue taking the time to give a paid site information that I thought > >would be on the net for free. > > My "understanding" is that Ancestry.com actually digitized the images > from which folks are working. If that is correct, then they > certainly deserve to recoup their investment and make a reasonable > profit. I also understood from one announcement that I received from > Ancestry.com that these FHS images would be available for free for a > limited period of time after posting on the site. > > I am partner in a VERY small business that digitizes old genealogy > related books. Our scanner alone cost $35,000, and the computers, CD > writers, employee paychecks, etc., are all additional costs. A > quality scanner for digitizing microfilms runs, I think, in the $60,000 > range. > > Quality scans like I access daily on my Ancestry.com fully paid > subscription are not the result of somebody laying a paper copy on an > $89.00 flat bed scanner from Best Buy. They require top notch > (expensive) equipment, and most of all, employees that will take the > time and make the effort to maximize the quality of each individual > scan. It is through this type of a process that we are now seeing US > census scans that were originally blackened, or heavily blocked out, > actually being produced now as readable images. > > Users then depend on a quality index to even find a person, and then > to point them to the proper image. That is the thankless task that > you are performing, and for which future researchers will bless you. :-) > > I know that many folks seem to object to Ancestry.com as a paid > service. It is my personal experience that a full subscription to > Ancestry.com is the best and least expensive facility that I have > found to move me forward in my personal research. More importantly, > as the Rootsweb Administrator for the PIGGOTT, CUMMISKEY and KERSLAKE > surname lists, I am always doing searches to help our list > members. Ancestry.com permits me to share up to five images for no > charge with other e-mail addressees. > > So as I was sitting here at 5:25AM this morning searching the brand > new 1891 Canadian Census for my Grandfather and his mother and > sister, I can assure you that the thought of spending $4.00 a gallon, > spending an hour each way to the FH library, paying $9.00 for a film, > waiting in line for a scanner, then waiting in line for the film > printer were the farthest things from my mind. :-) > > Anyone who takes the time to do a cost / benefit analysis of the > ability to access Ancestry.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will > usually discover that the cost is a great deal, when compared to other > methods. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Regards, Joe > > > > ___________________________________ > > The Bklyn Info Pages Website: > www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/ > > List Administrator: NancyL916@aol.com > > Post to List: nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com > ___________________________________ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYBROOKLYN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ___________________________________ The Bklyn Info Pages Website: www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/ List Administrator: NancyL916@aol.com Post to List: nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com ___________________________________ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYBROOKLYN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Sybagram, At 10:08 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote: >I am indexing for FamilySearch. I recently found that FamilySearch is going >to let Ancestry.com have the images that I and others are typing up for them >on their paid site. This made me very angry and I am now deciding if >I should >continue taking the time to give a paid site information that I thought >would be on the net for free. My "understanding" is that Ancestry.com actually digitized the images from which folks are working. If that is correct, then they certainly deserve to recoup their investment and make a reasonable profit. I also understood from one announcement that I received from Ancestry.com that these FHS images would be available for free for a limited period of time after posting on the site. I am partner in a VERY small business that digitizes old genealogy related books. Our scanner alone cost $35,000, and the computers, CD writers, employee paychecks, etc., are all additional costs. A quality scanner for digitizing microfilms runs, I think, in the $60,000 range. Quality scans like I access daily on my Ancestry.com fully paid subscription are not the result of somebody laying a paper copy on an $89.00 flat bed scanner from Best Buy. They require top notch (expensive) equipment, and most of all, employees that will take the time and make the effort to maximize the quality of each individual scan. It is through this type of a process that we are now seeing US census scans that were originally blackened, or heavily blocked out, actually being produced now as readable images. Users then depend on a quality index to even find a person, and then to point them to the proper image. That is the thankless task that you are performing, and for which future researchers will bless you. :-) I know that many folks seem to object to Ancestry.com as a paid service. It is my personal experience that a full subscription to Ancestry.com is the best and least expensive facility that I have found to move me forward in my personal research. More importantly, as the Rootsweb Administrator for the PIGGOTT, CUMMISKEY and KERSLAKE surname lists, I am always doing searches to help our list members. Ancestry.com permits me to share up to five images for no charge with other e-mail addressees. So as I was sitting here at 5:25AM this morning searching the brand new 1891 Canadian Census for my Grandfather and his mother and sister, I can assure you that the thought of spending $4.00 a gallon, spending an hour each way to the FH library, paying $9.00 for a film, waiting in line for a scanner, then waiting in line for the film printer were the farthest things from my mind. :-) Anyone who takes the time to do a cost / benefit analysis of the ability to access Ancestry.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will usually discover that the cost is a great deal, when compared to other methods. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Joe

Hear, hear! Well said. Mark Lomax California On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Joe Bissett <jbissett@hot-peppers.com> wrote: > Hi Sybagram, > > At 10:08 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote: > >I am indexing for FamilySearch. I recently found that FamilySearch is > going > >to let Ancestry.com have the images that I and others are typing up for > them > >on their paid site. This made me very angry and I am now deciding if > >I should > >continue taking the time to give a paid site information that I thought > >would be on the net for free. > > My "understanding" is that Ancestry.com actually digitized the images > from which folks are working. If that is correct, then they > certainly deserve to recoup their investment and make a reasonable > profit. I also understood from one announcement that I received from > Ancestry.com that these FHS images would be available for free for a > limited period of time after posting on the site. > > I am partner in a VERY small business that digitizes old genealogy > related books. Our scanner alone cost $35,000, and the computers, CD > writers, employee paychecks, etc., are all additional costs. A > quality scanner for digitizing microfilms runs, I think, in the $60,000 > range. > > Quality scans like I access daily on my Ancestry.com fully paid > subscription are not the result of somebody laying a paper copy on an > $89.00 flat bed scanner from Best Buy. They require top notch > (expensive) equipment, and most of all, employees that will take the > time and make the effort to maximize the quality of each individual > scan. It is through this type of a process that we are now seeing US > census scans that were originally blackened, or heavily blocked out, > actually being produced now as readable images. > > Users then depend on a quality index to even find a person, and then > to point them to the proper image. That is the thankless task that > you are performing, and for which future researchers will bless you. :-) > > I know that many folks seem to object to Ancestry.com as a paid > service. It is my personal experience that a full subscription to > Ancestry.com is the best and least expensive facility that I have > found to move me forward in my personal research. More importantly, > as the Rootsweb Administrator for the PIGGOTT, CUMMISKEY and KERSLAKE > surname lists, I am always doing searches to help our list > members. Ancestry.com permits me to share up to five images for no > charge with other e-mail addressees. > > So as I was sitting here at 5:25AM this morning searching the brand > new 1891 Canadian Census for my Grandfather and his mother and > sister, I can assure you that the thought of spending $4.00 a gallon, > spending an hour each way to the FH library, paying $9.00 for a film, > waiting in line for a scanner, then waiting in line for the film > printer were the farthest things from my mind. :-) > > Anyone who takes the time to do a cost / benefit analysis of the > ability to access Ancestry.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week will > usually discover that the cost is a great deal, when compared to other > methods. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Regards, Joe > > > > ___________________________________ > > The Bklyn Info Pages Website: > www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/ > > List Administrator: NancyL916@aol.com > > Post to List: nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com > ___________________________________ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYBROOKLYN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Has anyone had experience with gov-records.com or peoplefinders.com or other organizations like these? Since I am trying to find relatives from 1940-1980, I am trying to find the best organization to join for research. Does anyone have any advice as to what may be the best? Thanks, Liz _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008

As Carol's reply intimates, some of the most popular Brooklyn (and Manhattan) cemeteries in that period were in Queens. On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Bill wrote: > What Brooklyn Protestant cemeteries would have been operating > 1870-1880? I would like to write to each one looking for an interment

I've read folks postings where they mentio9ned that the LDS church filmed copies of births occuring in NYC, into years that I've been alive. Would anyone super familiar with LDS know if they have births from 1965 filmed, for other counties in NYS? Mucho thanks, Barb N of NYC ************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

Hi Everyone. Can anyone tell me what port(s) had a ship come in Sept. 28,1881? I have information indicating that my Frederick Heine arrived Sept.28, 1881, but it doesn't say what port. Thanks, Liz _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008

The death cert would give you the cemetery. But one used a lot by my non Catholic relatives was All Faith's Luteran Cemetery in Maspeth.? Also Mt. Olivet. Also in Queens.? A great number of my Brooklyn ancestors who died around 1880 or so, are buried in these cemeteries.? And of course there is Green Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn.? If you go to their site, you can do a seach right on the site.?? I found my great grandmother and her family there by searching their internet site. Carol -----Original Message----- From: Bill <billmellsworth@comcast.net> To: nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com Sent: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 4:54 am Subject: [BKLYN] cemeteries What Brooklyn Protestant cemeteries would have been operating 1870-1880? I would like to write to each one looking for an interment Thanks, Bill ___________________________________ The Bklyn Info Pages Website: www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/ List Administrator: NancyL916@aol.com Post to List: nybrooklyn@rootsweb.com ___________________________________ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NYBROOKLYN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Would it not be easier to try and get a death record first which may have this information. What Brooklyn Protestant cemeteries would have been operating 1870-1880? I would like to write to each one looking for an interment ************** Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

What Brooklyn Protestant cemeteries would have been operating 1870-1880? I would like to write to each one looking for an interment Thanks, Bill

I received a kind offer of a scan of a document on Edward Rannuit that I need from Virginia Zelinsky, previously of this list, but not on it at the moment. Because I have a wonky situation with my email, it will sometimes allow me to reply, sometimes not, and does not always show an address. (Don't ask, it is a long story...) If anyone here has an address for her and can send her an email asking her to send me her email addy, I would be very very grateful. I have tried to resolve this weird email thing, but it is going to take some time and I will probably loose a lot of stuff in the process, so I have not been all afire to get it done. Thanks! Theresa Pawlowski denchief@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You.

Eliz, if you are receiving this message you are getting through. Ellie **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

The test came through just hope the mail does. :-) Call aol to see if they blocked it. Eliz **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

I am not recievibg any mail from the list Eliz **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

Mary and All, I've gotten this email as well through the Brooklyn list serv. The senders requesting to add me to their family are Al & Pat Battey. I guarantee that I am NOT related to them. How did this get through? And no, I''ve never heard of Pulse or Plaxo. Or Al & Pat Battey. Barbara in Jacksonville