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 -
I am pleased to find this thread on the 'usefulness' of Sources leading back to mostly Ancestry, with the need for a paid subscription to access. I have read the comments about have a reference to a source is of value, even if you need to access it in a roundabout way or visit a Family History Centre (which I do at times, mostly for church records not yet transcribed).
The source listings for some profiles are getting less helpful, not often linking to verified sources, such as census, wills, verified rferences I have seen mistakes repeated and repeated. Today I added a note to a profile, basically suggesting the same as others here - take the time to indicate 'why' the source was added; what relevant info is included.
Thanks for 'listening'.
0 -
When I add a source from Ancestry, I use the "share" feature, which generally allows anyone to view the record without a paid subscription. All you need is to set up a free account on Ancestry to view the record when it has a link that starts with https://www.ancestry.com/sharing/
0 -
@CGPlishka , @Áine Ní Donnghaile is correct about Ancestry's share feature. You do not need a paid subscription to access a source that has been shared through this kind of link. And contrary to expectation, there are collections in Ancestry which are not found in FamilySearch. I have many ancestors who lived in colonial and post colonial Augusta county, Virginia. If you look at the FS catalog for that county and specifically the probate collections, you will see a lot less in FS when compared to Ancestry. For example, only will book 1a and 2a are there. Ancestry, curiously does not list these 2 books, (perhaps knowing they are freely available allowed the Virginia court house staff to work more efficiently when digitizing their collections recently), but Ancestry has all will books for Augusta County from book 3 to book 40 online and digitized. Most of my ancestor's wills are not found in FamilySearch, but are in Ancestry.
Now, an annoying note, I admit. The share function is off and on as to whether you are taken to the exact document. That will not stop me from using it. I believe in the value of information and I feel obligated to share it. I do not understand the rejection of sources just because they come from a paid subscription site someone feels is tainted. I also add web link facts to my Ancestry trees when I find sources in FS, because I maintain my family history in both sites.
If someone is adding a source link in FS that simply goes to a tree (or to nothing at all), it was very likely either a user error OR a new user thinking Ancestry trees are a source (which, of course, they are not.).
1 -
In addition to the collections that Ancestry holds that FamilySearch does not, there are collections on both sites that are indexed on Ancestry but only browsable on FamilySearch. I often use that indexed Ancestry record to shorten the time required to browse to the record on FamilySearch, since the image number within a digitized film is often (but not always) the same.
When the share feature balks at leading to the exact image, I add a note regarding the exact location within the digitized film on the FS profile.
1 -
I'll keep an eye open for URLs starting https://www.ancestry.com/sharing/. I don't recall having come across any - so - until you mentioned this (in another post, too) - I would have been inclined to agree about "links" to ancestry.com sources being of little use to those without a subscription. I guess you could also say something similar about FamilySearch (restricted access) sources that are added at a FHC or Affiliate - then can't be viewed on getting home!
1 -
Paywalls (and FS's equivalent thereto) are just one reason it's not a good idea to rely on just a link, in a source or elsewhere. Link rot happens. It's always good to include as much description of the record as possible, such as a transcription or translation of the key parts, so that even if the image can't be viewed later (for whatever reason), the information is still there.
(I admit that for indexed sources on FS, this is very much a "do as I say, not as I do" situation, because editing a marriage source six times on the six different profiles it's on is just too tedious for words.)
1 -
@Paul W You can see some Ancestry share links in sources on this profile for my 6th GGF, Edward Hale, G3VY-ZNY.
0 -
Thanks for the example, Aine. Unfortunately, I still can't actually read the record (even after signing in, from home), because when I click on "View full record" (without which the image is blurred) I'm taken to the Subscription page!
But I wasn't really expecting something for nothing, and at least can see evidence of the record being on Ancestry (for later viewing, when at my local library or somewhere else with free access).
0 -
Hmm - I always verify a record can be viewed. I keep a free account as well as my paid subscription, to check what can be seen. I know that Ancestry made some changes (whether intended or accidental, I don't know) the last time they did maintenance. Before then, a share link worked even without signing in to a free account. Now, the free account sign-in is required.
And I just checked one of the share links on Grandfather Edward Hale's profile, using my free account. You can see the share URL in the browser bar:
2 -
So sorry - I didn't go through the correct Download procedure (via Share). I'm now able to read everything clearly!
1 -
Great!
0 -
I use Ancestry all the time because I'm extracting records from Quebec parish registers seen in the Drouin collection. They are written in French. I provide the link to the image with the record, and I also transcribe and translate the record in the Notes section of the source. I've noticed Ancestry has changed their URL formatting a couple of times, so my hope in transcribing (and adding parish name, year, and page) will help others find the same record if the URL changes again if they want to see the source image for themselves. I have also seen some very poor attempts at Ancestry sources, some merely saying, "Ancestry.com" with no link and no information provided.
0
