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 >

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

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 > > >