Ancestry.com

[Don.]

It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried to look
something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and now find that it is
part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me ~$10 a month or $99 a year for
a subscription. And, of course, I have to give them my VISA number for a
"free 14 day trial" subscription. ;-(

Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?

[SCraig]

What is IMBD?

Craid


<Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried to look
something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and now find that it
is
part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me ~$10 a month or $99 a year
for
a subscription. And, of course, I have to give them my VISA number for a
"free 14 day trial" subscription. ;-(

Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?

[John Zillwood]

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

It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried
to look something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and
now find that it is part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me
~$10 a month or $99 a year for a subscription. And, of course, I
have to give them my VISA number for a "free 14 day trial"
subscription. ;-(
Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?

IMDB working as per usual at the moment. No mention of Ancestry.com or a
required fee or trial. Sounds like you may have hit the wrong button and
tried to get into the IMDB Pro premium account which clearly states that it
is an Amazon company - not Ancestry.

Happy New Year.

--

[Don.]

John Zillwood wrote:

Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]

It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried
to look something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and
now find that it is part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me
~$10 a month or $99 a year for a subscription. And, of course, I
have to give them my VISA number for a "free 14 day trial"
subscription. ;-(
Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?


IMDB working as per usual at the moment. No mention of Ancestry.com or a
required fee or trial. Sounds like you may have hit the wrong button and
tried to get into the IMDB Pro premium account which clearly states that it
is an Amazon company - not Ancestry.

Whoops! Guess I've got Ancestry.com on the brain. Sorry about that. I feel
about Ancestry.com as I do about IE, $MS$ and Billy.

I got there via the Thunderbird quicklink. I was there last week and had no
problem. Tonight when I used IMBD (Internet Movie Data Base) I found the
person I was after and clicked on View Photos and ended up with the PRO
account stuff.

Sorry, I hope I've gotten my screw ups out of my system for 2004!


[quote]
Happy New Year.

--

[Don.]

Don. wrote:

John Zillwood wrote:

Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]

It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried
to look something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and
now find that it is part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me
~$10 a month or $99 a year for a subscription. And, of course, I
have to give them my VISA number for a "free 14 day trial"
subscription. ;-(
Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?



IMDB working as per usual at the moment. No mention of Ancestry.com
or a required fee or trial. Sounds like you may have hit the wrong
button and tried to get into the IMDB Pro premium account which
clearly states that it is an Amazon company - not Ancestry.


Whoops! Guess I've got Ancestry.com on the brain. Sorry about that. I
feel about Ancestry.com as I do about IE, $MS$ and Billy.

I got there via the Thunderbird quicklink. I was there last week and
had no problem. Tonight when I used IMBD (Internet Movie Data Base) I
found the person I was after and clicked on View Photos and ended up
with the PRO account stuff.

Sorry, I hope I've gotten my screw ups out of my system for 2004!

No such luck! I meant Firefox! Guess I should write it 100 times so I don't
forget. But somewhere in that 100 I'd probably write "Foxfire" and screw up
again! Sigh...

[Hugh Watkins]

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

It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried to
look something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and now find
that it is part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me ~$10 a month or
$99 a year for a subscription. And, of course, I have to give them my
VISA number for a "free 14 day trial" subscription. ;-(

Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?

http://www.imdb.com/

no genealogy there
what are you on about?

OT here

Hugh W

[Don.]

Hugh Watkins wrote:

Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

It seems Ancestry.com has taken over another Web Site. I just tried to
look something up on IMBD that I've subscribed to for years and now find
that it is part of Ancestry's stables and it will cost me ~$10 a month or
$99 a year for a subscription. And, of course, I have to give them my
VISA number for a "free 14 day trial" subscription. ;-(

Is Billy Gates to fall by 2010?


http://www.imdb.com/

no genealogy there
what are you on about?

OT here

Hugh W


Another case of kain't read! It was really Amazon.com but my eyes cross

whenever I see anything that resembles Ancestry.com (both start with "A").
The booboo's been noted...

[Bill Cribbs]

I hope that is a GOOD statement about Ancestry. Once
in awhile I hear people gripe about Ancestry, when the
very resources they are using are being maintained by
Ancestry including:

The USGENWEB FTP servers - Free for ALL
The Rootsweb Email lists - Free for ALL
ALL of Rootsweb - Free for ALL
GenForum - Free for ALL

These servers are HUGE and costs megabucks to
maintain. But there are those who badmouth Ancestry
for charging for their premium databases, which ALSO
are expensive to maintain.

If you are a new family researcher, don't let anyone
tell you that you should get everything free. If you
are serious about researching your family tree, you
will pay something. If all of the data that you get
is free, then the quality of your data will always be
suspect.

If you don't want to pay the full yearly price for a
premium service, get their shorter term service, such
as quarterly subscriptions. Then, when the quarter
is over, call them up and cancel.

Be ready to spend money on gas to get to a library or
a courthouse or a cemetery. Keep nickels and dimes
for copier machines and microfilm printers. You may
pay for a society membership or a genealogy magazine
subscription and postage for certificate requests.

It's an exciting hobby but not entirely free.
Regards,
Bill

Another case of kain't read! It was really
Amazon.com but my eyes cross
whenever I see anything that resembles Ancestry.com
(both start with "A").
The booboo's been noted...

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:03:31 -0800, "Don." <Don.> wrote:

Another case of kain't read! It was really Amazon.com but my eyes cross
whenever I see anything that resembles Ancestry.com (both start with "A").
The booboo's been noted...

I just can't agree with you on Ancestry.com.

I have spent the past couple of weeks trying to identify my maternal
grandmother's ancestry. I downloaded the census records of every
family with her mother's probable maiden name from 1790 through 1880
regardless of location. I knew her mother's first name, middle
initital, birth state and age so I deleted every family who didn't
have a chilld of that name from 1850, and all yankees,

Then, prior to 1850 I deleted every family who didn't have a child of
the proper age range at census time. Then I deleted every family who
didn't have the proper successive combination of age ranges in the
successive censuses. I wound up with three families who met the
conditions. Of course before 1850 I only had the names of Heads of
Family.

Interestingly, the first son of the 1850 family had the same name as
one of the three 1830/1840 heads of family left after all my
exclusions. The pattern fell in line very well from 1850 to 1880 - my
maternal grandmother was born in 1876. And her probable widowed mother
was living next door in the 1920 census

Okay I didn't actually prove anything - but it's more compelling
evidence than the descendancy I found on the LDS site and Roots Web
which I can poke holes in.

I finally get to the point which is that AFAIK I couldn't have done
this without Ancestry. HQ is missing too many census records.

Another point I would make is not to trust any record too completely.
In the early days people didn't always know where they were born or
what their age was. And I found one index where the family name
"Riggan" was listed "Higgan". That makes the search tougher! Plus I
learned that the county name changed during the periods I searched.
But they would have to do more than that to thwart me.

I may not be smart but I'm thorough and tireless when I have the
scent.

Hugh

[Don.]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:03:31 -0800, "Don." <Don.> wrote:

Another case of kain't read! It was really Amazon.com but my eyes cross
whenever I see anything that resembles Ancestry.com (both start with "A").
The booboo's been noted...


I just can't agree with you on Ancestry.com.

I have spent the past couple of weeks trying to identify my maternal
grandmother's ancestry. I downloaded the census records of every
family with her mother's probable maiden name from 1790 through 1880
regardless of location. I knew her mother's first name, middle
initital, birth state and age so I deleted every family who didn't
have a chilld of that name from 1850, and all yankees,

Then, prior to 1850 I deleted every family who didn't have a child of
the proper age range at census time. Then I deleted every family who
didn't have the proper successive combination of age ranges in the
successive censuses. I wound up with three families who met the
conditions. Of course before 1850 I only had the names of Heads of
Family.

Interestingly, the first son of the 1850 family had the same name as
one of the three 1830/1840 heads of family left after all my
exclusions. The pattern fell in line very well from 1850 to 1880 - my
maternal grandmother was born in 1876. And her probable widowed mother
was living next door in the 1920 census

Okay I didn't actually prove anything - but it's more compelling
evidence than the descendancy I found on the LDS site and Roots Web
which I can poke holes in.

I finally get to the point which is that AFAIK I couldn't have done
this without Ancestry. HQ is missing too many census records.

Another point I would make is not to trust any record too completely.
In the early days people didn't always know where they were born or
what their age was. And I found one index where the family name
"Riggan" was listed "Higgan". That makes the search tougher! Plus I
learned that the county name changed during the periods I searched.
But they would have to do more than that to thwart me.

I may not be smart but I'm thorough and tireless when I have the
scent.

Hugh

Again, Hugh, this is another case of <snipping> that has distorted this
Thread. I've apologized twice now saying it should have been Amazon.com. But
that's been lost in the <snipping> along with a post that notified me it was
Amazon.com. But, you aren't responsible for what other's <snip> out.

My bitch about Ancestry was that I was promised a free subscription if I
donated a GEDCOM. I did so, 15,000 names, and never received that sub. I
called and they had never heard of me even though people wrote me about that
submission. It took me forever, and several phone calls, to even get my
e-mail changed on my "non-existant" account.

I now have a limited text Census subscription for $99 and often find the
Soundex files I copied from a FHC back in 1994 are more up to date than
the Ancestry.com Census text files.

Those text files are NOT the Census image files!

Again: My inital message was in error, it should have said "Amazon.com" and
NOT "Ancestry.com". I guess I should save this message so I can repeat it
again because someone else will <snip> it out.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:20:20 -0800, "Don." <Don.> wrote:

Again, Hugh, this is another case of <snipping> that has distorted this
Thread. I've apologized twice now saying it should have been Amazon.com. But
that's been lost in the <snipping> along with a post that notified me it was
Amazon.com. But, you aren't responsible for what other's <snip> out.

I read all the posts and was aware but I knew you had some other
problem with Ancestry - wich you explain below.

My bitch about Ancestry was that I was promised a free subscription if I
donated a GEDCOM. I did so, 15,000 names, and never received that sub. I
called and they had never heard of me even though people wrote me about that
submission. It took me forever, and several phone calls, to even get my
e-mail changed on my "non-existant" account.

I understand your displeasure and I'm not surprised at them or you.

I now have a limited text Census subscription for $99 and often find the
Soundex files I copied from a FHC back in 1994 are more up to date than
the Ancestry.com Census text files.

I agree. I couldn't see how merely adding another level for an
additional fee could possibly increase the accuracy of any of their
data. The inaccuracy of the GED submittals is why I need the census
data.

Hugh

[Robert Heiling]

Bill Cribbs wrote:

I hope that is a GOOD statement about Ancestry. Once
in awhile I hear people gripe about Ancestry, when the
very resources they are using are being maintained by
Ancestry including:

The USGENWEB FTP servers - Free for ALL
The Rootsweb Email lists - Free for ALL
ALL of Rootsweb - Free for ALL
GenForum - Free for ALL

and the Microsoft of the genealogy world does it all out of generosity
and the goodness of their hearts, not because of contractual
obligations and commitments that it went into knowingly? and not
because of the advertiser's dream of being able to pitch its products
directly to the very audience it seeks? How do you like those popup ads?

These servers are HUGE and costs megabucks to
maintain.

and the advertising and new subscribers the monopoly gets because of
that isn't worth megabucks? Most advertisers would kill for a deal like
that.

<SNIP>

Bob

[Bill Cribbs]

I have a hard time faulting Ancestry.com for doing and
growing their business. I can live with
advertisements for the trade-off in data, resources,
etc. Do we not buy a newspaper because it has ads?
Or avoid a TV program because it has commercials?
This is the world we live in. Ancestry.com is a
business...not a charity organization. They have
employees, property, and expenses.
None of the things that we enjoy on those servers
would be there if someone wasn't paying for it.
Back in the old days when Rootsweb was donation-based,
there were a lot of people enjoying it freely while
the others were sending cash to prop it up.
Still...someone had to pay for it.
My feeling is...if you are serious about your family
history, you'll be willing to pay for some of your
data.
Bill

--- Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

Bill Cribbs wrote:

I hope that is a GOOD statement about Ancestry.
Once
in awhile I hear people gripe about Ancestry, when
the
very resources they are using are being maintained
by
Ancestry including:

The USGENWEB FTP servers - Free for ALL
The Rootsweb Email lists - Free for ALL
ALL of Rootsweb - Free for ALL
GenForum - Free for ALL

and the Microsoft of the genealogy world does it all
out of generosity
and the goodness of their hearts, not because of
contractual
obligations and commitments that it went into
knowingly? and not
because of the advertiser's dream of being able to
pitch its products
directly to the very audience it seeks? How do you
like those popup ads?

These servers are HUGE and costs megabucks to
maintain.

and the advertising and new subscribers the monopoly
gets because of
that isn't worth megabucks? Most advertisers would
kill for a deal like
that.

SNIP

Bob

[Robert Heiling]

Bill Cribbs wrote:

I have a hard time faulting Ancestry.com for doing and
growing their business.

But then again, you're an employee aren't you.

I can live with
advertisements for the trade-off in data, resources,
etc. Do we not buy a newspaper because it has ads?
Or avoid a TV program because it has commercials?
This is the world we live in. Ancestry.com is a
business...not a charity organization. They have
employees, property, and expenses.

Then what was your point about the "free" services and the fact that
people actually used them? Is it somehow wrong to use the free services
you cited? People will do that you know since "This is the world we live
in.". You've really got me puzzled now.

None of the things that we enjoy on those servers
would be there if someone wasn't paying for it.

Ancestry's advertising budget contributes to that and that budget comes
out of the pockets of customers. The cost of affiliates also comes out
of the customers' pockets.

Back in the old days when Rootsweb was donation-based,

I wonder where all that money did go.

there were a lot of people enjoying it freely while
the others were sending cash to prop it up.

There's one born every day.

Still...someone had to pay for it.
My feeling is...if you are serious about your family
history, you'll be willing to pay for some of your
data.

Only some? What percentage would you recommend?

Bob

[Robert Burns]

IS there anything wrong being an affiliate and do you actually realise how
much affiliates get?

As for Rootsweb and genealogy.com these are provided free of charge thanks
to My Family.com who own them and Ancestry so don't knock Ancestry for the
price they are charging after all we have a right in this world not to pay
for something and not to use it if we don't want to.

Yes in my opinion Ancestry is expensive if you were to subscribe to all it's
databases and some of these databases are not actually worth looking at
right now.

I wonder if you realise how much Ancestry have paid for the whole of the UK
census information. Would it surprise you if I said 4 million GB Pounds?
That as to be recouped from somewhere doesn't it. It is a business just
like my Genealogy research business and yes I charge a fair price for my
work. This covers the cost of my sub to Ancestry etc.

Ancestry saves me and my customers a small fortune because I am able to
view the records online and not have to travel to the relevant records
offices for them. So before you knock a resource maybe look at it laterally
and not literally.

Before it is suggested I am employed by them I am not although I am one of
those affiliates and hmmmm in 2004 I made how much? Oh yes Zip because the
site it is on doesn't generate enough hits being as its a FREE One Parish
Study

Rob
"Robert Heiling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Bill Cribbs wrote:

I have a hard time faulting Ancestry.com for doing and
growing their business.

But then again, you're an employee aren't you.

I can live with
advertisements for the trade-off in data, resources,
etc. Do we not buy a newspaper because it has ads?
Or avoid a TV program because it has commercials?
This is the world we live in. Ancestry.com is a
business...not a charity organization. They have
employees, property, and expenses.

Then what was your point about the "free" services and the fact that
people actually used them? Is it somehow wrong to use the free services
you cited? People will do that you know since "This is the world we live
in.". You've really got me puzzled now.

None of the things that we enjoy on those servers
would be there if someone wasn't paying for it.

Ancestry's advertising budget contributes to that and that budget comes
out of the pockets of customers. The cost of affiliates also comes out
of the customers' pockets.

Back in the old days when Rootsweb was donation-based,

I wonder where all that money did go.

there were a lot of people enjoying it freely while
the others were sending cash to prop it up.

There's one born every day.

Still...someone had to pay for it.
My feeling is...if you are serious about your family
history, you'll be willing to pay for some of your
data.

Only some? What percentage would you recommend?

Bob

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:03:40 -0000, Robert Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

IS there anything wrong being an affiliate and do you actually realise how
much affiliates get?

Well, (a) You're top-posting. (b), defending the company you're
getting money from for referrals is somewhat disingenuous at best.

Ancestry saves me and my customers a small fortune because I am able to
view the records online and not have to travel to the relevant records
offices for them. So before you knock a resource maybe look at it laterally
and not literally.

What the hell does _that_ mean, please?

Before it is suggested I am employed by them I am not although I am one of
those affiliates and hmmmm in 2004 I made how much? Oh yes Zip because the
site it is on doesn't generate enough hits being as its a FREE One Parish
Study

So?

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Burns wrote:

IS there anything wrong being an affiliate and do you actually realise how
much affiliates get?

Is that question addressed to me? Why? You seem to know more about the topic
than I do.

As for Rootsweb and genealogy.com these are provided free of charge thanks
to My Family.com who own them and Ancestry so don't knock Ancestry for the
price they are charging after all we have a right in this world not to pay
for something and not to use it if we don't want to.

I addressed that issue already.

Yes in my opinion Ancestry is expensive if you were to subscribe to all it's
databases and some of these databases are not actually worth looking at
right now.

Hey! Watch how you talk about Ancestry!

I wonder if you realise how much Ancestry have paid for the whole of the UK
census information. Would it surprise you if I said 4 million GB Pounds?

I have only your word to take for it. How much is that in Euros?

That as to be recouped from somewhere doesn't it. It is a business just
like my Genealogy research business and yes I charge a fair price for my
work. This covers the cost of my sub to Ancestry etc.

You sound like you're agreeing with me.

Ancestry saves me and my customers a small fortune because I am able to
view the records online and not have to travel to the relevant records
offices for them. So before you knock a resource maybe look at it laterally
and not literally.

Care to quote me where I did: "knock a resource"? I sure hope for your clients'
sake that you interpret genealogy sources better than the way you've read my
post.

Before it is suggested I am employed by them I am not although I am one of
those affiliates and hmmmm in 2004 I made how much? Oh yes Zip because the
site it is on doesn't generate enough hits being as its a FREE One Parish
Study

Ohhh poor baby, perhaps 2005 will be kinder to you. You seem inordinately touchy
& defensive about that topic, but I don't let such things concern me as my
website is FREE and is NOT an affiliate. It's possible you know.

Bob

"Robert Heiling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bill Cribbs wrote:

I have a hard time faulting Ancestry.com for doing and
growing their business.

But then again, you're an employee aren't you.

I can live with
advertisements for the trade-off in data, resources,
etc. Do we not buy a newspaper because it has ads?
Or avoid a TV program because it has commercials?
This is the world we live in. Ancestry.com is a
business...not a charity organization. They have
employees, property, and expenses.

Then what was your point about the "free" services and the fact that
people actually used them? Is it somehow wrong to use the free services
you cited? People will do that you know since "This is the world we live
in.". You've really got me puzzled now.

None of the things that we enjoy on those servers
would be there if someone wasn't paying for it.

Ancestry's advertising budget contributes to that and that budget comes
out of the pockets of customers. The cost of affiliates also comes out
of the customers' pockets.

Back in the old days when Rootsweb was donation-based,

I wonder where all that money did go.

there were a lot of people enjoying it freely while
the others were sending cash to prop it up.

There's one born every day.

Still...someone had to pay for it.
My feeling is...if you are serious about your family
history, you'll be willing to pay for some of your
data.

Only some? What percentage would you recommend?

Bob

[Hugh Watkins]

"Robert Burns" <[email protected]> wrote

snip

Ancestry saves me and my customers a small fortune because I am able to
view the records online and not have to travel to the relevant records
offices for them. So before you knock a resource maybe look at it
laterally
and not literally.
snip

that is what it is all about

I pay for the convenience of using the stuff at home in my pyjamas any old
time of day or night.

If I travel to the archives I spend 5 or 6 hours on trains and buses
and I live in the UK too

Parish registers are not yet generally on line - except for Denmark which
soon will have all images up to 1891
free of charge too - and census. http://www.arkivalieronline.dk/

But they will be
if you want it free join the transcribers and help out

Hugh W

[Robert Burns]

Robert,

To answer your first question yes some in fact most was addressed to you
with regards as to the way you answered the initial post by Bill. Yes some
of my post agreed with what you said and expanded on it.

My mentioning of my affiliate standing and how much I actually made last
year from it was to show that not all affiliates gain from being affiliated
and I made the point of saying my site doesn't generate enough traffic for
me to gain. It was my idea to see how it went with the intention of taking
my site away to its own dedicated server at no cost to anyone. I personally
don't care if I generate any money from the affiliates I make enough
elsewhere.

No I have no idea what your site is care to enlighten me?

You may well have addressed the issue of Rootsweb and Genealogy.com but not
if I may say in the mail I was replying to all be it in a brief passing. As
for knocking resources my apologies as having read my post back it does seem
as I am implying you did when I was talking generally.

What's the exchange rate of GBP and Euros right now and I'll do my math.
The price I quoted was one being suggested in a private email but knowing
the prices of each individual county per year it is a correct figure in my
belief.

My whole post was to try and give a non employee ( if indeed Bill is an
employee) perspective of its uses. After all Rootsweb actually other than
message boards, mailing lists and Websites gives nothing and if it wasn't
for us users it would be a pointless waste of server space.
So no it wasn't a slur or an attack at yourself.

Rob
"Robert Heiling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Robert Burns wrote:

IS there anything wrong being an affiliate and do you actually realise
how
much affiliates get?

Is that question addressed to me? Why? You seem to know more about the
topic
than I do.

As for Rootsweb and genealogy.com these are provided free of charge
thanks
to My Family.com who own them and Ancestry so don't knock Ancestry for
the
price they are charging after all we have a right in this world not to
pay
for something and not to use it if we don't want to.

I addressed that issue already.

Yes in my opinion Ancestry is expensive if you were to subscribe to all
it's
databases and some of these databases are not actually worth looking at
right now.

Hey! Watch how you talk about Ancestry!

I wonder if you realise how much Ancestry have paid for the whole of the
UK
census information. Would it surprise you if I said 4 million GB
Pounds?

I have only your word to take for it. How much is that in Euros?

That as to be recouped from somewhere doesn't it. It is a business just
like my Genealogy research business and yes I charge a fair price for my
work. This covers the cost of my sub to Ancestry etc.

You sound like you're agreeing with me.

Ancestry saves me and my customers a small fortune because I am able to
view the records online and not have to travel to the relevant records
offices for them. So before you knock a resource maybe look at it
laterally
and not literally.

Care to quote me where I did: "knock a resource"? I sure hope for your
clients'
sake that you interpret genealogy sources better than the way you've read
my
post.

Before it is suggested I am employed by them I am not although I am one
of
those affiliates and hmmmm in 2004 I made how much? Oh yes Zip because
the
site it is on doesn't generate enough hits being as its a FREE One
Parish
Study

Ohhh poor baby, perhaps 2005 will be kinder to you. You seem inordinately
touchy
& defensive about that topic, but I don't let such things concern me as my
website is FREE and is NOT an affiliate. It's possible you know.

Bob

"Robert Heiling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bill Cribbs wrote:

I have a hard time faulting Ancestry.com for doing and
growing their business.

But then again, you're an employee aren't you.

I can live with
advertisements for the trade-off in data, resources,
etc. Do we not buy a newspaper because it has ads?
Or avoid a TV program because it has commercials?
This is the world we live in. Ancestry.com is a
business...not a charity organization. They have
employees, property, and expenses.

Then what was your point about the "free" services and the fact that
people actually used them? Is it somehow wrong to use the free
services
you cited? People will do that you know since "This is the world we
live
in.". You've really got me puzzled now.

None of the things that we enjoy on those servers
would be there if someone wasn't paying for it.

Ancestry's advertising budget contributes to that and that budget
comes
out of the pockets of customers. The cost of affiliates also comes out
of the customers' pockets.

Back in the old days when Rootsweb was donation-based,

I wonder where all that money did go.

there were a lot of people enjoying it freely while
the others were sending cash to prop it up.

There's one born every day.

Still...someone had to pay for it.
My feeling is...if you are serious about your family
history, you'll be willing to pay for some of your
data.

Only some? What percentage would you recommend?

Bob

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Burns wrote:

Robert,

There's two of us with the name and I see that you prefer to be addressed as
Rob. Need I say more?

To answer your first question yes some in fact most was addressed to you
with regards as to the way you answered the initial post by Bill. Yes some
of my post agreed with what you said and expanded on it.

My mentioning of my affiliate standing and how much I actually made last
year from it was to show that not all affiliates gain from being affiliated
and I made the point of saying my site doesn't generate enough traffic for
me to gain. It was my idea to see how it went with the intention of taking
my site away to its own dedicated server at no cost to anyone. I personally
don't care if I generate any money from the affiliates I make enough
elsewhere.

When that is all boiled down to its substance, you've only said that some people
and businesses do better than others or succeed and others don't. So what else
is new?

No I have no idea what your site is care to enlighten me?

If your research had included a particular English surname and descendants in
America, you would already have found it and know about it. It obviously would
be of no help to you.

You may well have addressed the issue of Rootsweb and Genealogy.com but not
if I may say in the mail I was replying to all be it in a brief passing. As
for knocking resources my apologies as having read my post back it does seem
as I am implying you did when I was talking generally.

What's the exchange rate of GBP and Euros right now and I'll do my math.
The price I quoted was one being suggested in a private email but knowing
the prices of each individual county per year it is a correct figure in my
belief.

I just thought that you might have had a figure that more people could use to
put things into perspective. I do personally have to treat it all as unsourced
hearsay though and can't force myself to be very interested.

My whole post was to try and give a non employee ( if indeed Bill is an
employee) perspective of its uses.

But everybody knows all of the aspects of an online subscription service
already. For those who need it, Genline also offers convenient online services
and has no connection to the other company. There are other services that offer
a similar convenience. The whole point was that the OP had already pointed out
what the thread was NOT about and Bill apparently couldn't find it in himself to
read the whole thread or couldn't pass up the opportunity to advertise Ancestry.

After all Rootsweb actually other than
message boards, mailing lists and Websites gives nothing and if it wasn't
for us users it would be a pointless waste of server space.
So no it wasn't a slur or an attack at yourself.

Glad to hear that.

Bob

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:02:32 -0800, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

Robert Burns wrote:

Robert,

There's two of us with the name and I see that you prefer to be addressed as
Rob. Need I say more?

Then why don't you fix your newsreader to reflect that? I mean, if you're
going to be touchy about something you announce yourself as ...

[Robert Heiling]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:02:32 -0800, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
Robert Burns wrote:

Robert,

There's two of us with the name and I see that you prefer to be addressed as
Rob. Need I say more?

Then why don't you fix your newsreader to reflect that? I mean, if you're
going to be touchy about something you announce yourself as ...

Touchy?<lol> No sorry Dave/David, but that isn't the way it works. The formal full
name properly goes in the official part of the person's email address and that's
what gets quoted in most newsgroup readers. A person makes their preferences known
as to how they prefer to be addressed as in the example above by how they sign
their posts. I sign mine "Bob", he signs his "Rob". Perhaps it's a test of
observation skills?

Got it?

Bob

[Robert Burns]

There's two of us with the name and I see that you prefer to be addressed
as
Rob. Need I say more?

Bob,
YEs and I appologise for that. Knowing how touchy I get when called Robert
or Bob I should appreciate it more however in my defence not knowing you I
felt it only right to be semi formal.

I will of course in future refer to you as Bob

rob

[Gjest]

I understanding this started as a Amazon.com issue but turned into an
Ancestry topic. I just wanted to comment on Ancestry. And no, I'm not
an employee of the database giant. I am a subscriber, however. I'm
happy to see them grow their database projects because it makes for
more competition -- and I benefit. It is also preserving documents for
my future generations, because these documents aren't going to be lost,
destroyed or forgotten. I do hope that Ancestry will come up with a
better pricing bundle some day, but I assume that will come about by
competition in the market place and through lower costs technology
wise.

There are other alternatives to paying high subscription fees to
MyFamily.com's different genealogy sources. For example, the Family
History Centers have free access to their databases and Heritage
Quest's. FHC's are easily available to many of us. Also, many libraries
have access to these two genealogy database companies and with a
library card you can access the information online. I have a membership
with the Godfrey Memorial Library which costs $35 a year. You can
enroll online. Through Godfrey I have access to Heritage Quests'
databases -- copies of original books, old newspapers, census images,
etc. I also belong to the California Genealogical Society (CGS) which
happens to have a genealogy library. I can access Heritage Quest
through their member login website. As Godfrey's resouces continue to
grow, both their membership and CGS's membership remains the same. My
local public library is planning on installing Ancestry through the
efforts of the Friends of the Library. So, check your libraries and
FHC's and ask if access is available. I still pay for four different
databases with Ancestry because it is convenient for me to work at home
and when I travel I have Internet access. Hopefully one day it will
become more affordable -- we live in hopes!