Ancestry.com Research accessibility
I question the reasonableness of allowing users to list sources referencing Ancestry.com as a document source, and object to the use thereof. In order to view Ancestry.com records it is necessary to become a member and pay annual dues in order to view documents and sources contained therein. Listing Ancestry.com as a source is serves no purpose at all. My research reaches an end when I come across a source document that is not a source document and it cannot be verified by non-members of Ancestry.com.
My personal preference would be to see Family Search (a free research facility) discontinue its agreement with Ancestry.com as long as Ancestry requires membership to access data. ( I am not a member of Ancestry.com and will never become a member as long as they compete with Family Search Organization as a business enterprise for profit).
Answers
-
Please disassociate with Ancestry.com (or refuse to list that organization as a source of information). They are not a source document.
1 -
I view people attaching a source from Ancestry that not everyone can access the same way I view someone attaching a source from a university library archive a thousand miles from my home which I could only view if I traveled to the library. It's also just like a list of sources in the back of a book. It takes a lot of time and expense to check those out personally.
It would be a courtesy on the part of the user that attached the Ancestry source to detail what information is in it and to include a good note, sufficient for others to judge the accuracy of the information. But even if they don't, I certainly don't object to others adding information that I cannot obtain personally to a record.
If absolutely necessary to check the information, the information on Ancestry all came from somewhere else. One can always go to the original source for the information, that is, whatever archive or other record keeper actually owns the record.
By the way, are you aware that many libraries have Ancestry Institution available for free on their computers (https://www.ancestry.com/cs/us/institution)? And that it is available to use for free at all Family History Libraries (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Family_History_Center_Portal)? And that there is a Google Chrome extension that you can install on your own laptop so that you can access Ancestry Institution for free on your own computer as long as you are on the Wifi network at your local Family History Library (https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/family-history-center-premium-content-browser-extension)?
5 -
It is not always necessary to subscribe to Ancestry in order to view their sources. In addition to the multiple free access routes that Gordon detailed, it is possible for subscribers to generate a subscription-free link to a source image. Also, many collections are available through both Ancestry and FamilySearch. (Sometimes, they were indexed separately, making it easier to find a record from one site rather than the other.) In such cases, the citation from one website can help locate the equivalent record on the other site.
As Gordon said, paywalled sources are no worse than library or archive sources. Blocking Ancestry (or any other pay site) would be like prohibiting people from citing church records that they accessed by travelling to the church itself.
3 -
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
[ And, I happen to be a Member of the Church ...
[ Plus, I have been a Staff Member, of "Family History Centres", of the Church, for many Years ... ]
Just in passing ...
Plus, further to what has already been proffered ...
You are not alone ...
There has been other such requests/suggestions, like yours, over the Years.
Fortunately, those requests/suggestions, have not/never been implemented.
Do not get me wrong, I understand; where, you are coming from ...
But ...
That Said ...
There are MANY Other [especially, "Commercial" (ie. Fee/Paid/Subscription)] Websites, that 'FamilySearch', partners with.
You have ONLY singled ONE of those many "Partners".
Whereas, MANY of the OTHER "Partners", REQUIRE, one to be a member of their "Site", through a Fee/Paid/Subscription, to access (and, 'see') THEIR particular "Sources", that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (or, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch'.
Plus ...
You are INCORRECT when you say ...
"... it is necessary to become a member and pay annual dues in order to view documents and sources contained therein ..."
Because ...
Such is NOT the case ...
Those "Sources", from the likes of "Partner" Websites (including: "Ancestry_com"), that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch', CAN generally (as long as, there is no 'peculiar' "Restriction") actually be accessed (and, 'seen'), when one is at:
(1) the 'Family History Library' (FHL), in 'Temple Square', Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America; and/or,
(2) one of the MANY, 'Family History Centres', of the Church, from ALL around the World; and/or,
(3) in some cases, one of the many, various 'Affiliate' Libraries, from ALL around the World.
I am sorry ...
But, you CANNOT, 'singled out', the likes of "Ancestry_com", alone.
That 'singling out', is not helpful.
Furthermore ...
There are, MANY; Many; many, Users/Patrons, ALL around the World, who CAN access (and, 'see'), those "Sources", from the likes of "Partner" Websites (including: "Ancestry_com"), that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch'.
Conversely ...
I am sure, that there are equally as many Users/Patrons, ALL around the World, just like you, who CANNOT access (and, 'see'), those "Sources", from the likes of "Partner" Websites (including: "Ancestry_com"), that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch'.
As Such ...
'FamilySearch' should NOT "Restrict", those "Sources", from the likes of "Partner" Websites (including: "Ancestry_com"), that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch'; simply, on the basis, that some (ie. a portion) of its Users/Patrons, CANNOT access (and, 'see') such, from their Home.
Of course ...
Not to forget ...
What about, ALL the OTHER "Sources", from NON "Partner" Websites (including: "Government; and, "Private" and; "Religious"; and, the like), that REQUIRE a Fee/Paid/Subscription, to access (and' see'), that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch'?
Where do you 'Draw the Line" ... Where do you STOP ...
It is certainly unfortunate, that some (ie. a portion) of the Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch', CANNOT access (and, 'see') CERTAIN "Sources", that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch', from their Home.
But ,,,
That Said ...
To be honest ...
I would humbly suggest, that ALL of us Users/Patrons of 'FamilySearch', WILL find, they CANNOT access (and, 'see') CERTAIN "Sources", that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch', from their Home.
So ...
Again ...
On another way ... you are not alone ... we are ALL in the same 'Boat' ...
And, do not get me wrong, I understand; where, you are coming from ...
Whereas, one really needs to consider the BIGGER 'Picture' ...
As such ...
Taking EVERYTHING, into CONSIDERATION ...
I cannot agree with you ...
As an aside ...
Personally, I have "Attached" various "Sources" from the likes of, "Ancestry_com"; and, "FindMyPast_co_uk" ["FindPyPast_com"]; and, "MyHeritage_com"; plus, more; ESPECIALLY, when there is NO corresponding/complementary/compatible "Source", in 'FamilySearch".
Now ...
That Said ...
One thing, that I do, is INCLUDE, "All" the relevant "Details" of those (of IMPORTANCE, pertaining to the individuals/persons to whom I am attaching the "Source") contained in the "Source", in the "Describe the Record (Notes)" of the "Source"; plus, wherever I can; and, is appropriate; so that, ANY User/Patron who CANNOT access (and, 'see') such "Source", WILL know what the "Source" is about and contains.
That is something, that I try to teach; and, help/assist other Users/Patrons, to learn; and, hopefully, adopt.
Hey, it is NOT "Perfect"; but, at least, it lets OTHERS know, what the "Source", is all about; and, contains.
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
You have your opinions.............I have mine...........but you miss the point.
Listing Ancestry.com as a source document does nothing to support FamilySearch or the profiles it contains.
Listing the source document does.
While the business Ancestry may be a valuable tool for those who are a member thereof, it competes with FamilySearch which is free to all, not just those that can afford to pay its annual fees.
Taking information from FamilySearch and listing in Ancestry.com is a comparison?? Why do that??
0 -
FamilySearch and Ancestry have a partnership. They both agree that it's not possible for one company to digitize and index all the world's records, so that's why they agreed to share records and to not compete. Basically, in return for FS giving Ancestry some records and FS volunteer Indexers indexing records on behalf of Ancestry, Ancestry gives all Latter Day Saints a free subscription to Ancestry.com and makes some records available to FS so it can publish them.
2 -
I signed in for a two week free account. The first recognition I got was an invitation to join for $300.oo per year at the minimum membership fee. FS is FREE.
For a free subscription to Ancestry maybe I should become a Mormon.
What has been said does not justify listing Ancestry.com as a source document.
0 -
I wonder whether what Mr. Fidgit is objecting to is actually pseudo-citations that just name the website, without an informative title and summary. People often do this with all sorts of internet sources, expecting the URL to carry the entire load of information-conveyance, and forgetting that paywalls exist and link rot happens.
If so, I think we all agree that a "citation" that consists of nothing but a link to an Ancestry page is not actually a citation, but a basically useless detail that nonetheless requires a whole lot of extra effort to follow up on. But discouraging such additions to Family Tree has nothing really to do with Ancestry specifically: it applies equally to any website, especially one with a paywall, such as MyHeritage, Archion, Őskereső, FindMyPast, etc.
As for how to discourage such pseudo-citations, I'm not sure what to suggest. It's partly a matter of education, because people don't know how to write a citation, and many people simply don't realize that URLs die and paywalls are an obstacle. (Some people hear or see "computer" and lose all common sense. My mother expects her phone and tablet to just miraculously provide wifi, for example.) However, without knowing where people would expect to look for instructions, I don't know where to put them. Another consideration is people's inherent laziness, combined with the "wall of gobbledygook" effect of all auto-generated citations; given a choice between a long string of nonsense and a shorter string that's recognizable as a link, most people opt for recognizable-and-shorter. I don't know how to fix that, short of getting websites (starting with FS!) to generate better auto-citations.
1 -
@Mrfidgit Sometimes one can look at the "Citation" section on the ancestry.com source on FamilySearch and be able to see where the information came from, or get clues in where to find that same source on another website. Examples:
1- On one census citation it shows: Year: 1920; Census Place: Justice Precinct 8, Denton, Texas; Roll: T625_1796; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 69
2- On a marriage record the citation shows: Denton County Clerk's Office; Denton, Texas; Denton County Marriage Records; Volumes: 00014; Pages: 00005
3- On a death record the citation shows: Texas Department of State Health Services; Austin Texas, USA
The citation on some things from ancestry.com is not included- but at least on some there are clues to further ones search for original records.
Maybe a little explanation of why this is showing up would be helpful. I do the majority of my primary research on ancestry.com, when I am comfortable with my research, I share it to FamilySearch. At which time I attach the sources from ancestry.com. I do not wish to "re-research" the same persons again on FamilySearch so as to attach the sources directly from FamilySearch. Just my personal preference.
Best of luck in our research endeavors. Tamara
0 -
Simply citing ANCESTRY.COM as a source is an error in documentation.
Maybe a copy of the document should be placed in the Memories tab of FamilySearch profiles.
0 -
Yes, no one disagrees that simply citing "Ancestry.com" is not good enough for sourcing and citation. Similiarily, citing "FamilySearch.org", "FindMyPast.org" or "Family Papers" is not enough.
However it is not legal to post images from Ancestry.com's website on the internet and share them with those who aren't subscribers. If FS permitted this, they'd lose their partnership with Ancestry, be subjected to serious legal consequences, and their reputation built up over 100+ years would be damaged.
1 -
It should be obvious then, that I do not know all the rules.
Then Ancestry.com is not playing fair with F/S. Information that I placed on F/S has showed up on Ancestry (placed there by others and could only have been obtained from F/S). But I suppose that is OK because F/S is free and not a for-profit business. What a sham !!
0 -
What sort of information?
When you post photos and information anywhere on FS or any other website, anyone can copy or download them, and post/upload them somewhere else.
0 -
And yet it is illegal to do that if the information/pictures are on Ancestry.com ???
As you said.........its not legal for an image to be shared to or by a non-subscriber (or F/S).
Seems that you are involved in double-talk.
0 -
Here's the Submission Agreement on FS:https://www.familysearch.org/legal/familysearch-content-submission-agreement
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 place a lot of responsibilities on users to ensure that they do not post copyrighted material, or material that cannot be published for legal reasons. However paragraph 4 gives FS the right to do basically anything they want with material submitted by users, include distributing copies to other websites and organizations.
The Ancestry.com Terms and Conditions: https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/termsandconditions#ancestry-content
Paragraph 2.1 sets out the rules for using material and records found on the Ancestry.com site.
1 -
There is a difference in Ancestry content and User provided content, and it seems you are confusing the two. Ancestry.com leaves User provided content information up to the user and does not make reservations about what you do with it, so it is not illegal for a user to use the same info (especially info contained in public documents such as normal source documents are).
Thank you for providing the Agreement info. I can acknowledge the rules against copyrighted information and (that is just common sense), which both organizations have a right to establish. But, both organizations separates copyright and other sensitive data from User Provided Content which is publicly obtained public information that is normally used as source documents such as birth, death, military, marriage (personal) documents and public information such as census' wills, land contracts, etc. These are two distinct different types of information and are addressed separately.
I can read, but I have not studied the listed info, I am not a lawyer, nor do I have any advanced education, but I can read, and I still say.........I will NOT pay Ancestry for allowing me to view records that I provided to FamilySearch in support of the profiles I created in establishing my Family Tree AND that source documents on FamilySearch profiles should be listed/provided by citation and not just by reference Ancestry.com.
I'M OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION.
0 -
Mrfidgit, "birth, death, military, marriage (personal) documents and public information such as census' wills, land contracts, etc." are not what is meant by user-provided content, and they are not all necessarily freely repostable. The information in such documents cannot be copyrighted or otherwise restricted by any entity, but the images containing them very much can be, and generally are. That's what we're talking about here.
"User-provided content", on both Ancestry and FamilySearch, means the names and dates and relationships on the family tree(s), along with any photographs attached to them. Images of source documents are a fuzzy area: something like a scan of a marriage certificate or a photo of a framed ketubah is clearly user-provided content, but an obituary downloaded from a newspaper site? A church register page downloaded from FS? A folder of naturalization documents downloaded from Ancestry? Those are really not user-provided content; posting them as part of a completist citation for the source probably qualifies as "fair use", but the user who posted the file does not own it, and I'm not really certain what rules apply to it.
But as I mentioned upthread, Ancestry does offer a "sharing" URL, which makes an individual source image available without the paywall. This is really the best compromise between usefulness and following all the rules: it allows people to cite a paywalled source while still allowing anyone to see the image. (Apparently the method of generating a sharing URL has recently changed; see for example https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1287333/ancestry-sharing-url-location-moved.)
0 -
That's all quite technical and a little smushy.........but each time I attempt to view a document cited on Ancestry.com I am prompted to pay $25.oo per month ($300.oo per year) - (or become a Mormon) to enable me to access it.............which is a no-no for me.
0 -
Hello Mrfidgit This is how things are regarding Ancestry if you wish to see and information that is in closed content or with a person family tree you are required to become a subscriber. This means you have to pay for the conveyance depending on were the document is will vary in price. You can join as a guest as the first stage free and there after if you wish take out the period contract. The person who placed the link to the document assumes you are a paying subscriber - try and contact the contributor to ask if they would produce the document you want to see. Also if you have accesses to someone's tree that is the only other way if they also have this in their tree. regards Stephen
0 -
Thank you, Stephen. I have no desire to join Ancestry.
0 -
FYI
Please be aware that ...
You DO NOT have to "Join", that of "Ancestry_com"; or, the like ...
[ They being "Partners", with 'FamilySearch' ... ]
As, I previously suggest ...
Those "Sources", from the likes of "Partner" Websites (including: "Ancestry_com"), that have been "Attached", to an individual/person (and, Couple), in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch', by various Users/Patrons, of 'FamilySearch', CAN generally (as long as, there is no 'peculiar' "Restriction") actually be accessed (and, 'seen'), when one is at:
(1) the 'Family History Library' (FHL), in 'Temple Square', Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America; and/or,
(2) one of the MANY, 'Family History Centres', of the Church, from ALL around the World; and/or,
(3) in some cases, one of the many, various 'Affiliate' Libraries, from ALL around the World.
And ...
Just in case ...
Here, in 'FamilySearch', is where you can find either, a "Family History Centre" of the Church; or, an "Affiliate" Library, nearest you, anywhere around the World.
Find a Family History Center and FamilySearch Affiliate Libraries
https://www.familysearch.org/fhcenters/locations/
As such ...
Like it or not ...
WHY, there should be NO disconnect, between, 'FamilySearch'; and, ANY of "Partner" Websites.
[ including: "Ancestry_com" ... ]
Furthermore ...
Here are a couple of 'Knowledge Articles", in 'FamilySearch':
Why does FamilySearch partner with other organizations?
Why do some historical records have a fee?
https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/why-do-some-historical-records-have-a-fee
I know, that this, will certainly not, placate you on this matter; but, I hope that this might give you a better understanding; plus, some more, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
Obviously, you are not aware that I live very close Nauvoo, Illinois where the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints maintains a Family Search Center directly across the street from the temple where I trained to become a Facilitator for that Office and served several the better part of a year becoming aware of what such a great organization the Mormon Religious Group is and of its world wide endeavors. That does not make me an authority on Mormons, nor the Family Search Organization, or the Church. But it did make me aware of the high standards that is set for reaching its goals.
Also, because I am 83 years of age, spent twenty years in the military, am well versed in business practices entrepreneurs use to make a profit and aware of the capitalistic system within the U.S., therefore, I do not feel I need to be preached to about your precious "partnering" with with other companies or organizations.
It is my personal opinion that Family Search has every right to partner with whomever it is desired, but I do not have to agree with it. Family Search provides to the public "free" services. Why would anyone want to pay for those same services. Recognizing that Family Search cannot be everything to everybody, and if supplying services to the public means partnering will make their organization do their function, then that is good for Family Search. BUT I do not have to like it, but I do accept it, and I do not use the "partnered" organizations because it is their function to separate me from my money (and I'm not a miser). This December I will be donating $1000.oo to the Family Search Library. So you can understand that I will choose to whom I will give my money and not be intimated by business practices to buy something that I am provided for FREE.
All your statements, rules and partnerships reasoning falls on deaf ears in my household.
TO EACH HIS OWN. I make my own decisions.
Have a nice day.
0 -
@Mrfidgit, I get where you are coming from and sympathize.
Family Tree does have the Add a Source and Source Box features for adding complete citations of sources, but sadly it seems relatively few contributors use them.
Although I often delete sources that are bare links going behind paywalls, I think the greater threat to Family Tree data integrity is the proliferation of links to sites such as Find A Grave that have no data validation at all but instead host unsourced memorials. On Find A Grave I am seeing more and more legacy disputes in the form of multiple, incompatible memorials for the same individual.
0 -
Thank you, dontiknowyou, for that understanding point of view. I did not realize that my opinion was so different and that it brought some pretty hard core Ancestry buffs. Seems they all wanted to teach this old man a lesson.
I walked a few cemeteries in my area, photographed some markers and posted them for Find-a-grave. I also originated some memorials for some of my ancestors. I wanted to do more, but my physical condition hindered my progress, so I gave it up. In my researching I, too, have found duplications and have successfully submitted information to get corrections made.
I love this hobby and am willing to assist all who need my assistance. It occupies my retirement years gives me a sense of accomplishment when I help others.
Thanks for your inputs.
1 -
FYI
IF, as you say, that you often summarily "Delete", VALID "Sources", that have been diligently added, by other Users/Patrons, with the expectation, of those "Sources" being considerably/relatively, permanent; even (or, should I say), especially, those "Sources" from "Partner" Websites (including, but not limited to: "Ancestry_com"; "FindMyPast_co_uk" ["FindMyPast_com"]; "HyHeritage_com"; and, "FindAGrave_com"; "BillionGraves_com"; etc); but, also, including those "Sources", from OTHER Websites (that are NOT "Partnered" with 'FamilySearch'), from all around the World; THEN, in fact, SADLY, you are doing EXACTLY, what you had done, on a number of occasions, in this Forum, claiming/criticising/accusing other Users/Patrons, of (and, I will NOT use, your "Word", I will just say ...) doing the wrong thing.
UNLESS; as, a User/Patron, one can prove, without doubt, that "Sources", DO NOT apply, to the individual/person concerned; THEN, one should NOT be "Deleting" such "Sources"; especially, with the ONLY reason being (on the basis), that those "Sources", can ONLY be accessed through/via a "Paywall"; as, there MAY be MANY Users/Patrons, that CAN 'see'/access, such "Sources", through those particular "Paywalls".
Furthermore ...
The likes of, "FindAGrave"; and "BillionGraves", may NOT be considered a PRIMARY "Source"; and, they may not always be perfect; but, in MANY cases, they are, a most reliable; and, an acceptable, "Source".
And, in any case, the "Sources" of/from "FindAGrave"; and "BillionGraves" (even, those thought 'FamilySearch'), are certainly NOT hidden behind any "Paywall".
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
And in my opinion, Brett, this would be a good time not to express your thoughts.
0 -
@Brett . please do not try to put words in my mouth. I specified bare URLs pointing behind paywalls. Those are not sources. The URLs might point to sources, although often they don't. Furthermore, the standard of evidence in genealogy is a citation. That is, what authority created the historical record, what authority holds it now, and what details it contains.
UNLESS; as, a User/Patron, one can prove, without doubt, that "Sources", DO NOT apply, to the individual/person concerned; THEN, one should NOT be "Deleting" such "Sources"
Actually, because Family Tree is based on historical records, the burden of proof is on the other side. Unless the item is shown to actually be a source, and to relate to that person, it does not belong on Family Tree and should be deleted.
1 -
@Mrfidgit one thing that perplexes me is how so many people take my work here, export it to Ancestry.com, and call it their own. I have found links to my own tree work attached to Family Tree by others as sources. That is at best circular! But tree fragments of my trees on Ancestry.com are not sources because they are not historical records.
That said, there are some trees that at this point in time stand in as historical records. An example is a 1949 book, the work of many decades by several generations of genealogists, that tries to trace all descendants of a certain early American immigrant. Much of the book has been confirmed by historical records but parts of it are proven to be fiction and some other parts are as yet neither confirmed nor disconfirmed.
0 -
I don't wish to prolong an already extended and at times heated argument, but here's my thoughts:
- The "burden of proof" is on the contributor to prove that a source is relevant, not the other way around.
- Links and sources that are are tentative or unproven should definitely be mentioned, but in Memories.
- FindAGrave can be useful- just today I used it as a source, because it had an image of an obituary that I can't find anywhere else. But if a FaG profile doesn't have any information not found elsewhere, then I think it should be removed as a source, and mentioned in Memories alongside links to the Geni, WikiTree etc profiles for the person.
1
