Ancestry as a source is not helpful.
it is frustrating to find a profile and all the surces are from Ancestry.com or other paid website. Those who are not members of Ancestry cannot access the information...If people are to use sources from Ancestry, it should be required that they include the actual source material.
Comments
-
I agree to some extent. The last thing Ancestry did to me was giving me a 'hint' that they found for me. After following the link I found that they want to tell me 'new' information that was from FamilySearch website. And guess who entered that info into FamilySearch!?
Of course it was me.
And I found that they don't have much for me to offer. All my searches return the same results they did 5 years ago...
0 -
However if you have heard of Family Search partner websites, you might not have to pay for Ancestry. It is good enough for me if it is free.
And I use tricks on those websites: for example if Ancestry only shows preview, but you know the source, try other websites search to find the same document for free. It often works
0 -
John
.
I understand your frustration and angst ...
.
But ...
That said ...
.
"Sources" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' from "Ancestry_com" ARE, in fact, VERY helpful.
.
It is just unfortunate that, those "Sources" in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch' from "Ancestry_com" CANNOT (always) be accessed, by ALL, from Home.
.
You have to remember that:
.
(1) Some OTHER Users/Patrons DO have their own access to "Ancestry_com"; even though, you and others DO NOT; and,
.
(2) Those "Sources" from "Ancestry_com" can be viewed at a "Family History Centre" of the Church, around the World (and, most likely an "Affiliate" Library, around the World).
.
(3) It is much BETTER to have those "Sources" from "Ancestry_com", attached; and, available to access, than NOT attached at all.
.
(4) There are many "Sources" attached from OTHER websites, apart from "Ancestry_com", that cannot be accessed, unless you have access or somewhere you can get such access to them. I have come across this myself. But, again, it is much BETTER to have those "Sources" attached; and, available to access, than NOT attached at all.
.
'FamilySearch' is FREE.
.
And, the Church (ie. 'FamilySearch') tries to much as much as possible accessible to all.
.
But, there are Commercial "Subscription" ("Paid") Websites, where access is NOT free.
.
We do not live in a perfect World ...
We just have to make do with what we can/have ...
.
It may, in fact, be that, the Users/Patrons, CANNOT provide "Images" of the Records from "Ancestory_com" (eg. because of "Copyright", etc); so, 'FamilySearch' cannot require/mandate that Users/Patrons include the ACTUAL "Source" material. And, the same holds true for other OTHER websites, as well.
.
But ...
That said ...
.
There is NOTHING stopping the Users/Patrons from INCLUDING the content/details (ie. text) from those "Sources" from "Ancestry_com" in the "Reason Statements" ( ie. for "Details" the "Reason This Information Is Correct"; and, for "Sources" the "Reason This Source Is Attached") - I do that all the time.
.
Unfortunately, not all Users/Patrons do that, that is a matter of, both, "Education"; and, experience.
.
Again, I understand your frustration and angst ...
.
But, you have to consider the "Big Picture", for all ...
.
Just my thoughts.
.
Brett
.
0 -
Brett,
Angst is a little strong. I'd just call it frustration. I understand reasons for some material not being able to be posted. But in general, more people should do as you do of including the pertainent information when posting from Ancestry or otehr paid site. Or perhaps Familt Search could put in a little "remonder" in the add source box.
0 -
Anastasiya,
The same thing happened to me. I used to be a paid member of Ancestry and they keep sending me "hints" and then asking me to pay for them..One time I got a hint about an ancestor I was desperatly trying to track down...and yes, it turned out to be the little informaiton I had from a profile I had created on FS.
0 -
It might be frustrating but a source is better than no source which many also complain about. FamilySearch also makes those paid sites available at Family History libraries and affiliate libraries for free when they can. Many local libraries have access to Ancestry and other genealogy sites so you can get access, but may take more work. Still better than traveling to foreign countries to research. We are so blessed that so many materials are found online now.
0 -
John Townes, I agree. And often you can't even tell what the Ancestry source is about, because it's vague.
0 -
Ancestry is great if people want to see a box on a screen that says John Taylor married Elizabeth and pretend that it applies to the exact two people they're editing.
Some Ancestry sources are good, maybe even essential. Many are unreliable, and some are destructive. None of them (or any other source) should be added to a profile as just a link without a description of exactly what it says, why it was attached, and what fact(s) it's intended to prove -- and that should be a hard rule. This is not just so that they're meaningful to people without accounts, but also because so many older profiles have been so merge-abused that it's impossible to tell which individual the record was intended to be linked to.
I edited for years here without an Ancestry account and always imagined that those sources must be amazing to justify the cost, but they're simply not. But more disappointing than the weak sources: I was horrified to see how Ancestry is designed to spread misinformation. They promote unverified user-generated trees as one of the main sources, and make copying those trees the easiest and fastest way for customers to build their own. (And let's be honest, most people are more interested in building a big, full tree rather than an accurate one.) And what's worse: once enough trees have copied the same error, Ancestry starts acting like it's true and pushing people to add the mistake through "hints" like 'we think we found your ancestor, add them now?'
And it would take serious effort and planning to concoct a source more meaningless and annoying than the ones that say "Ancestry Family Trees" and nothing else.
Although the source that links to the Ancestry page for a Find a Grave record is a close second.
0 -
"And it would take serious effort and planning to concoct a source more meaningless and annoying than the ones that say "Ancestry Family Trees" and nothing else"
What about the reason for change statements that simply say "GEDCOM file"?
0 -
Ancestry.com Sources
When in Family Search, often when you click on a Ancestry Tree, you find NOTHING.
If you have an account at Ancestry.com, you can search *public TREES to attempt to find WHICH Tree(s) might contain source(s) for that individual.
Go to "Search" > "Public Member Trees" and then perform a search.
0 -
Ancestry.com sources are about to get WORSE!!
In early-mid November, Ancestry.com made a change to the way all users evaluate and choose sources. It became a 3-step process.
About that same time, I noticed problems with the LDS option to compare/sync sources:
Family Search (left column) vs Ancestry.com (right column).
On the comparison page, **many** Ancestry.com sources appeared only as "[No Source Title]".
I tried (once only), to sync one "[No Source Title]" with Family Search, and that source in Family Search also showed as "[No Source Title]". The source was useless (and immediately removed)!
I have since made numerous attempts to contact Ancestry.com via email and phone. It's been nearly 2 months and the problems with the LDS "Comparison Page" still exists.
(A few sources WILL appear correctly, but not the majority of sources).
This problem ONLY appears for church members. Thus, few Ancestry representatives know what I am talking about when I mention the "Comparison Page", especially when those representatives are located overseas and English is not their first language.
In one tree created in November 2020, I have 1,849 "good" sources, and many of those sources cannot be compared/synced with Family Search. Much of my time was wasted in finding those sources! I check back periodically and those sources STILL show only as "[No Source Title]".
A few weeks ago, Ancestry.com had a survey inquiring about the new way of displaying sources. I answered that survey, and explained this problem.
Last time I checked, sources (for LDS church members) still aren't working the majority of the time on the "Comparison Page".
Source titles WILL appear in the TREE, but once you go to the LDS "Comparison Page", those sources titles are changed to "[No Source Title]".
0
