Comments on: Footnote, Census, and FamilySearch

By: Joan Miller

Joan Miller — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:26:55 +0000

Thanks for the comparison. I have to agree with Tom above that the duplication of the projects is a concern. Lots of good work is being done but perhaps some coordination would be in the best interests of everyone.
Thanks for an interesting blog.

By: Tom McFarland

Tom McFarland — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:20:10 +0000

The duplication of effort in all of these projects has concerned me for some time. There is so much out there that needs to be done. It is a waste of effort to re-do what has been done acceptably already. I wrote FS explaining my concern and only do indexing in the pilot project for records that aren’t available elsewhere online. Ancestry was the leader in digitizing and indexing images. Their product certainly isn’t perfect, but it gives a lot for the subscription price. I very rarely use FS or FN for census searching, but I use both a lot for other types of searches. For the investment they are making in their products they should have offered a substantial improvement to Ancestry census offerings, and they aren’t when they are “quadruplicating” the census projects. FS and FN have considerably improved the searching in some collections. FS has a great offering of state censuses and vital records. FN has very much improved the searching for city directories.

By: Santa's Angel

Santa's Angel — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:21:18 +0000

Hi,

I agree with # 2 and # 3 above. I do not understand why footnote is spending their time on census records when there are so many records that need to be scanned and available online.

I specifically mentioned the Civil War Pension images in my last footnote survey as well as suggesting fn omit additional census images at this time.

Footnote’s search engines aren’t the easiest to use either, although they have improved 100% in the past year. I will go to ancestry.com every time to locate a new census record. I’m not saying I haven’t connected the 1930 census to my dad and grandparents, but it’s not something I’m going to do for all my ancestors.

Merry Christmas!!!

By: Don J

Don J — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:57:00 +0000

The real key to me is the search capacity and the ease at which I can find someone. Also annoying to me is the delay it takes for search results to appear. Ancestry.com has the complete collection. I want a site that has the complete collection with images. The image is essential to verify the index entry and gather additional information not indexed Census records are a basic and necessary record in the research process, so it seems only necessary that a site that wants to compete should have the complete collection especially if I have to pay for it. The competition should be in the ability of the search engine to find, sort, and spit out the results that I want. What footnote is doing with the 1930 census should be a wake up call for others in this business. When someone clicks on my granddad in the 1920 census and they get a biography and or picture of him I will be happy.

By: Jen

Jen — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:22:02 +0000

Though I applaud FamilySearch for adding census records as a free resource, I was disappointed to find that footnote would be spending time and resources in pursuit of what is already available at ancestry. Though I’ve had minimal success finding records for my line at footnote, what I have found was wonderful… the pension images. What I’d like Footnote to pursue? Images, images, images available at no other location except on-site. I can (barely) afford subscriptions to both ancestry and footnote, but I cannot afford to travel 2000 miles, and stay there long enough to do in-depth research. I’d like to see “original” images of the earliest county records -not only marriages and wills, but also property records. Virtually all of my ancestral lines were here before 1700 and I’d definitely continue my footnote subscription if these earliest records were imaged and indexed -but not to see yet another census image. Another possibility would be to provide a full-name index to the George Washington papers. Images are available at LOC, but are definitely not indexed as well as footnote does it. I just hope they DO NOT get into the “family tree” trap Ancestry has embraced. Having said that, however, I believe there IS a place for family records that are submitted WITH PROOF of connections that would satisfy a professional genealogist. Now that is a resource that would be invaluable!

By: Ron Snowden

Ron Snowden — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:59:41 +0000

What am I missing here?

We are all rooting for Footnote, but why enter a market that is saturated with a particular product? It is no secret that Footnote’s content is not wholly focused on the genealogist, albeit helpful to us. It seems like a wiser course of action and planning would be to aggressively target some facet of family history that would offer a draw to their website. What doesn’t FS, Ancestry and HQ offer? How about the Civil War Pension File (not only the index)? With an option to provide copies at a rate less than that offered by NARA if allowed under their agreement? Instead of constantly reducing price to gain subscription–which also reduces their brand identity–it would enhance their brand as a provider or unique and needed products at a competitive price.

That should be their market, not finishing as an ‘also ran.’

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:57:39 +0000

Great comparison.

To help with the estimates… FamilySearch is almost done indexing the 1920 Census. (They still have to finish Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, and possibly a few other states. Then the indexes just need to be published online.) As I understand it, FamilySearch has an agreement with Ancestry to eventually link to their images of the 1920 Census.

Also, FamilySearch will begin indexing the 1910 Census very soon. And since the 1920 Census took about 1 1/2 years to complete, I don’t think 1910 will take much longer than that.