U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2017, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,254 posts, read 14,290,922 times
Reputation: 12070

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
And its not just transcription errors.

I have added probably 50+ corrections to Ancestry listings due to census taker and deth cert informant phonetic misspellings, etc

My own mother's name is wrong in the 1940 Census
Yeah, census records in particular were/are used for demographic purposes, not identification, so name spelling was not a priority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2017, 08:19 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,546 posts, read 22,525,108 times
Reputation: 11477
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
And its not just transcription errors.

I have added probably 50+ corrections to Ancestry listings due to census taker and deth cert informant phonetic misspellings, etc

My own mother's name is wrong in the 1940 Census
I'm trying to figure out if my MIL's father had an older sister born a year after the parents marriage that passed before her father was born 6 years later. The mothers name is correct but fathers last name is spelled wrong. Not sure if there were 2 Minnie White's in the same town married to a Samuel W. The baby had the same 1st name as Samuel's sister.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2017, 08:02 AM
 
16,206 posts, read 8,476,895 times
Reputation: 8330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey59 View Post
Personally, as far as records go, I have found very little on Ancestry that was not available either on FamilySearch or via microfilm / fiche records that I ordered in at the local Mormon church.

Regarding the family histories that were uploaded by Ancestry users - about 90% are so riddled with mistakes they are rendered useless!

Personally, I consider Ancestry to be a huge rip-off. I have logged in at my local library (for free) to do some searching for people and events I did not have from traditional sources, but had very little success. The only value I would see is if you were just starting out and had more money than time. Even then, I would exhaust FamilySearch site first.
I agree with this but do find some value on Ancestry.

I usually re-activate a paid subscription for a couple months every few years to look up some things.

Mostly military records (kind of upset that Fold 3 now has most of the military info I need, I believe they are affiliated with ancestry and don't feel they should have created a separate paid subscription service for military information) I find them on ancestry. My local community also has directory information on ancestry and not family search, also some communities in PA that I research their directory information is on there as well.

However, I can access Heritage Quest for free via a library link from home (use my library card) and get the same census and directory information that ancestry.com has.

I also use ancestry to connect with people who have matches to my trees. That is actually the main reason why I use the site. I also recently sent off DNA info on my oldest living maternal great aunt - she is my maternal line (sister of my grandmother) and my maternal grandfather who I'm researching his family tree and he and my great aunt have a substantial free people of color background and I felt testing them would be more beneficial since they are "closer" to the generations I'm researching genetically.

But in general, I prefer family search. I think it is easier to manipulate/search but I believe that is because I'm use to them more than ancestry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2018, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Santa Maria, CA
766 posts, read 1,446,471 times
Reputation: 651
Default Familysearch

I've used Familysearch in the past but normally just as an alternate search engine where Ancestry would be my primary record searching tool. I've uploaded my familytree to Ancestry and I keep it in sync with my Rootsmagic database.

My perception of Familysearch has drastically improved recently. I just noticed that they seem to have all of the census records now which is the source material that I use the most. I started actually entering data and correcting existing data in Familysearch for my ancestors and found that I love the interface. It works exceptionally well on the census. I can go down a census page and click on a line item and see if that person is attached to any record or take the opposite approach and add census records for an individual by searching for them. If search doesn't work, I can access the census records directly by selecting the collection and then clicking on State, County, City and browse a page at a time. There's also a sense of satisfaction knowing that this isn't just for my tree (unless the people are designated living) but for everybody.

Another thing that I love that is horribly broken in Rootsmagic and Ancestry are locations. They're all standardized in Familysearch. This actually makes my timeline map work and provides consistent results.

It's bothered me that Ancestry is behind a pay wall and that all of the records become unavailable if I don't continue to pay. That's not entirely true since I'm using Rootsmagic TreeSync but it's definitely true for the online files. I'd like to share the work that I've already done and was contemplating creating my own website and using something like TNG for the app but there's always the problem of anybody finding it. Familysearch.org will probably always be there, people are aware of it, and it's free so it seems like a natural fit for my current needs. I've not run into the problem of people overwriting my changes yet -- I've kind of been on the other side of the fence. I've found a lot of duplicate ids where the records contained very little data but enough to indicate they were duplicates so have done a lot of merging to correct things but only when I was certain there would be no data loss.

I'm not Mormon so am not trying to sell you on this site for that reason. I've just grown to like the site and would recommend that people give it a shot over Ancestry. The only thing that Ancestry has that is still a must for me is the DNA matching. They've got the largest autosomal DNA database so even though they've got some of the worse tools (no Chromosome browser) - they're still the place to go to check out matches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2018, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
9,254 posts, read 14,290,922 times
Reputation: 12070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp View Post
Another thing that I love that is horribly broken in Rootsmagic and Ancestry are locations. They're all standardized in Familysearch. This actually makes my timeline map work and provides consistent results.
I'm not sure what you mean by this - Ancestry has standardized locations in your family tree. Records don't always follow current data if the location has changed since the time the document was recorded, and that will mess up maps, but records should be transcribed as they were recorded, not with updated locations.

Quote:
I'm not Mormon so am not trying to sell you on this site for that reason. I've just grown to like the site and would recommend that people give it a shot over Ancestry. The only thing that Ancestry has that is still a must for me is the DNA matching. They've got the largest autosomal DNA database so even though they've got some of the worse tools (no Chromosome browser) - they're still the place to go to check out matches.
Ancestry still has a lot of "musts" for me that FamilySearch does not. They still have multiple times more records, and an overall more advanced search engine. But I will say again that it shouldn't be an "either/or" situation. Serious genealogists should make use of both, whenever possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2018, 04:14 AM
 
Location: Santa Maria, CA
766 posts, read 1,446,471 times
Reputation: 651
I've got a lot of locations that are the same as the county names and townships that are the same as other county names in the same state. Both Rootsmagic and Ancestry handle this terribly compared to Familysearch. They also seem to conflict on how they handle the country -- is it USA or United States or United States of America or does it just leave it empty? To me, it was a night and day difference how well Familysearch was handling locations. Having a database of facts with standardized locations that are all properly geocoded has been amazing. I'd much rather have images of the source materials with whatever arcane location data that they contain for reference but have modern location data for geocoding. I want to be able to see things on a map whenever possible.

As for Ancestry's search engine, I wouldn't call it more advanced. Most of the time I want to filter based on a state or collection which familysearch does well. It also seems to handle wildcards better. Ancestry has more overall records but that doesn't mean that its search engine is any better. The thing that Ancestry has that nobody else does is the largest DNA database. Familysearch is free so is definitely the best value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PA2UK View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this - Ancestry has standardized locations in your family tree. Records don't always follow current data if the location has changed since the time the document was recorded, and that will mess up maps, but records should be transcribed as they were recorded, not with updated locations.

Ancestry still has a lot of "musts" for me that FamilySearch does not. They still have multiple times more records, and an overall more advanced search engine. But I will say again that it shouldn't be an "either/or" situation. Serious genealogists should make use of both, whenever possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2018, 06:43 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,546 posts, read 22,525,108 times
Reputation: 11477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp View Post
I've got a lot of locations that are the same as the county names and townships that are the same as other county names in the same state. Both Rootsmagic and Ancestry handle this terribly compared to Familysearch. They also seem to conflict on how they handle the country -- is it USA or United States or United States of America or does it just leave it empty? To me, it was a night and day difference how well Familysearch was handling locations. Having a database of facts with standardized locations that are all properly geocoded has been amazing. I'd much rather have images of the source materials with whatever arcane location data that they contain for reference but have modern location data for geocoding. I want to be able to see things on a map whenever possible.

As for Ancestry's search engine, I wouldn't call it more advanced. Most of the time I want to filter based on a state or collection which familysearch does well. It also seems to handle wildcards better. Ancestry has more overall records but that doesn't mean that its search engine is any better. The thing that Ancestry has that nobody else does is the largest DNA database. Familysearch is free so is definitely the best value.
Family search had a site update a week or so ago; they really do well with locations now; everything is in sync. It's United States of America and for other places they allow you to enter older names such as the quick tree I built the other day for a poster here //www.city-data.com/forum/genea...-my-great.html where his family originated from British Guiana. I was able to select British Guiana with a specific date cut off which I believe was 1966.

Ancestry is United States from memory but in places it shows as USA. I wish they'd do what Family Search does where everything is one way. Family Search really out did themselves with the last update.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2018, 11:26 AM
 
9,285 posts, read 5,513,892 times
Reputation: 9542
i like family search better but you can print out the whole tree, I do like the nine generation fan. and on ancestry you can see the tree but you cant take it with you, I like having a in my hands, paper trail
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2018, 01:40 PM
 
9,285 posts, read 5,513,892 times
Reputation: 9542
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg View Post
i like family search better but you can print out the whole tree,

i like family search better but you can't print out the whole tree,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2018, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Ohio
21,262 posts, read 15,049,712 times
Reputation: 17676
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonderella View Post
I recently became interested in searching for family history via online sources. I've been using Familysearch.org because it's free and I've filled in a ton of information on both my and my husband's families, going back several generations, and have hooked up our lines with some that others have researched, so that some of them go back pre-1000 A.D. I've had a lot of fun doing it.

Recently, I got access to Ancestry.com for free. It seems to operate in a similar manner, from my cursory review. I quickly located a few ancestral lines that had dead-ended on Familysearch that had a few more generations completed on Ancestry, but at the same time, there was a lot of missing information on Ancestry, that was already researched on FamilySearch.

So, basically, I am wondering if there's a consensus of opinion as to which site is better, in general, as far as available resources, and number of entries.

Thanks for any opinions shared.
Both Ancestry and FamilySearch are products of Mormons.

The Mormons have two fetishes: baptizing everyone and tracing the genealogy of mankind back to Adam.

As an Atheist, I don't really care what Mormons do. If they want to throw water on people, that's fine with me, and besides, someone already threw water on me when I was an infant, and I'm no better-off or worse-off for it. It's not like they're digging up bones and throwing water on them, it's just a prayer ritual.

In the Mormon's Quest for Adam, they have acquired massively extensive genealogical records, and that's a positive thing.


One thing though, the Mormons will probably start doing their own archeological research, which means they'll be doing DNA testing and publishing it for everyone to see and compare.



Consider that both your federal and State tax dollars fund archeological research, which includes DNA testing.


Where is that info?


You paid for that with your money, so where is the data for the Y-DNA or mt-DNA Haplogroups and the autosomal DNA?



That info should be freely available on the internet for anyone to make comparisons, but it isn't.


Write your congress-critter and voice your objection and complaint.


The plus factors for FamilySearch:

1) it is free
2) you can build a tree
3) you can collaborate on trees
4) the records are more extensive than Ancestry's
5) the records are far more accurate than Ancestry's with far fewer transcription errors
6) the records can be easily searched through a friendly interface
7) the search results are better than Ancestry's
8) FamilySearch will link your tree to more ancestors
9) FamilySearch includes foreign records for free

The negatives for FamilySearch:

1) anyone can edit your tree. So long as the people collaborating on your tree know what they're doing, that's fine, but 90% are blithering idiots dumber than a box of rocks and you may end up correcting the same mistakes over and over until they give up in frustration.

2) you can't add media. I like to add headstones or personal photos to Ancestry when available. FamilySearch could add that feature in the future, and they probably will eventually

3) Most of FamilySearch's genealogies are highly accurate, but sometimes they're just plain wrong. If you know your Y-DNA or mt-DNA Haplogroup, you'll see that.

4) FamilySearch won't link you with other DNA relatives.


The plus side of Ancestry:

1) only you can edit your tree
2) you can add media
3) Ancestry actively searches for records for you, which appear as Hints
4) Ancestry links you to DNA relatives. That's how I finally found my 2nd and 3rd great-grandfathers after 20 years of searching.

The negatives:

1) you have to pay for it.

2) you have to pay even more for records from other countries, which are free on FamilySearch

3) because people can add media, you end up with a lot of stupid nonsensical stuff that pile up as Hints which you have to ignore

4) the search engine interface is horrid.

5) the searches are unproductive and bombard you with irrelevant records. On FamilySearch, enter a woman's name, State of birth and birth year or range of birth years and up pops the birth certificates of all of her children, marriages, census records, death records and address records, then you get a list of name variations and associated records. You can't do that on Ancestry. In order to find the birth certificates of a woman's children on Ancestry, you have to already know the name of each child born and where and when they were born, and search on each child individually. So, I have a woman with last name Bennett born in 1917. Ancestry won't give me squat on a search, so I go to FamilySearch and enter her first and last name in the Mother field, enter Kentucky for the State and a date range. Up pops 9 birth certificates for women with that name. 4 of the 9 have the last name Cole, born in Knox County, Kentucky, where my person was born. I'm reasonably sure that's her and her children. Now I know her spouse's name. I enter the children's info and up pops Hints on Ancestry, because one died in 2014. I Google the obituary and it's extensive, identifying the maternal and paternal grandparents, parents, siblings' and spouses' names, plus city and State of residence, plus sibling in-law for the other dead sibling, plus the names of their children and spouses, grandchildren and city and State of residence. That confirms I got it right. Yes, if you're going to use Ancestry, you'll also spend a lot of time on FamilySearch.

6) Ancestry boasts more records, but those records are useless yearbook and public address records.

7) Ancestry's transcription errors are legendary. I couldn't find the 1940 Census records for that woman on Ancestry, but I found them on FamilySearch. Then I finally found the record on Ancestry, which had been incorrectly transcribed as "Cale" instead of "Cole" but I wasted a lot of time looking for that record. That's why you spend more time on FamilySearch than Ancestry.


Just something to consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top