Comments on: Your Ancestry.com Experiences - Good or Bad?

By: Sheryl Stookey

Sheryl Stookey — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:08:30 +0000

I have mixed feelings but am disappointed that so many FREE sites have been taken over by Ancestry.com. I had the free trial period and found it difficult to find anything even when I tried to narrow it down, I got tons of stuff not even close to what I was looking for..there’d be thousands and thousands of pages. If I wanted vital statistics, they seemed to only have those out west and hardly any out East where all of our ancestors began (for the most part). I seemed to be very limited on what I could search with my free trial period. They also did not send me an email warning me my free trial period was up and they took my money for more than a couple months. I didn’t even know it until I went to the bank and I saw Ancestry.com on my bank account and I said no way…I didn’t agree to that. If I had known…I would have been using it. Now I can’t even reply to board members who wrote me about having information for me. Since when do they “own” our email addresses? I am not happy with Ancestry.com. I can see where it can save leg work but it’s extremely time consuming when they can’t narrow your request down to what you specify.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:17:46 +0000

My wife and I share a subscription to Ancestry.com. It is a great resource for original records that have been scanned, but you have to take the other public trees with a grain of salt. I usually ignore them unless they have some solid sources.
We bought FTM 2011 and I use it, but my wife does not. It has several frustrating aspects, like there is no one screen where you can enter, edit, or even see all the facts and sources for an individual, you have to keep jumping back and forth. Also, the “place master” has no provision for historic places, so the software keeps reminding me that my ancestor who was born in 1863 in the Mass Bay Colony, should say the State of Mass, USA, when the USA did not exist for more than 100 years later. But despite this, I’m using it and it does work nicely together with our Ancestry subscription.
I agree with the others that it is very frustrating to think you have discovered a new “free” genealogy search site, only to be linked back to Ancestry. That they use bait and switch so pervasely sheds doubts on their ethics. So I love them and hate them, but I do pay for a subscription, and it has saved us a lot of time and travel, so probably worth the price in the long run.

By: Chuck Elledge

Chuck Elledge — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:01:28 +0000

I love Ancestry. But then I understand business and the internet. Donated items still cost money to store, to index, to transcribe and to maintain. Employees have to be paid. Stockholders expect a profit. As for “taking over” RootsWeb et al. All Ancestry did was offer free hosting to these sites, and free hosting for a huge site like RootsWeb is expensive. So the ads on RootsWeb help pay for for that. As for finding the same info on Ancestry elsewhere online - I’d challenge that. Some of it can be found but nowhere near all of it can be. Even Family Search with the resources of the Latter Day Saints Church behind it can’t match the depth and breadth of Ancestry’s records. Ancestry’s search IS lousy, even the better improved version is still far short of what Google’s search engine can do on the open web. Another problem I do have is the recurring subscriptions. That isn’t unethical but it IS a sure way to invite a firestorm of complaints and it has. Ancestry should drop auto-recurring billing and save itself a lot of customer service headaches. Ancestry is NOT a non-profit, it is a for profit company and people should remember that. It is also a heckuva lot cheaper than a single weekend trip to a repository to search for records in person. The internet is like television, when its free it is always replete with irritating, intrusive ads, that’s how it is paid for. Expecting anything else, and expecting a company to ignore advertising it’s goods, or give away it’s services, just makes me wonder whether people understand how business operates. If it is a free site you’re visiting it is either paid for by Google ads, or some organization is footing the bill - but it isn’t really free - it is costing someone. Ancestry foots the bill for several free websites, and if it’s services are considered too expensive or not par for the cost - heck, try a competitor like World Vital Records, or the new Archives.com. They are growing and getting better, and may soon match Ancestry’s record base (not there yet, especially Archives.com but you could join for a LOT less and help them grow. Archives especially seems committed to keeping its prices in a reasonable level.)Competition may be the thing that forces Ancestry to eventually look at its pricing structure and/or improve its search-available records base.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:08:49 +0000

I’ve subscribed for the last 10-12 years, mostly just the US edition, but occasionally have upgraded to World as needed (amounting to maybe 25% of my time with Ancestry.com). Over the course of my experience (to paraphrase another poster’s “love/hate”), I’ve had an ongoing like/loathe relationship with them.

For me, where I fall in that equation almost always comes down to:

1) travel expenses (and winter trauma thereof) to libraries/archives with enough computer access to make it worth my while (= “like” to stay home and muddle thru with ancestry.com)
2) enough time on my hands to put up with their INSANELY slow download/access times to even view a record (= “like” if I have time, otherwise “loathe”);
3) the seemingly increasing occurrences of “we are currently experiencing problems with [fill in the blank]”; (= loathe) and
4) how frustrating it is to take the time to notify them of any number of (ever-increasing) problems with a specific record (wrong page, wrong image, half an image, etc, you name it), only to never (and, I mean NEVER, E V E R) see it rectified. We are talking repeated attempts over 10+ years. (Why should I spend my time telling them about it if nothing will ever be fixed? (= LOATHE).

I’m pretty good as narrowing my searches (using the OLD search, that is) so am not so bothered by their search weaknesses. (But bless their LITTLE hearts that they don’t keep trying to push me into their “new and improved” (snort) search — which IMHO is TERRRIBLE, and always returns mountain upon mountain of sheer gobbledy-gook, no matter how I tweak it.)

Anyhoo. During the same period of time I’ve utilized any number of free resources such as Rootsweb USGenWeb, Genforum, Linkpedium, Heritage Quest (thru my state library card), and Archive.org, and the ever-free, ever-growing, and ever satisfying LDS familysearch.org, in all its permutations.

Upon occasion I’ve also subscribed to other sites, such as NEHGS, GenealogyBank’s newspapers, Footnote (now called something like f3, whatever that means) and some UK-specific pay-as-you-go sites.

But recently I let my Ancestry.com subscription go, mostly because I had the World Deluxe and didn’t want to renew it. (The only way to do that was to cancel my Ancestry subscription in time before it was automatically renewed, and then re-subscribe.)

And I was quite happy for a while, exploring how the WWW has improved (and it has improved a lot). Ah well, because then …. I got sucked back in and subscribed again (US) for some newspapers not covered anywhere else, and the ease of searching census (which, although not perfect, is still the best I’ve experienced of all the sites I’ve used, including Heritage Quest. which has no 1850 — but it IS soooooo much faster to pull up).

And A/C’s census really is easier to use than familysearch (which, half the time redirects you to ancestry anyway, for the later censuses). Note also that you can now get most censuses including slave schedules at archive.org, but again, no search capabilities.

All this said — why, oh WHY is Ancestry.com so incredibly, unbelievably SLOWWWWWWWW???? I mean, 3-toed-sloth-slow!!! (Believe it or not, when I Googled “Ancestry.com,” “website,” and “slowest,” out of the first 10 hits, 5 were for Ancestry.com, and 4 were for the three-toed-sloth!)

It’s especially bad for the newspapers — which is, unfortunately for *moi,* the #1 reason I got sucked back in — for a year.

So take note Ancestry.com: As both a die-hard family historian (and former fan) I will make it worth my while for this year, but will mark my calendar in big bold red letters, and when next November rolls around, I will cancel, and probably not resubscribe.

In the meantime, I’m also continuing to explore who else is out there …

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 04:45:19 +0000

I have been researching my family history and my surname globally since aged 17 (1968). I learned as much as I could about genealogy, bought ‘how to’ books, joined genealogical societies and made it a study. I set up systems for storing my research, created family files, numbering systems etc etc. In those days it was traveling to public libraries, cemeteries, interviews with the older generation, reading microfilm, reading microfiche, ordering fiche and rolls, pouring through documents in Sydney’s genealogical society, putting adverts in newspapers, printing a book of my research to gather more research, subscribing to magazines etc. EVERYTHING was cross referenced, checked, proved and double proved. It was SLOW!

Later I created my own family name website to gather more and more information. That sped things up, BUT nothing like Ancestry. I have never researched for money and everything I have researched I have made available on my website FREE! I charged for my books at cost to make the research available. Ancestry charge, BUT they are a business and businesses make money. That’s what makes the world go around. Without it you would have to shoot rabbits for food. The creators of Ancestry deserve a reward because they took risk. I didn’t and I don’t make money from my research. I could but I choose not to.

My only beef about Ancestry is not about them because they have created a wonderful means to research. My beef is about the turkeys who come on and put trees together that cause confusion. “Oh this names looks good, I’ll use that” or I can’t find a John, so this one will do. “Oh there is a James and look a photo. Oh goody, I now have a photo of my great great grandfather”. Please do it properly, so that you don’t wreck it for those who are serious about finding their CORRECT ancestors.

WELL DONE ANCESTRY.

By: Carol Y Larson

Carol Y Larson — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:35:35 +0000

I have been a member of Ancestry.com for over ten years. Just recently I typed in a name and actually found the Sophia that my mother thought was her “Aunt Sophia”, whom she had met when she was age 4 or 5 when her mother took her over to Iowa to visit. I found an 1870 MN census record with this Sophia living with her son. I have learned that she was not my mother’s aunt. She was really her great-grandmother. I have been searching for years for information about this Sophia. This census record states where in Germany she was born.

Also, just recently I finally found the rest of my paternal grandfather’s siblings who came from Norway in the 1850s and 1860s living in MN. Ancestry tries to connect us with potential family members. Well, I was directed to a website of someone who had been a member, but who had quit six months ago. It was a public tree, so as I was searching through the members, I found my Grandfather Hans Larson listed but the birth date was incorrect, so I left a comment. A few days later I received an email letter from Florida from a distant cousin. He was able to fill in the details for the other siblings, who also came to America, got married, had families, etc. I was then able to post this information over to Norway. Personally, I believe that although Ancestry has its problems, I have been able to connect with distant cousins and to update my family history. Several of these folks have shared some pictures with me too. And, I am thankful for all the information and pictures I receive.

I have learned that those who transcribed the various census records for Ancestry must have had very “poor eyesight”, because there are so many errors to be found. When I find errors, I always leave a Comment to correct the error. Ancestry always thanks me for the information. Also, when I find someone else who is also working on a family member, whose information maybe faulty, I leave a Comment where I correct the information. Most of the people thank me for my help. There is a man who has over 20,000 family members in his data base and has no idea how he is related to my mother’s maternal line nor my father’s paternal line. When I wrote to him to ask how he was related, he just told me he didn’t know. Lately, I have learned that he is a professional genealogist and was hired by several distant family members to do a research on various families. I wish he would share the information about who these “distant” relatives are. Perhaps, the “brick walls” would come down if I knew who they are.

What I don’t like about Ancestry right now is they are using pastel green ink and bright yellow ink for the list of names in my trees so it is very difficult to read the names with my computer. I also pay the lowest monthly fee to have the basic US information, which also includes the ship records.

I do use other genealogy websites, but most of my data comes from Ancestry. One thing I do like about this site is the information can lead me to the original document sources.

By: brandy

brandy — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:52:21 +0000

I have used Ancestry.com on and off for many years. I subscribe to it presently and I am wondering, once again, why I came back to it. I find Ancestry very difficult to use when I am looking for specific info about a place, for instance. The directions are there, but they take forever for me to find. It’s my opinion that the site is too big, thus making it too confusing for me to use. I have much difficulty locating people in my “shoebox” because they are not in any kind of order. I still can’t find a link on the site which will take me easily to my shoebox! Maybe the site should be re-designed. I’m confused about how My Trees works. I have done searches on a surname that yielded results on the first several pages which didn’t even come close to the name I searched. I have found info about a few ancestors but many times, it’s info I can get elsewhere via the net. It’s frustrating to use their published family trees due to errors contained in them. They are not reliable. Many of them have no sources. I am disappointed that Ancestry doesn’t have more US newspaper archives, especially for big cities with historically large populations. Maybe if I used Ancestry several hours every day I would gain more knowledge about how to use it efficiently. However, the anxiety I sometimes feel when I use the site is beginning to outweigh the benefits. I think the full subscription price (without benefit of a discount) for a US membership is fair for all the info available: $155. There’s a lot of info there and it saves a lot time and money when I think of the alternative ways to get genealogy data.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:47:01 +0000

I find Ancestry.com incredibly horrible. Their search is basically worthless. How is it if I put someone’s Birth as 1946, im getting census records from the 1880s.

I feel like every search looks at name only and the rest is mostly ignored unless they have some exact search. I cant even find my grandfather on ancestry.com. I know his name, spelled correctly, his death year, and even his birth year. and thats not enough for ancestry.com.

I will be cancelling my 1 month membership in a day or two.

Its ridiculous.

By: Roberta Whitacre

Roberta Whitacre — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:45:36 +0000

I have been here before and I just want to say there are some good things on ancestry but they are only original documents; Ancestry even takes everyone’s photos and puts them in their card catalogue and considers it their source now; also the other day I was researching and somehow ended up finding a tree that started with Adam; yes, that is right Adam and the place he was living was the Garden of Eden; honestly, I swear so you all need to be careful before you connect to things; I also found my own ancestor’s tree where the mother was my ancestor and her children were really all of her siblings. I recently also found a man with a common name who was 200 years old when he died only because it was a very common name and obviously someone attached to a tree with the different information on it without even paying attention; there needs to be a way that when people just start connecting to trees like that where the discrepancy is so bad something should pop up and tell people because people are so excited they just do not pay attention. People say that we are all just connecting ancestors and trying to find relatives and that it would be nice to be able to say hello but when you write someone who has over 20,000 people in their trees and you just ask how they connect to you and the kind of answer you receive even if you receive one at all sometimes it is ” I don’t know, I just know we do” and that is because they have attached all of these trees and the ancestor that supposedly you have in common is so far back and married to a direct ancestor’s third cousins’s son’s stepmother and that is how it goes. People think that people who have gone private are stingy but that is not so with most of us; we just want the correct info. Ancestry even has a source titled; Family Data Collections which is still not an actual source and if you do not find the actual source then it is as good as made up. Now, the few examples I have listed are true and when you find a tree with thousands of people in it try writing them and see if they even know who that ancestor is or how they connect to you. Courtesy is another thing sorely lacking with Ancestry now and it was not always that way but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar so you should be nice when you want info from a person; I do not even see a Thanks to So and So on anything anymore or Courtesy of and now I am starting to put text on my own photos of my family stating who it is courtesy of not only because others will take it and act like it is their photo in their possession without even putting the original submitter’s name on it but because that is the way to find the family member; whoever has the original will be closer than someone who has taken the photo and has thousands of photos and just does not know who they are; so for those who think those of us who went private are stingy,greedy people please think again because if you really want your family history as correct as you can get it anyway you will be very disheartened when you find your tree a mess from the types of things you are attaching to so this is to just tell you all be careful; and when the leaf comes up you better check the info about what you really know to be true because a lot of times the names may be the same as families tended to name people the same names for years or a particular name was popular but the dates could be hundreds of years apart so when the conflicting info comes up or even that NEW thing comes up check to see if it is even possible it is your ancestor and check their families because you could find it is not and when you put a lot of work into your tree you could end up very disappointed; I have learned now that I rarely write someone who has 20,000 names or photos in it because of the bad answers I have received. I have gone private but I will still help and sometimes if I find wrong info I will even email the person privately and nicely tell them it is an error and give them my own correct source and do it nicely. You have to zoom in on actual records instead of taking for sure what the transcribed card states and a lot of times you will find a different name, or date, etc. No one want to go Barking up the wrong tree.
Berta
P.S. I have been very grateful for everything that people have helped me with and always try to put their names as the sources that gave me the document or photo and that is not done enough either. Those people have worked hard in libraries, National Archives, Courthouses, etc. etc. and were kind enough to share so don’t you think they should be rewarded for their work with at the very least a Thank You

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:51:15 +0000

I have been a paid member on and off since the early days. After being a subscriber for the past 3 years, I had to cancel my account. Their new search feature is terrible. Their IT guys should all get the ax for what they created. You used to be able to enable old search, link is now gone and so am I. FYI, I am an IT guy, so I know what is good and what is bad and forcing someone to use a system with too many quirks and variations, not good.