tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post7495214026025184645..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: Opinion piece: Ancestry.com / USGenWeb squabbleThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-69641669948123191112008-12-25T20:28:00.000-07:002008-12-25T20:28:00.000-07:00No, it is not plagiarism to use content that is pu...No, it is not plagiarism to use content that is public record anyway. You can argue for the format of the transcription, the corollary content (remarks, addenda, footnotes and the like)but not the actual records themselves. <BR/><BR/>I call them 'screaming freebies' - people who want everything free. <BR/><BR/>Simply keep adding content available free. Don't worry about commercial exploitation. So what? As long as material is freely available at the rootsweb site & other volunteer sites (and that means getting out from under any site control by Ancestry and their ilk)and the free information continues to expand I reiterate: so what if Ancestry and WVR and others harvest the info? It's a shame Ancestry moved to commercialize free access sites with ads, and its a shame the 'screaming freebies' can;t see that both sides are vital to genealogy. There is no way in blue blazes free volunteer work is going to put a tiny dent in digitizing records. Even with the huge dollar contributions of Ancestry and Family Search and all the hard working volunteers from GenWeb and private sites and blogs there are probably 10,000 sources out there for every one online. We need each other people!chelledgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083052734232454776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-5107639104405288872008-10-30T20:30:00.000-06:002008-10-30T20:30:00.000-06:00THE ANCESTRY INSIDER SAID: "What a mess. And so I ...THE ANCESTRY INSIDER SAID: <I>"What a mess. And so I suppose it goes across the width and breadth of the U.S. GenWeb Project."</I><BR/><BR/>Why didn't you just go to the USGenWeb Home page and find the Essex County, Mass from there? That would make more sense than slamming USGenWeb with your previous statement.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, you didn't go to the USGenWeb website first b/c you didn't even create a link until 3/4 of the way down the page.<BR/><BR/>If you were supportive or a supporter of USGenWeb, you would know the proper URL #1 and #2 you would also take the time to update your OLD USGenWeb links to the appropriate new USGenWeb URLs. <BR/><BR/>Updating old links has never been a favored task of any webmaster. <BR/><BR/><BR/>It is not USGenWeb's responsibility to see to it that everyone who has OLD links *to them* become updated. I believe you are being unfair about the move - sour grapes if you will...Louisiana Genealogy Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07232128496424412370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-28924899751763109122008-10-30T12:19:00.000-06:002008-10-30T12:19:00.000-06:00Insider,You say "In my opinion, New FamilySearch F...Insider,<BR/><BR/>You say "In my opinion, New FamilySearch Family Tree doesn't yet have what it will take to survive. I haven't seen any reason yet to believe they've figured out what (I think) has made Wikipedia successful."<BR/><BR/>You don't say why you think Wikipedia is successful. One attractive feature is the strong inclination to at least cite sources for fact-based articles.<BR/><BR/>The New FamilySearch Trees do not give evidence or even sources for anything.<BR/><BR/>In this they are like the majority of trees on the web, and follow the horrendous trend in the items added to the IGI as well as the innumerable, largely erroneous, family group sheets that have been so widely copied into error-ridden family trees on the web.<BR/><BR/>While some of the IGI data does come from records sources that are cited (albeit with many typographical erros and misreadings), the rest of the material has been good reason for some to call LDS the biggest recycler of genealogical error and poor genealogical research method.<BR/><BR/>The Labs site is great concerning actual records, but there are many typos and misreadings there - and no way to alert the site operator as to these errors.<BR/><BR/>Ancestry is catching up in volume in these respects, preferring to enter out-of-copyright books rather than records images. But at least Ancestry.com has a way to notify *volunteers* about misreadings typographical errors in indexes.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-30864428997554218622008-10-30T11:53:00.000-06:002008-10-30T11:53:00.000-06:00"An unfunded volunteer cooperative would be no leg..."An unfunded volunteer cooperative would be no legal match for a determined, cash-rich corporation." I am glad you recognize what Ancestry.com is all about - money. It is fine to charge for what they research, extract and purchase, but it is not ok to post information they have "taken" from other genealogical sites and than charge for it. It is basically plagerism. Using the work of someone else without asking permission. <BR/><BR/>"In my opinion, New FamilySearch Family Tree doesn't yet have what it will take to survive. I haven't seen any reason yet to believe they've figured out what (I think) has made Wikipedia successful." In my opinion, they do. So do at least 13,193,999 members and more who use New Family Search. <BR/><BR/>"As far as links to USGenWeb sites a couple of years ago, are you speaking of the infamous Biographical Collection debacle? Excellent point. I forgot how that played out. What began as a "Google for Biographies" evolved into something that appeared extremely insidious. In that instance, they copied pages from USGenWeb sites and elsewhere, so it didn't make any difference if the original site moved or was deleted. The stuff they took remained on Ancestry.com until they removed the collection." It didn't just appear to be "extremely insidious", it was extremely insidious. No matter that it was just Biographys - again plagerism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-51733047778223373672008-10-30T09:05:00.000-06:002008-10-30T09:05:00.000-06:00Yes, I've just been searching for actual parts of ...Yes, I've just been searching for actual parts of the url. It works best when you are looking for specific things like a cemetery transcription. But I copy/paste part of the end of the url and shorten as necessary until it shows up on the first page of results. It has worked well for my needs so far.KMDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15192746631875517201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-91234855722804697122008-10-29T21:09:00.000-06:002008-10-29T21:09:00.000-06:00Dear kmduff,Thanks for the suggestion. Does it wor...Dear kmduff,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the suggestion. Does it work to type in actual parts of the URL, such as "/s400/presscensus.jpg"? Or do you have to <I>translate</I> them into English?<BR/><BR/>-- The Ancestry InsiderThe Ancestry Insiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-11786008432949736712008-10-29T19:02:00.000-06:002008-10-29T19:02:00.000-06:00Dear geolover,Regarding the wiki concept: When Wik...Dear geolover,<BR/><BR/>Regarding the wiki concept: When Wikipedia first appeared, detractors also prophesied a nightmare. Who wants unconcerned or malicious idiots writing a encyclopedia? Understanding how and why Wikipedia succeeded despite your fears is important for any community such as USGenWeb or New FamilySearch.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, New FamilySearch Family Tree doesn't yet have what it will take to survive. I haven't seen any reason yet to believe they've figured out what (I think) has made Wikipedia successful.<BR/><BR/>I'm not certain what your point was with the specter/spectre sentence. Were you asking me what the proper spelling is? According to Merriam-Webster, "specter" is the preferred (main entry) spelling while "spectre" is a variant (also acceptable).<BR/><BR/>As far as links to USGenWeb sites a couple of years ago, are you speaking of the infamous Biographical Collection debacle? Excellent point. I forgot how that played out. What began as a "Google for Biographies" evolved into something that appeared extremely insidious. In that instance, they copied pages from USGenWeb sites and elsewhere, so it didn't make any difference if the original site moved or was deleted. The stuff they took remained on Ancestry.com until they removed the collection.<BR/><BR/>Instead of funneling extra traffic to your websites, as Google does, their implementation eliminated the need for subscribers to traffic your websites.<BR/><BR/>You are right. That was "taking."<BR/><BR/>-- The InsiderThe Ancestry Insiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-37145035301637458302008-10-29T15:29:00.000-06:002008-10-29T15:29:00.000-06:00I have found the easiest way to find broken links ...I have found the easiest way to find broken links new home is to google search for parts of the end of the broken link.KMDuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15192746631875517201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-34601095987902972822008-10-29T08:18:00.000-06:002008-10-29T08:18:00.000-06:00Insider,You said "The mere specter of Ancestry.com...Insider,<BR/><BR/>You said "The mere specter of Ancestry.com assimilating these contributions led some web site coordinators to move their sites off RootsWeb."<BR/><BR/>This was not a 'specter' [spectre].<BR/><BR/>A couple of years ago Ancestry began linking to USGenWeb genealogical content pages as if the content were now part of its subscriber-available content.<BR/><BR/>The people who had worked long and hard researching, writing and posting that content for free access on USGenWeb pages were horrified, and saw it as a Taking.<BR/><BR/>Some immediately moved the sites that they individually co-ordinated, and some in addition deleted the content to which Ancestry had linked.<BR/><BR/>No few USGenWeb site co-ordinators foresaw the trend of Ancestry's mucking about with Rootsweb functions such as Message Boards, the WorldConnect pages and the Mailing Lists. The trepidations have come true (while there has not been major interference with the Mailing List functions themselves, Ancestry has installed obtrusive ads on the List Archive pages).<BR/><BR/>Your suggestion to move to 'wiki' pages would have been a nighmare. No one wants USGenWeb users or unconcerned idiots to be able to change content or insert malicious code.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.com