Quote:
Originally Posted by sonderella
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.