Ancestry.co.uk

[Dominic]

My Mum is interested in the possibility of joining ancestry.co.uk to
access the census archives online.

Two questions. What information is supplied by joining and is it good
value for money?

[Hugh Watkins]

Dominic wrote:

My Mum is interested in the possibility of joining ancestry.co.uk to
access the census archives online.

Two questions. What information is supplied by joining and is it good
value for money?

you need broadband

census 1841 to 1901 excellent value
much cheaper than pay per view

take an annual subscription
give her 10 days to decide out of the 14 days free trial
take note of how to unsubscribe and do it in time

It is a delight to have it at home instead of at the library (freebie )

Hugh W

[Dominic]

Hugh Watkins wrote:

Dominic wrote:
My Mum is interested in the possibility of joining ancestry.co.uk to
access the census archives online.

Two questions. What information is supplied by joining and is it good
value for money?

you need broadband

census 1841 to 1901 excellent value
much cheaper than pay per view

take an annual subscription
give her 10 days to decide out of the 14 days free trial
take note of how to unsubscribe and do it in time

It is a delight to have it at home instead of at the library (freebie )

Hugh W

Many Thanks Hugh,

She ended up with a headache looking through tons of microfiche and she
has a wifi computer at home

[Ye Old One]

On 1 Jun 2006 09:47:48 -0700, "Dominic" <[email protected]>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

My Mum is interested in the possibility of joining ancestry.co.uk to
access the census archives online.

Two questions. What information is supplied by joining and is it good
value for money?

That depends on how many things she is going to look up. To be honest
I think it is very overpriced. Compared to other sites I know the
price is not bad, but then other sites are overpriced as well.

To a large extent they are charging you to access information that
should be freely available - our taxes paid for the census after all
so why should we have to pay to access it?

Just my opinion, I know.

What I would say is tell her to sign up for the 14 day trial. Do so
when she has a lot of time to spare so she can make the most of it.
Use the email address to cancel about mid-day on the last day (making
sure that last day is a weekday) and then sit back and think to
herself "was it worth £70 a year?" In the ned only she can tell.

--
Bob.

[cecilia]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:09:26 +0000, Hugh Watkins
<[email protected]> wrote:

Dominic wrote:
My Mum is interested in the possibility of joining ancestry.co.uk to
access the census archives online.
Two questions. What information is supplied by joining and is it good
value for money?

you need broadband [...]

Not in my experience.

Pay-per-view is cheap, and one doesn't have to remember to cancel.
One can do a great deal of seaching, downloading if necessary to
enable the next search, and then use the unsed views at the end of the
time.

I agree it is a good thing to set some time aside when signing up for
a short period..

[Hugh Watkins]

Dominic wrote:

Hugh Watkins wrote:

Dominic wrote:

My Mum is interested in the possibility of joining ancestry.co.uk to
access the census archives online.

Two questions. What information is supplied by joining and is it good
value for money?


you need broadband

census 1841 to 1901 excellent value
much cheaper than pay per view

take an annual subscription
give her 10 days to decide out of the 14 days free trial
take note of how to unsubscribe and do it in time

It is a delight to have it at home instead of at the library (freebie )

Hugh W


Many Thanks Hugh,

She ended up with a headache looking through tons of microfiche and she
has a wifi computer at home

i was an early adopter when it strted and I had to wait ayear for

Bristol and Monmouthshire

just now I am using the ancestrylibrary edition

without the advance viewer
images download in about 5 secs at Solihull or Birmingham libraries

but the latter grinds to a halt as a peoples network when the library
is full of kids doing homework

you still have to head for the archives
when I can afford it I will pay the £200 for the whole deluxe subscription

If she lieks to work broadly it is great for getting cousins in 19th
century

Hugh W

[Lesley Williams]

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:09:26 +0000, Hugh Watkins
<[email protected]> wrote:

It is a delight to have it at home instead of at the library (freebie )

How do you get your local library to subscribe to it?

--
Lesley Williams
[email protected]

[Chad Hanna]

In message <[email protected]>, Lesley Williams
<[email protected]> writes

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:09:26 +0000, Hugh Watkins
[email protected]> wrote:


It is a delight to have it at home instead of at the library (freebie )

How do you get your local library to subscribe to it?
--
Lesley Williams
[email protected]

We have AncestryLibrary edition at the Berkshire Family History Society
research centre. We deal with Proquest in the UK - I don't have the
details to hand.

I believe the cost varies depending how you access the system. Ours is
tied to our IP address so only works in the centre. There are other
options. The cost for a library (or area) could be a lot more than what
we pay as an FHS.

Chad

--
Chad Hanna
Systems Developer FamilyHistoryOnline http://www.familyhistoryonline.net
FreeBSD Apache MySQL Perl mod_perl PHP

[Gjest]

Ye Old One wrote:

To a large extent they are charging you to access information that
should be freely available - our taxes paid for the census after all
so why should we have to pay to access it?

Hasn't this old chestnut been laid to rest since the 1901 debate? Our

taxes have not paid for the censuses as they arrive on the internet.
These companies spend millions of pounds getting them transcribed so
you can search them properly, and digitising the images so you can view
them from the comfort of your own home. They then pay the government a
royalty on the revenue they generate from your payments.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?

Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Cary

[Ye Old One]

On 2 Jun 2006 03:28:33 -0700, [email protected] enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

To a large extent they are charging you to access information that
should be freely available - our taxes paid for the census after all
so why should we have to pay to access it?

Hasn't this old chestnut been laid to rest since the 1901 debate? Our
taxes have not paid for the censuses as they arrive on the internet.

Our taxes paid for the census and for its storage/protection since it
was completed. The actual data therefore belongs to us.

These companies spend millions of pounds getting them transcribed so
you can search them properly, and digitising the images so you can view
them from the comfort of your own home.

A service fore which a small charge could be made - the current
charges allow them to make a mammoth profit.

They then pay the government a
royalty on the revenue they generate from your payments.

Truth this government to extract money from the people for data that
is already their property.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?

Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Because it is our data.

If they had set up a system where UK residents paid a small "start-up"
fee, say £10, and where overseas people paid a larger amount, say £30,
then I don't think I would object. The costs involved would have been
recovered in a matter of months and everyone woul dbe happy.

At the moment the charges levied by people like Ancestory.co.uk are
FAR to high. Move the decimal point left one place and they would
still make money.

--
Bob.

[Allen]

Ye Old One wrote:

If they had set up a system where UK residents paid a small "start-up"
fee, say £10, and where overseas people paid a larger amount, say £30,
then I don't think I would object. The costs involved would have been
recovered in a matter of months and everyone woul dbe happy.

Great idea! We will all wait breathlessly for _you_ to go to the GRO,
enter all the census data into a database of your choice and put it
online under the terms you have just suggested. You should recover your
costs in just a few centuries--but by then there will be soooo much more
data to enter. You will have performed a vauable public service. And, as
I said, we will all wait breathlessly for you to do this.

At the moment the charges levied by people like Ancestory.co.uk are
FAR to high. Move the decimal point left one place and they would
still make money.

Yes, you really would get rich.

Allen

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:00:59 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2 Jun 2006 03:28:33 -0700, [email protected] enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Hasn't this old chestnut been laid to rest since the 1901 debate? Our
taxes have not paid for the censuses as they arrive on the internet.

Our taxes paid for the census and for its storage/protection since it
was completed. The actual data therefore belongs to us.

Sure. And the delivery of the data into your home via the internet
wasn't part of the deal. Those servers don't run themselves, and the
data didn't magically transform to web pages.

Look at it another way - why should the taxpayers be expected to foot
the bill to make someone's hobby more convenient to pursue?

They then pay the government a
royalty on the revenue they generate from your payments.

Truth this government to extract money from the people for data that
is already their property.

Sure, the data is already yours. The access to it, and the added
convenience, is the "value add" here.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?
Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Because it is our data.

Then drive your ass down to London and look through it yourself.
Problem solved.

At the moment the charges levied by people like Ancestory.co.uk are
FAR to high. Move the decimal point left one place and they would
still make money.

And you know this how, exactly? What do you know about running servers
in a fault-tolerant environment, exposed to the public internet? How
much do you know about data security and the costs involved? What
direct knowledge do you know of their expenses and income?

Information costs money to move around. That's how it is. You're not
being forced to pay anything; you're free to just not use the digital
format. So much better that the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for some
boondoggle for some hobbiest who wants to whine about subscription
costs.

[Denis Beauregard]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:08:40 GMT, Allen <[email protected]> wrote in
soc.genealogy.computing:

Great idea! We will all wait breathlessly for _you_ to go to the GRO,
enter all the census data into a database of your choice and put it
online under the terms you have just suggested. You should recover your
costs in just a few centuries--but by then there will be soooo much more
data to enter. You will have performed a vauable public service. And, as
I said, we will all wait breathlessly for you to do this.

Did you ever visit the site indexing the 1901, 1906 and 1911 Census of
Canada ?

All the microfilms are made available online by the NAC and some
individual decided to build a web site where netters can index the
microfilms. That way, the indexing (the costly part) is done at
no cost.

Why not setting up the same thing for the British census ? I
understand it can take much more time (census of 1901 of Canada has
5 M people while the population of 2006 is about 30 or 35 M, while
that of England grew much slower) but it can be done.


Denis

[Lesley Robertson]

"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]>
schreef in bericht news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:08:40 GMT, Allen <[email protected]> wrote in
soc.genealogy.computing:

Great idea! We will all wait breathlessly for _you_ to go to the GRO,
enter all the census data into a database of your choice and put it
online under the terms you have just suggested. You should recover your
costs in just a few centuries--but by then there will be soooo much more
data to enter. You will have performed a vauable public service. And, as
I said, we will all wait breathlessly for you to do this.

Did you ever visit the site indexing the 1901, 1906 and 1911 Census of
Canada ?

All the microfilms are made available online by the NAC and some
individual decided to build a web site where netters can index the
microfilms. That way, the indexing (the costly part) is done at
no cost.

Why not setting up the same thing for the British census ? I
understand it can take much more time (census of 1901 of Canada has
5 M people while the population of 2006 is about 30 or 35 M, while
that of England grew much slower) but it can be done.

There's a project called FreeCEN running for the UK, with volunteers

indexing various census years (it's a relative of FreeBMD). As bits are
completed and checked, they're put on line.
Lesley Robertson

[Hugh Watkins]

Lesley Williams wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:09:26 +0000, Hugh Watkins
[email protected]> wrote:



It is a delight to have it at home instead of at the library (freebie )


How do you get your local library to subscribe to it?

Solihull library committee had a meeting about it

ask a librariam

Hugh W

[Hugh Watkins]

[email protected] wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:


To a large extent they are charging you to access information that
should be freely available - our taxes paid for the census after all
so why should we have to pay to access it?


Hasn't this old chestnut been laid to rest since the 1901 debate?

you pay for access to the server not the data
whch is still freely available in London or Kew

Hugh W

Our
taxes have not paid for the censuses as they arrive on the internet.
These companies spend millions of pounds getting them transcribed so
you can search them properly, and digitising the images so you can view
them from the comfort of your own home. They then pay the government a
royalty on the revenue they generate from your payments.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?

Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Cary

[Hugh Watkins]

Ye Old One wrote:

On 2 Jun 2006 03:28:33 -0700, [email protected] enriched this
group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:


To a large extent they are charging you to access information that
should be freely available - our taxes paid for the census after all
so why should we have to pay to access it?


Hasn't this old chestnut been laid to rest since the 1901 debate? Our
taxes have not paid for the censuses as they arrive on the internet.


Our taxes paid for the census and for its storage/protection since it
was completed. The actual data therefore belongs to us.


These companies spend millions of pounds getting them transcribed so
you can search them properly, and digitising the images so you can view
them from the comfort of your own home.


A service fore which a small charge could be made - the current
charges allow them to make a mammoth profit.


They then pay the government a
royalty on the revenue they generate from your payments.


Truth this government to extract money from the people for data that
is already their property.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?

Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?


Because it is our data.

If they had set up a system where UK residents paid a small "start-up"
fee, say £10, and where overseas people paid a larger amount, say £30,
then I don't think I would object. The costs involved would have been
recovered in a matter of months and everyone woul dbe happy.

At the moment the charges levied by people like Ancestory.co.uk are
FAR to high. Move the decimal point left one place and they would
still make money.

you must be thick

data is still owned by "us"
we make a profit on it from the fees paid to TNA

one hand washes the other

Hugh W

[Hugh Watkins]

Denis Beauregard wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 14:08:40 GMT, Allen <[email protected]> wrote in
soc.genealogy.computing:


Great idea! We will all wait breathlessly for _you_ to go to the GRO,
enter all the census data into a database of your choice and put it
online under the terms you have just suggested. You should recover your
costs in just a few centuries--but by then there will be soooo much more
data to enter. You will have performed a vauable public service. And, as
I said, we will all wait breathlessly for you to do this.


Did you ever visit the site indexing the 1901, 1906 and 1911 Census of
Canada ?

All the microfilms are made available online by the NAC and some
individual decided to build a web site where netters can index the
microfilms. That way, the indexing (the costly part) is done at
no cost.

Why not setting up the same thing for the British census ? I
understand it can take much more time (census of 1901 of Canada has
5 M people while the population of 2006 is about 30 or 35 M, while
that of England grew much slower) but it can be done.

fair point Denis
but who will pay?

In Denamrk they have church books and census images on line free


http://www.arkivalieronline.dk/default.aspx

but the money was found from the relevant ministry because they are
building a new national archives building

this is a political decision
so speak to your MP

Hugh W

[Ye Old One]

On 2 Jun 2006 14:14:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:00:59 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 03:28:33 -0700, [email protected] enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Hasn't this old chestnut been laid to rest since the 1901 debate? Our
taxes have not paid for the censuses as they arrive on the internet.

Our taxes paid for the census and for its storage/protection since it
was completed. The actual data therefore belongs to us.

Sure. And the delivery of the data into your home via the internet
wasn't part of the deal. Those servers don't run themselves, and the
data didn't magically transform to web pages.

But the costs involved in that are tiny when compared to the number of
people who would gain by having access.

Look at it another way - why should the taxpayers be expected to foot
the bill to make someone's hobby more convenient to pursue?

In this case, yes. I think public money should be spent to get the
data online, a small charge to UK people and a slightly larger charge
to overseas readers would soo recover the costs.

They then pay the government a
royalty on the revenue they generate from your payments.

Truth this government to extract money from the people for data that
is already their property.

Sure, the data is already yours. The access to it, and the added
convenience, is the "value add" here.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?
Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Because it is our data.

Then drive your ass down to London and look through it yourself.
Problem solved.

I do, when I can, but not everyone can.

At the moment the charges levied by people like Ancestory.co.uk are
FAR to high. Move the decimal point left one place and they would
still make money.

And you know this how, exactly? What do you know about running servers
in a fault-tolerant environment, exposed to the public internet? How
much do you know about data security and the costs involved? What
direct knowledge do you know of their expenses and income?

I have run a web hosting company since 1999.

Information costs money to move around.

These days, very little.

That's how it is. You're not
being forced to pay anything; you're free to just not use the digital
format. So much better that the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for some
boondoggle for some hobbiest who wants to whine about subscription
costs.

The typical reply of someone with a very narrow view on the subject.

--
Bob.

[Ye Old One]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:08:16 +0000, Hugh Watkins
<[email protected]> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

you must be thick

I'm bright enough to know where the bloody shift and full-stop keys
are.

data is still owned by "us"
we make a profit on it from the fees paid to TNA

But nowhere near are much as the likes of Ancestry do.

one hand washes the other

Hugh W

--
Bob.

[Charani]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:47:39 +0100, Lesley Williams wrote:

How do you get your local library to subscribe to it?

I asked my local library and they said they hadn't the finances for a
subscription. End of subject (

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:25:57 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2 Jun 2006 14:14:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Sure. And the delivery of the data into your home via the internet
wasn't part of the deal. Those servers don't run themselves, and the
data didn't magically transform to web pages.

But the costs involved in that are tiny when compared to the number of
people who would gain by having access.

You have obviously never participated in a transcription project, and
you have just as obviously never been involved in a web infrastructure
of this size.

Look at it another way - why should the taxpayers be expected to foot
the bill to make someone's hobby more convenient to pursue?

In this case, yes. I think public money should be spent to get the
data online, a small charge to UK people and a slightly larger charge
to overseas readers would soo recover the costs.

Then take it up with your representatives. If they're not too busy
banning salad spoons or whatever it is this year.

Truth this government to extract money from the people for data that
is already their property.

Sure, the data is already yours. The access to it, and the added
convenience, is the "value add" here.

You seem to have missed this point; it's pretty much the key to the
matter.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?
Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Because it is our data.

Then drive your ass down to London and look through it yourself.
Problem solved.

I do, when I can, but not everyone can.

So contact your representative. Or pay the fee that exists.

And you know this how, exactly? What do you know about running servers
in a fault-tolerant environment, exposed to the public internet? How
much do you know about data security and the costs involved? What
direct knowledge do you know of their expenses and income?

I have run a web hosting company since 1999.

If you run one of any size, then you _know_ what it takes to provide
bandwidth, backups, security, hosts, power, cooling, operations
staffing, sysadmins, architects, and so on.

Information costs money to move around.

These days, very little.

Then do it cheaper. Think of the profit to be made!

That's how it is. You're not
being forced to pay anything; you're free to just not use the digital
format. So much better that the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for some
boondoggle for some hobbiest who wants to whine about subscription
costs.

The typical reply of someone with a very narrow view on the subject.

My "very narrow view" rejects someone whining because their particular
hobby isn't subsidized by their government. I also enjoy machining, why
can't I have free machine tools? At the least, a sharpening service for
milling cutters! I am OFFENDED that the GOVERNMENT has these FACILITIES
and refuses to SHARE them with me, a TAXPAYER!

Sheesh. Pay, or don't. Or get the law fixed. Bitching about it here
only accomplishes making you look like someone in seek of a problem.

[Ye Old One]

On 3 Jun 2006 12:52:39 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 23:25:57 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 14:14:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Sure. And the delivery of the data into your home via the internet
wasn't part of the deal. Those servers don't run themselves, and the
data didn't magically transform to web pages.

But the costs involved in that are tiny when compared to the number of
people who would gain by having access.

You have obviously never participated in a transcription project, and
you have just as obviously never been involved in a web infrastructure
of this size.

Transcriptions take time and effort but are a one-off. Looking to
recover that cost from people over the first couple of years would not
result in a high fee.

As for the web side, that is not a vary small part of the cost of the
project.

Look at it another way - why should the taxpayers be expected to foot
the bill to make someone's hobby more convenient to pursue?

In this case, yes. I think public money should be spent to get the
data online, a small charge to UK people and a slightly larger charge
to overseas readers would soo recover the costs.

Then take it up with your representatives. If they're not too busy
banning salad spoons or whatever it is this year.

I have, and will continue to do so.

Truth this government to extract money from the people for data that
is already their property.

Sure, the data is already yours. The access to it, and the added
convenience, is the "value add" here.

You seem to have missed this point; it's pretty much the key to the
matter.

I did. The "added value" is worth a small one-off payment, it is not
worth what the likes of Ancestry charge.

You are still welcome to travel to London and view them for free at the
Family Records Centre, at the tax payer's expense. Do you remember what
it was like searching through the films before there were national name
indexes?
Or you can perform some simple searches from your home computer or
local library. Why exactly should this be provided to you for free?

Because it is our data.

Then drive your ass down to London and look through it yourself.
Problem solved.

I do, when I can, but not everyone can.

So contact your representative. Or pay the fee that exists.

In the first case, I do. In the second case I don't. What I do is to
help, in any whay I can, and make as much information available to as
many people as possible free of charge.

And you know this how, exactly? What do you know about running servers
in a fault-tolerant environment, exposed to the public internet? How
much do you know about data security and the costs involved? What
direct knowledge do you know of their expenses and income?

I have run a web hosting company since 1999.

If you run one of any size, then you _know_ what it takes to provide
bandwidth, backups, security, hosts, power, cooling, operations
staffing, sysadmins, architects, and so on.

Yes, I do, and I know that it represents a tiny fraction of the money
the likes of Ancestry charge.

Information costs money to move around.

These days, very little.

Then do it cheaper. Think of the profit to be made!

If I come up on the lottery tonight I will be very happy to do so.

That's how it is. You're not
being forced to pay anything; you're free to just not use the digital
format. So much better that the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for some
boondoggle for some hobbiest who wants to whine about subscription
costs.

The typical reply of someone with a very narrow view on the subject.

My "very narrow view" rejects someone whining because their particular
hobby isn't subsidized by their government.

I'm not asking the government to subsidize my hobby, just to ensure
nobody makes rip-off profits from the data we already own.

I also enjoy machining, why
can't I have free machine tools? At the least, a sharpening service for
milling cutters! I am OFFENDED that the GOVERNMENT has these FACILITIES
and refuses to SHARE them with me, a TAXPAYER!

Sheesh. Pay, or don't. Or get the law fixed. Bitching about it here
only accomplishes making you look like someone in seek of a problem.

I don't pay, as a matter of principle.

--
Bob.

[Allen]

Ye Old One wrote:

If I come up on the lottery tonight I will be very happy to do so.

I guess that pretty much sums up your position. You admit that it costs
money to transcribe the data and to host it. But you want someone to do
it for you and then give it to you for no charge. What a pathetic little
person you are.
Allen

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:46:03 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3 Jun 2006 12:52:39 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

You have obviously never participated in a transcription project, and
you have just as obviously never been involved in a web infrastructure
of this size.

Transcriptions take time and effort but are a one-off. Looking to
recover that cost from people over the first couple of years would not
result in a high fee.

Maybe they want to make a profit too? You know, free enterprise and all
that?

In this case, yes. I think public money should be spent to get the
data online, a small charge to UK people and a slightly larger charge
to overseas readers would soo recover the costs.

Then take it up with your representatives. If they're not too busy
banning salad spoons or whatever it is this year.

I have, and will continue to do so.

Great. So let us know how that works out for you there, Sparky.

Sure, the data is already yours. The access to it, and the added
convenience, is the "value add" here.

You seem to have missed this point; it's pretty much the key to the
matter.

I did. The "added value" is worth a small one-off payment, it is not
worth what the likes of Ancestry charge.

Then do it cheaper yourself. Undercut them. You seem to think
transcription isn't a big deal, and you claim to have the web
infrastructure. You're motivated, too, and you think you understand the
costs and benefits. The data is yours for the taking, so go take it and
publish it for less.

I do, when I can, but not everyone can.

So contact your representative. Or pay the fee that exists.

In the first case, I do. In the second case I don't. What I do is to
help, in any whay I can, and make as much information available to as
many people as possible free of charge.

Great. Doesn't mean everyone should, though. They have sysadmins to
pay, who have families to feed, for instance.

I have run a web hosting company since 1999.

If you run one of any size, then you _know_ what it takes to provide
bandwidth, backups, security, hosts, power, cooling, operations
staffing, sysadmins, architects, and so on.

Yes, I do, and I know that it represents a tiny fraction of the money
the likes of Ancestry charge.

I question your math. How many servers do they have? How much
bandwidth? What's their staff? Do you know these things? If not, how
can you begin to claim to understand the finances?

The typical reply of someone with a very narrow view on the subject.

My "very narrow view" rejects someone whining because their particular
hobby isn't subsidized by their government.

I'm not asking the government to subsidize my hobby, just to ensure
nobody makes rip-off profits from the data we already own.

You continue to miss the point. Yes, you own the data. Delivery of the
data is the value add, which you can choose to pay for. Nobody is
ripping anyone off, unless they're holding a salad spoon to your head
and forcing you to subscribe.

I also enjoy machining, why
can't I have free machine tools? At the least, a sharpening service for
milling cutters! I am OFFENDED that the GOVERNMENT has these FACILITIES
and refuses to SHARE them with me, a TAXPAYER!

Sheesh. Pay, or don't. Or get the law fixed. Bitching about it here
only accomplishes making you look like someone in seek of a problem.

I don't pay, as a matter of principle.

Good for you. So what's the problem.

[Ye Old One]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:08:10 GMT, Allen <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:


If I come up on the lottery tonight I will be very happy to do so.


I guess that pretty much sums up your position. You admit that it costs
money to transcribe the data

Of course it does, but that would be recovered by a small charge.

and to host it. But you want someone to do
it for you and then give it to you for no charge.

Who the hell said anything about it being free of charge?

I've stated that a resonable charge for a company like Ancestry.co.uk
would be about a tenth of what they actually charge.

Given the scenario of setting up something on the lines of say putting
the 1911 census online, I would look at a one-off charge of say £6
for UK subscribers and £18 for overseas and I would expect to get my
investment back within about 3 years.

What a pathetic little
person you are.
Allen

The pathetic person is the idiot like you who doesn't bother to bloody
read the thread.

--
Bob.

[Jeff]

"Charani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:47:39 +0100, Lesley Williams wrote:

How do you get your local library to subscribe to it?

I asked my local library and they said they hadn't the
finances for a
subscription. End of subject (

It may not help you but, locally, all our LDS FHCs have full
subscriptions.

I don't know if this applies worldwide.

[Ye Old One]

On 3 Jun 2006 16:01:46 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:46:03 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3 Jun 2006 12:52:39 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

You have obviously never participated in a transcription project, and
you have just as obviously never been involved in a web infrastructure
of this size.

Transcriptions take time and effort but are a one-off. Looking to
recover that cost from people over the first couple of years would not
result in a high fee.

Maybe they want to make a profit too? You know, free enterprise and all
that?

They need to learn that lowering prices would actually increase their
profits.

I did. The "added value" is worth a small one-off payment, it is not
worth what the likes of Ancestry charge.

Then do it cheaper yourself. Undercut them. You seem to think
transcription isn't a big deal, and you claim to have the web
infrastructure. You're motivated, too, and you think you understand the
costs and benefits. The data is yours for the taking, so go take it and
publish it for less.

See my comment in another reply.

I do, when I can, but not everyone can.

So contact your representative. Or pay the fee that exists.

In the first case, I do. In the second case I don't. What I do is to
help, in any whay I can, and make as much information available to as
many people as possible free of charge.

Great. Doesn't mean everyone should, though. They have sysadmins to
pay, who have families to feed, for instance.

I have run a web hosting company since 1999.

If you run one of any size, then you _know_ what it takes to provide
bandwidth, backups, security, hosts, power, cooling, operations
staffing, sysadmins, architects, and so on.

Yes, I do, and I know that it represents a tiny fraction of the money
the likes of Ancestry charge.

I question your math. How many servers do they have? How much
bandwidth? What's their staff? Do you know these things? If not, how
can you begin to claim to understand the finances?

My maths are based on a knowledge of the industry. There are a lot of
sites that hold a great deal of data that don't feel the need to
charge rip-off prices.

The typical reply of someone with a very narrow view on the subject.

My "very narrow view" rejects someone whining because their particular
hobby isn't subsidized by their government.

I'm not asking the government to subsidize my hobby, just to ensure
nobody makes rip-off profits from the data we already own.

You continue to miss the point. Yes, you own the data. Delivery of the
data is the value add, which you can choose to pay for. Nobody is
ripping anyone off, unless they're holding a salad spoon to your head
and forcing you to subscribe.

Charging £70 a year to subscribe to ancestry.co.uk IS a rip-off.

I also enjoy machining, why
can't I have free machine tools? At the least, a sharpening service for
milling cutters! I am OFFENDED that the GOVERNMENT has these FACILITIES
and refuses to SHARE them with me, a TAXPAYER!

Sheesh. Pay, or don't. Or get the law fixed. Bitching about it here
only accomplishes making you look like someone in seek of a problem.

I don't pay, as a matter of principle.

Good for you. So what's the problem.

I don't have a problem. Please reread my reply to the original poster.

--
Bob.

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:58:52 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

I've stated that a resonable charge for a company like Ancestry.co.uk
would be about a tenth of what they actually charge.

Show us your math on this, or admit you're pulling numbers out of your
ass. Either is fine.

[Hugh Watkins]

Jeff wrote:

"Charani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:47:39 +0100, Lesley Williams wrote:


How do you get your local library to subscribe to it?

I asked my local library and they said they hadn't the
finances for a
subscription. End of subject (


It may not help you but, locally, all our LDS FHCs have full
subscriptions.

I don't know if this applies worldwide.

if they have a connection to the net

yes it does - contact the distribution cnter to set it up

BTW some FHS in USA pay a subscritpiuon for their locallibraries

and in UK some FHS subscribe too

Hugh W

[Paul Blair]

I've commented here before about my dislike of the ancestry.com business
model (the "opt-out" model that puts the consumer at a major
disadvantage) and choose not to use their service.

Even if I had, the up-front annual fee, based on no prior idea of
whether you will get a lot or a little use from it, is excessive, and
probably drives customers away. It is not user-pay, so much per use,
which would probably attract users. Here in Oz, our local system has a
good search routine, and charges 99c per page view. So a "light" user
pays lightly...but still pays proportionate to use.

No one expects things for free. We have no idea of the overheads
involved in setting up the Ancestry system, but if the 1901 census
debacle (where data input was jobbed out to somewhere that was not
competent) is any indication, you don't always get guaranteed accuracy
for your money. Do Ancestry offer an accuracy guarantee?

Paul Blair
Australia

[Ye Old One]

On 3 Jun 2006 17:57:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:58:52 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

I've stated that a resonable charge for a company like Ancestry.co.uk
would be about a tenth of what they actually charge.

Show us your math on this, or admit you're pulling numbers out of your
ass. Either is fine.

Look at it like this, there are a number of totally free sites that
already contain vast amounts of data.

Using paid transcription I would put a figure of between 2 and 3
million pounds to get the job done. It may well be cheaper if the
originals scan well as OCR would then play a part. I'm told the 1911
books are in very good condition.

Add another million to put together the hardware and run it for the
first year.

Lets say the average subs are £10 to allow for a mix of UK and
overseas subscribers. That would put a break-even point at my
estimates at around two years after launch.

And finally, I do not have a donkey to pull anything out of.

--
Bob.

[Hugh Watkins]

Paul Blair wrote:

I've commented here before about my dislike of the ancestry.com business
model (the "opt-out" model that puts the consumer at a major
disadvantage) and choose not to use their service.

Even if I had, the up-front annual fee, based on no prior idea of
whether you will get a lot or a little use from it, is excessive, and
probably drives customers away. It is not user-pay, so much per use,
which would probably attract users. Here in Oz, our local system has a
good search routine, and charges 99c per page view. So a "light" user
pays lightly...but still pays proportionate to use.

No one expects things for free. We have no idea of the overheads
involved in setting up the Ancestry system, but if the 1901 census
debacle (where data input was jobbed out to somewhere that was not
competent) is any indication, you don't always get guaranteed accuracy
for your money. Do Ancestry offer an accuracy guarantee?

you are just being silly Paul

you are outin the cold and a million users are having fun
I use it for "free" in my public library - paid for out of the taxes we pay

I cannot afford a subscription for home use either just now but that
doesn't mean there is anything wrong with their system

If you live out back it is very good value
what does it cost for you to get to your state archives?

ancestry has a powerful global search
and some work needs browing hundreds of pages


for the british market they have introduced "pay per view"
http://landing.ancestry.co.uk/ppv/ppv.uk.aspx

Pay-Per-View works on a pre-paid credit system where £6.99 gives you
20 page view credits to use within 7 days. You can use these credits to

view records from any of our databases. -- a low-cost way to access
anything on the Ancestry.co.uk website<<

http://www.nla.gov.au/oz/genelist.html

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/census/
You may access the 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881 and 1891 census records
free on site at The National Archives in Kew and the Family Records
Centre in Islington, courtesy of Ancestry.co.uk. Please note that
standard on site charges for printing paper copies will still apply.


so take a trip to London

or a Family History Center to use it all free of charge

Hugh W


enjoy

Hugh W

[Hugh Watkins]

Ye Old One wrote:

On 3 Jun 2006 17:57:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:58:52 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

I've stated that a resonable charge for a company like Ancestry.co.uk
would be about a tenth of what they actually charge.

Show us your math on this, or admit you're pulling numbers out of your
ass. Either is fine.


Look at it like this, there are a number of totally free sites that
already contain vast amounts of data.

Using paid transcription I would put a figure of between 2 and 3
million pounds to get the job done. It may well be cheaper if the
originals scan well as OCR would then play a part. I'm told the 1911
books are in very good condition.

Add another million to put together the hardware and run it for the
first year.

Lets say the average subs are £10 to allow for a mix of UK and
overseas subscribers. That would put a break-even point at my
estimates at around two years after launch.

And finally, I do not have a donkey to pull anything out of.

an insider told me the myfamily inc com / ancestry business plan is on

a 10 year cycle as long as the cash flow is maintained they will survive

they are looking at Australia and Europe next, Canada has just been launched

Hugh W


================== job taken ========yahoo hot jobs out of gogles cahceh
===============MyFamily.com, the leading online network connecting families to their
histories and to each other, is experiencing rapid growth and we are
looking to hire a AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT.

Location: Australia. East-Coast cities. Preferably Sydney or Melbourne.

About the Opportunity:
This person will be responsible for identifying and obtaining rights to
significant genealogical collections from private and public
institutions (contract negotiations). This position reports to the
Regional Director.

Key Responsibilities/Performance Requirements:

Identify key record collections and important repositories in the country.
Establish effective working relationships with contacts at key
repositories.
Learn availability of the records and potential needs of the repository.
Negotiate legal agreements that secure rights to several important
record collections each year.
Accomplish tasks and achieve goals with initiative and little supervision.
Interact effectively with people from technology and genealogy
backgrounds and from different cultures.
Coordinate and work as a team with that country's content specialist
(genealogist).
Communicate fluently in English.
Communicate/report often via e-mail and telephone to Regional Director.
Availability and willingness to travel as needed.
Utilize the Internet for research and product knowledge.
Close contract agreements within 3 months of first contact.
Show that you can set and achieve aggressive goals.

Required Skills:

Relevant University degree or equivalent.
Minimum of 5 years relevant experience.
Knowledge of local genealogical community archives and record
repositories an advantage.
Sales experience dealing with government and/or education clients is an
advantage.

Why join MyFamily.com:

We're looking for individuals who want to make a difference in the way
families connect and share information online. MyFamily.com is a stable,
profitable, growing company full of smart, passionate, committed people
dedicated to helping families communicate and share their photos,
stories and memories with one another. If you are interested in
long-range career growth and working in a casual environment that
fosters personal advancement, skills expansion and rewards performance
then this could be the place for you.

Our work environment is fast-paced, challenging, and exuberantly fun!
At MyFamily.com you will have the opportunity to work with passionate,
engaged, high-energy people in a "start-up" environment within the
stability of a successful company.

We offer excellent benefits and a competitive compensation package.

If you are interested in learning more about this opportunity, please
send your resume to [email protected] Please reference AUSTRALIAN
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT in the subject field of your email.

About MyFamily.com, Inc.:

MyFamily.com, Inc. provides the largest collection of online information
for connecting families with their histories and with one another. The
company's tools, content and community help empower individuals to find
the people most important to them and to share their unique family
stories. The MyFamily network of web-based products includes
MyFamily.com, Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, and RootsWeb.com. The company
also publishes Family Tree Maker, the #1 selling family tree software,
Ancestry Magazine, over 50 book titles, and numerous databases on
CD-ROM. MyFamily.com is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

[Charani]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:19:51 GMT, Jeff wrote:

It may not help you but, locally, all our LDS FHCs have full
subscriptions.

I don't know if this applies worldwide.

I'm not sure if either of those nearest to me have. The closest one
(20 miles away) is only open two half days a week, so probably
doesn't. The other (35 miles away) may well do since they are open 5½
days a week. I'd have to persuade my husband that it really would be
a very good idea to take me to the larger one )

[singhals]

Paul Blair wrote:

I've commented here before about my dislike of the ancestry.com business
model (the "opt-out" model that puts the consumer at a major
disadvantage) and choose not to use their service.

Even if I had, the up-front annual fee, based on no prior idea of
whether you will get a lot or a little use from it, is excessive, and
probably drives customers away. It is not user-pay, so much per use,
which would probably attract users. Here in Oz, our local system has a
good search routine, and charges 99c per page view. So a "light" user
pays lightly...but still pays proportionate to use.

No one expects things for free. We have no idea of the overheads
involved in setting up the Ancestry system, but if the 1901 census
debacle (where data input was jobbed out to somewhere that was not
competent) is any indication, you don't always get guaranteed accuracy
for your money. Do Ancestry offer an accuracy guarantee?

No, but then again, if the handwriting is so poor, the ink so faded, and
the spelling so ad-hoc ... there's no guarantee anyway.

Cheryl

[Dave Hinz]

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:59:43 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

On 3 Jun 2006 17:57:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:58:52 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

I've stated that a resonable charge for a company like Ancestry.co.uk
would be about a tenth of what they actually charge.

Show us your math on this, or admit you're pulling numbers out of your
ass. Either is fine.

Look at it like this, there are a number of totally free sites that
already contain vast amounts of data.

Yes, I know. I've contributed a lot of time and resources to one of
them.

Using paid transcription I would put a figure of between 2 and 3
million pounds to get the job done. It may well be cheaper if the
originals scan well as OCR would then play a part. I'm told the 1911
books are in very good condition.

You're painfully naiive if you think OCR is up to the task.

Add another million to put together the hardware and run it for the
first year.

A million dollar IT budget gets you 3 racks of servers & the switchgear.
You seem to have forgotten facilities, backups, staffing, and network
feed.

Lets say the average subs are £10 to allow for a mix of UK and
overseas subscribers. That would put a break-even point at my
estimates at around two years after launch.

And finally, I do not have a donkey to pull anything out of.

Arse then. Why can't you people speak proper English.

So anyway, sounds like you have a good business plan. (not really, but
it sounds like you think you do). So go make it happen. Or, you can
continue to choose not to subscribe. Doesn't really matter. But unless
you're fishing for venture capitalists here or something, your rant
serves no purpose other than to show a limited understanding of the
scope of the project.

[Ye Old One]

On 4 Jun 2006 16:17:53 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

your rant
serves no purpose other than to show a limited understanding of the
scope of the project.

The only rant seems to come from you.

--
Bob.

[Dave Hinz]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:37:24 GMT, Ye Old One <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4 Jun 2006 16:17:53 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

your rant
serves no purpose other than to show a limited understanding of the
scope of the project.

The only rant seems to come from you.

You must also have a different meaning of "rant" over there then. What
would you call what you're doing then? Whinging, maybe?

[cecilia]

Paul Blair wrote:

I've commented here before about my dislike of the ancestry.com business
model [...] It is not user-pay, so much per use,
which would probably attract users. Here in Oz, our local system has a
good search routine, and charges 99c per page view. So a "light" user
pays lightly...but still pays proportionate to use. [....]

When I last used ancestry to look for a "missing" relative, it cost me
£6.99 for 10 downloads - and a great deal of information from
transcriptions. I'm a light user. If I had found, when looking at
Ancestry data, that I was a heavy user, I could have subscribed, and
had the £6.99 counted towards the subscription.

See http://landing.ancestry.co.uk/ppv/ppv.uk.aspx

[Hugh Watkins]

cecilia wrote:

Paul Blair wrote:

I've commented here before about my dislike of the ancestry.com business
model [...] It is not user-pay, so much per use,
which would probably attract users. Here in Oz, our local system has a
good search routine, and charges 99c per page view. So a "light" user
pays lightly...but still pays proportionate to use. [....]


When I last used ancestry to look for a "missing" relative, it cost me
£6.99 for 10 downloads - and a great deal of information from
transcriptions. I'm a light user. If I had found, when looking at
Ancestry data, that I was a heavy user, I could have subscribed, and
had the £6.99 counted towards the subscription.

See http://landing.ancestry.co.uk/ppv/ppv.uk.aspx

if you dont have a credit card you may buy pay per view vouchers
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/voucher/

test the site
http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/li ... =6600&path
Huhg W

[Paul Blair]

cecilia wrote:

Paul Blair wrote:
I've commented here before about my dislike of the ancestry.com business
model [...] It is not user-pay, so much per use,
which would probably attract users. Here in Oz, our local system has a
good search routine, and charges 99c per page view. So a "light" user
pays lightly...but still pays proportionate to use. [....]

When I last used ancestry to look for a "missing" relative, it cost me
£6.99 for 10 downloads - and a great deal of information from
transcriptions. I'm a light user. If I had found, when looking at
Ancestry data, that I was a heavy user, I could have subscribed, and
had the £6.99 counted towards the subscription.

See http://landing.ancestry.co.uk/ppv/ppv.uk.aspx

IIRC they are time limited? To be used within a certain time?

I'm trying to figure 70p per view compared to our 99c. So that's about
75% dearer...

Paul

[singhals]

Ye Old One wrote:

On 4 Jun 2006 16:17:53 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


your rant
serves no purpose other than to show a limited understanding of the
scope of the project.


The only rant seems to come from you.

Well, no, but the rest of us tend to let Dave take care of it.

Personally, I think you've forgotten the Estimator's Axiom: do the
estimate, double the $$ and move the time to the next largest unit.

Still, like Dave suggested -- go for it. It's a free country.

Cheryl