Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Subscribe to comments or miss things like this official Ancestry.com followup

DearREADERS,
In Are you privy to comments?, Ol' Myrt here recommends you subscribe not only to your favorite blog (hint! hint!) but to comments for that blog as well. Since then, conversations in comments to my blog posts illustrate the importance of regularly receiving the comments through your favorite blog reader. (I use Google Reader, but I digress.)


CASE ONE

Ginger commented on the Are you privy to comments? post because of some sample comments I provided. She was in a quandary about .PDF files, and how to capture both full page and zoomed-in obit-only views at GenealogyBank.com. Her questions were resolved by subsequent comments.

TennLady replied she felt it redundant to attach the obit image to each of the six children mentioned in the obituary in my genealogy database.

Michelle then stated "I have also struggled with the redundancy issue of adding the same item to multiple people. Part of me feels like I am being too detailed and the other part says it's more thorough to go ahead and add them. Ultimately, I agree with you and Ginger. You need all of the information about one person with that person. Good discussion."   

CASE TWO
Ol'  Myrt was concerned that Ancestry.com images clearly included a book that was stamped with a GSU (Genealogical Society of Utah) film number and date of microfilming and wrote CASE STUDY: Ancestry's paid and FamilySearch's open access book images match - WHY? I couldn't understand why digital images of a FamilySearch book were appearing on Ancestry.com behind the paid subscription wall. If you subscribed to DearMYRTLE's blog comments, you already know that lead search programmer at Ancestry, Tony Macklin, responded by saying:
Hi Myrt,

Thank you for raising this issue, and for taking the time to discuss it at some length over the phone yesterday.

Firstly, to resolve the underlying question, this content was part of a collection legitimately acquired by Ancestry.com for our customers from a 3rd party partner, and we originally published it in 2004 (pretty much as Randy has suggested in his post above). As part of this agreement we have full permissions to reproduce it for our members.

As we discussed over the phone yesterday, the stamp at the beginning of the book clearly has the potential to cause confusion, and it would have been much clearer if the ”source information” on the search page for this collection (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=25346) had stated “Reproduced by permission”.

We are sorry for any confusion this has caused. For the future, we will aim to include this statement within the source information of any similar collection we publish.

With regard to the existing collections, we expect to be reviewing these as part of an ongoing content improvement project over the coming months, and will aim to adjust these source information statements at that time.

Thanks again for raising this – we love to get feedback, and it helps us to get better for our users, and for the wider community
Regards

Tony Macklin
Head of Search, Ancestry.com 
This last bit is fairly significant, and I wouldn't want my DearREADERS to miss it.

So SUBSCRIBE TO COMMENTS as illustrated in Are you privy to comments? so you won't miss a thing.
 
Happy family tree climbing!
Myrt     :)
DearMYRTLE,
Your friend in genealogy.
 
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment