Robert, I do appreciate your opinion although I disagree with your perception of the facts, not that it really makes much of a difference, really. I am also well over 55 and have been doing the genealogical hunt and peck for the most part the old fashioned way for well over 35 years, and if it makes much of an impression have more names in my data base than you. All of that isn't the issue here. My response to the various complaints in the message boards was simple--to simply explain why the convenience of internet genealogy has become so difficult. For those who want to pay the price for what ever convenience they may find to Ancestry, etc., this is fine as long as they understand that it isn't really free and the information provided is incomplete and in more cases than not inaccurate. For me, I do take offense to Ancestry's selling of information provided to Rootsweb, particularly all of the information which was provided under the GenWeb/Rootsweb umbrella prior to it being purchased by Ancestry et.al. I too contributed to RootsWeb back then with verified information and trees, transcriptions of public records, photos, etc. Part of the deal with the purchase was that RootsWeb would remain a free service; however what has transpired since is that features once free via RootsWeb, AKA the already submitted public documents and transcriptions such as census among other information cannot be accessed via Rootsweb. Most of the Federal and State census' were already a part of RootsWeb, yet now one has to pay a fee to Ancestry for information which had been contributed by those like me and previously accessible free. For all of us who volunteered and submitted information free so that it could be available to all free, it is a bitter pill to swallow, and it is more than an annoyance--more-or-less an act of fraud if you will. We all are old enough to know that nothing in this life is totally free; however, the barter system is still alive and well. Those of us who contributed did so because we know the difficulties involved in verifying ancestors with hard evidence such as census, directories, land records, and other public documents. The bonus of the message boards helped individuals the opportunity to connect with distantly related families in the hope of further verifying families immediate and allied. If I had had a working crystal ball back then when I contributed years and hundreds of thousands of hours and work paying for the traveling, the copies of originals, etc., I never would have contributed a thing knowing that all of my free to give effort would be turned around and sold. To compound my discontent further, I supported Ancestry by paying the subscriptions while contributing information not found among their conveniences free of charge to RootsWeb. Additionally, monetary donations were accepted by RootsWeb if anyone was inclined. Additionally there was a certain amount of revenue which came via advertising the for pay sites the same as there are for many of the sites today. I remain on many mailing lists which I joined long ago, rarely commenting unless I have something really helpful to offer. You are correct in that this really isn't a discussion for the message boards if one is considering that most are looking for someone that has information about their families. The door was opened by the comments of frustration over how things have evolved. My protest to Ancestry was to quit paying them, telling them why, and trying to correct information which I find inaccurate found on their service. Just as we all are entitled to our opinions popular or not, we also are entitled to our forms of protest. Robert Akin wrote: > You are correct, Susan. In my case you have not reached a sympathetic eye or ear. First, let me say that I do not work for The Generations Network which owns My Family and in turn Ancestry.com. I am retired and own no allegiance to any company. > > To start with, Rootsweb remains a "free" site for genealogists. Rootsweb currently says it has over 480 million names on file. They also host tens of thousands of genealogy web sites for which they charge nothing. They host thousands of forums and mailing lists like the one over which we are discussing this. In addition, they host all of the USGenWeb sites. Think about it. Nearly every county in every state in the USA has a site on Rootsweb's servers. All of this take a huge amount of computer resources and Internet connectivity. Now, let me ask you, who pays for all of this? The volunteers who work so diligently on these sites are worth their weight in gold, but they do not pay for the computers and Internet connectivity. Who does? The Generations Network company does and it does it with the revenue it gets from sites like Ancestry.com. > > I have my own database of over 32000 names on Web Connect at Rootsweb and I > do not pay anything for it. I realize that by so doing, people on > Ancestry.com have access to my data, but a person can also find and use > my data for free at Rootsweb. I know that some get peeved that Ancestry can sell information that has been submitted for free, but it doesn't bother me at all. As long as a person CAN access the information at no cost, but choose to buy access from Ancestry for the sake of convenience or because they use Ancestry for other uses, I don't have a problem with it. > > To the list, I apologize for getting a non-genealogy discussion going, but I think it is related very closely to what we all do. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Susan Hedeen <chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> > To: nydutche@rootsweb.com; tee.huffaker@gmail.com; grel@ix.netcom.com > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:07:31 AM > Subject: Re: [NYDUTCHE] Re Dutchess List > > > This comment may or may not reach sympathetic eyes and ears, but I > think > it needs to be said. You can lay all the frustrations on > Ancestry.Com's > door. Once they acquired nearly every internet genealogical site > and/or > got into proprietary arrangements with independents who would cooperate > > but not sell, everything has become more difficult if not next to > impossible. They have ruined Rootsweb which was once a free service > connecting people who volunteered their family information and > organized > as groups to publish public information found in libraries, court > houses, etc. > > This year I dropped my subscription to Ancestry, et.al. after years and > > years--I was in there from the beginning when Ancestry was next to free > > and building a data base. > > It is all about money folks, and don't ever think otherwise. They are > now taking everything that people have volunteered and reselling it in > one form or another. I'd rather go to the effort and time to go to the > > Family History Library outlets and search it out and pay the minimal > fees to have the material sent in from Salt Lake than to pay hundreds > of > dollars a year to Ancestry. > > The best that I've been able to determine is that there are no really > free message boards any more--Ancestry owns them all I believe and/or > is > some arrangement with the site owners. This is why when you do a > search > and you find a page you will almost always sooner or later end up at > Ancestry where you can get a short limited free trial followed by the > promise that you will find everything you could want or need about your > > families by joining at the tune of hundreds of dollars for this and > that, oh BTW this data base is not in your subscription...for Xmore $ a > > year you can view it too. > > The truth of the matter is that the historical records, if you can view > > the originals are what you really want with the subscription, but they > are not bundled, so each has to be purchased separately. Lots of the > trees are inaccurate as people have borrowed other peoples guesses and > published them without knowing whether or not they are correct. > Families are mixed up all over, and Ancestry doesn't care. It is all > about the money. > > More time consuming, but I have found loads of information at local > historical societies, google books, and as I said the Family History > centers. > > Good luck, Susan > > Tee Huffaker wrote: > >> While we are on the subject of the gatewayed messages to the list, I >> have to admit I am so confused by how to reply that I have given up >> > on > >> them......I feel very bad about this, but the frustration is too high >> a price. I just attribute it to my computer knowledge-- Does someone >> on this list wish to contact me on or off list as to how to do >> it---step by step---I will try again. >> >> Looking for Woodwards in Dutchess county. >> >> Tee >> >> On Nov 11, 2007 4:12 PM, Grant Pike <grel@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >>> That is the best way. I have lost my patience with the boards and >>> > will only > >>> reply to the sender or the list. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> > NYDUTCHE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> > NYDUTCHE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >> >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > NYDUTCHE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > >