APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-07 > 1216767092


From: "Tom Kemp" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] 1920 census going online - free - Indexes & Abstracts arenot the same thing
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:51:32 -0400


Note that the FHL 1880 census was an abstract of the data - much like
an index but so much more - not just an index.

By abstracting the data - and presenting the entries in family
groups/households you could see the impact of the data in context -
and decide to double check the original record or not. (Personally - I
always view the original whenever possible).

If the new "index" is presented only as an index - without the
abstracted data - genealogists will have to see the original every
time just to see if they have the correct person. The abstract of the
data is essential. The FHL is doing just that - adding more indexed
fields etc. Look at how FamilySearch Indexing handled the 1900 census
- including details on the spouse, parents, ages, places of birth etc.
- to help us readily identify if we have the correct person. The news
release speaks of "enhanced" indexes etc.

These indexes are not a telephone type - "back of the book" index -
but are and need to continue to be indexes that incorporate more of
the data in the citation presentation so that the "indexes" themselves
become powerful tools.

What a great day for genealogy.
Tom

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Char Mitts <> wrote:
> I agree I am grateful for the indexing that FamilySearch is doing and agree
> that it is consistent with what they have done in the past. Many of those
> that don't have Ancestry can access HeritageQuest through their local
> library. HeritageQuest claim to have all the census images online but not
> all are indexed. So after using FamilySearch indexes most researchers can go
> to HeritageQuest and view the images there at no cost. I have done the same
> in the past, especially when Ancestry's images are difficult to read.
>
> Char Mitts
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf
> Of Jack Butler
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: APG-L
> Subject: Re: [APG] 1920 census going online - free -
> entire1790-1930censusindex to be free online
>
> Actually, this method of handling the census records would seem to be
> consistent with FamilySearch.org's previous practices - other than their
> recent beta site - FamilySearchLabs.org - you have been able to see indexes
> for free but never any images. To see images, you had to rent microfilms -
> which required a small fee to cover costs. As for the census images
> specifically mentioned, they will also be available for free - to patrons,
> at least - at a majority of the larger libraries around the country through
> their Ancestry.com subscriptions.
>
> Like Terry, I think that this is a reasonable way to get more genealogical
> records online in a hurry. In case you have missed it, the National Archives
>
> is doing the same sort of thing through partnerships with Ancestry.com,
> Footnote, and probably others. Since most of these records are currently
> available only at the Archives or through relatively expensive purchases
> from the Archives, I think that this is a very good thing.
>
> So mark me on the side of those who see this as a good thing for genealogy.
>
> Jack Butler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Seaver" <>
> To: "Terry Reigel" <>; "APG-L" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [APG] 1920 census going online - free -
> entire1790-1930censusindex to be free online
>
>
>> Terry,
>>
>> My point was that the expectation of genealogy researchers (well, at least
>> this one!) was that everything on www.FamilySearch.org would be available
>> for free for home access. Apparently, this was misunderstood by me (and
>> others), or the LDS policy has changed. They can do what they wish to do.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with companies, societies, or individuals providing
>> services for a price. It is my choice as a researcher how I obtain
>> information. I have several subscriptions but use the San Diego Regional
>> FHC and local libraries for some commercial site databases.
>>
>> It looks like the "reasonable costs of having data delivered..." will be a
>> trip to the local FHC to access the online census records there if one
>> cannot afford or doesn't want subscriptions to commercial genealogy web
>> sites. To each their own.
>>
>> This action by LDS and FamilySearch may be driven by the desire to have
>> more
>> people come into the FHCs more often. In the extreme case, researchers
>> (or
>> at least non-LDS members) may be required to go to the FHC in order to
>> access documents on many of the to-be-digitized and indexed microfilms -
>> the
>> deeds, probates, tax lists, town records, manuscripts, etc. It wouldn't
>> surprise me that they make the indexes available for free online at home,
>> but to see the images and obtain copies of them we will have to go to the
>> FHC. This may be especially true for items in their collection that have
>> copyright protections or access restrictions.
>>
>> Regards -- Randy Seaver
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Terry Reigel" <>
>> To: "APG-L" <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:39 AM
>> Subject: Re: [APG] 1920 census going online - free - entire
>> 1790-1930censusindex to be free online
>>
>>
>>> I'm afraid I just don't understand this viewpoint that genealogists
>>> having
>>> to pay for online data is a bad thing. It costs money, real money, to put
>>> information online. Somebody has to pay for it. Why shouldn't it be those
>>> who use it? If FamilySearch can avoid the expenditure of resources to put
>>> these images on line and apply them instead to putting some of the other
>>> FHL holdings up, that sounds great to me.
>>>
>>> In my view, genealogists, both vocational and avocational ones, should
>>> expect to pay the reasonable costs of having data delivered to their
>>> computer screen or doorstep.
>>>
>>> I think it's really generous of the LDS Church to offer it's resources to
>>> non-members for free, but frankly, I think they shouldn't. I think they
>>> should be charging non-members a subscription fee to offset part of their
>>> costs, and possibly permit applying more resources to getting more
>>> information online.
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
>>> in
>>> the subject and the body of the message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
>
>> the subject and the body of the message
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
> the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: