Is Ancestry Really a Fox in Rootsweb's Hen House?

I started out in online genealogy in 1994 by participating in a genealogy discussion board at America Online, which was then a pay service. Family Treemaker soon added an online site, so I tried posting GEDCOM files of my Carr surname data. But the AOL group was just a constant flow of new researchers with shallow questions, and FTM offered no environment for my data, so I took my discussion and online database interests to Rootsweb, a free site with lots of features for genealogists. I joined the CARR_L surname discussion list, which automatically routed me copies of letters from all subscribers. I was a busy participant in the exchange of information for about four years, I guess.

Rootsweb's WorldConnect has been the home for my latest GEDCOM files ever since. WorldConnect offers a place where my research comes to life, displayed for all the world to see. I find that many folks find my research at WorldConnect and write to me with questions, comments, or additional facts. I get email from around the world. And they poke at my family records all around the edges, not just the places I'm focused on. That can have serendipitous results.

When the pay service Ancestry bought Rootsweb in 2000, part of the deal was that Ancestry could display my WorldConnect data for the benefit of Ancestry's paid subscribers for as long as my data enjoyed free display at WorldConnect; if I removed it from Rootsweb, my data would no longer appear within Ancestry either. Copying and keeping or selling my data wasn't allowed. That remains the case today.

There are a number of genealogists out there who vocally resent Ancestry for commercializing Rootsweb. And some fear that Ancestry will without warning shutter their hard work behind a fee service wall one day without their permission. I exchanged a couple of emails in recent days with an official from one of the major free GenWeb-like services. She said most of her ilk have abandoned Rootsweb servers for this very reason.

I don't know whether to believe Ancestry's call for sharing at Rootsweb, or Kimberly's Genealogy Blog's assertions about Ancestry's benign intentions in dropping the distinct Rootsweb URL, or the Ancestry Insider's "independent" commentary about Ancestry's latest attempt to make profits while pushing the volunteer agenda at Rootsweb. Should I believe the Rootsweb public affairs statement about the switch in URLs or the rabid feedback of disgruntled users that can be found after the public statement?

My personal experience with Rootsweb/Ancestry has been great. I keep a free database at WorldConnect that automatically appears as well within Ancestry for its pay subscribers. I have the top of the line Ancestry subscription and use it all the time as an active hobbyist. I routinely view original images of passenger ship manifests, US WWI and WWII draft registration cards, census sheets from three continents, US naturalization cards, and newspapers. I've been around the block and haven't found these images anywhere for free, nor do I expect to.

I'm not much of a fan of the Ancestry end of the WorldConnect GEDCOMs. The display is awkward and users have a tendency to link individuals together who lived in different centuries. What's up with that? I find the data as useless as the old World Family Tree CDs I unfortunately bought from Broderbund in another life. I spent too much on them to toss them in the garbage, but they're worthless. I don't recommend the family trees you might find in Ancestry, but I get queries from users so there's some benefit, I guess.

While I search the web and use free services, I favor Ancestry's one-stop shopping because the various GenWeb sites can be difficult to use because they are not centrally indexed, their tables of contents are uneven in quality of organization, and their depth of contents depends on the interest of volunteers. Looking here and there for something for free when it is readily available for a fee may not be entirely practical in some research situations. It depends on how you value your time. I frequently find gravesite indices for entire counties in rural areas with only a dozen or so names. The names were entered by one volunteer who logged only those deceased of interest to him and his family tree. The GenWeb-like sites work when there are many volunteers, usually in population centers, but sites representing lesser populated regions often languish with the same dozen names year in and year out. The free web offers great promise for those with idealistic dreams and the time to dig through lots of records, but the process can be prohibitively uneven.

Just look at the cemeteries of Wetzel County, West Virginia at Interment.net. Only a few listings in each cemetery. Compare that with the cemeteries of Kanawha County, West Virginia, a much more populated place with many more volunteers.

So, I think Ancestry has capitalist incentives and probably never thinks first about the hobby. Sure, they've made life in Rootsweb's hen house a bit more annoying here and there, but no chickens have been harmed in the making of this firm. A few chickens have run away saying the sky is falling, but there is little evidence of that. As capitalists, Ancestry tries to supply an excellent product and keep resentments down in the community through appeasement and access deals. Rootsweb simply couldn't afford to live, so it was bought by The Man and now some people just can't get over it. Those of you who can afford a membership with Ancestry should consider it and quit griping. They have stuff you can't get for free. Don't kid yourself about the free web. It has lots of stuff, but it isn't effectively pooled and images of original docs are rare. I prioritize my membership at Ancestry, making sure I can afford it by doing without other things. The advertising faced by those who don't have memberships is an unfortunate cost of doing business. Those same ads annoy me; they are everywhere. Suck it up.