GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-09 > 1125676175


From: Gordon Banks <>
Subject: Re: Index to Visitations
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:49:35 -0700
References: <1a9.3e237633.3048fd70@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a9.3e237633.3048fd70@aol.com>


Last subscription renewal, I asked the guy what is the difference
between One World Tree and Ancestry Family Tree (free). He said they
went though (he had no idea how, obviously by data mining), and combined
all the multiple entries in Ancestry Family Tree to form only one entry
for each person in One World Tree. The theory was they would take sort
of an average of what their customers had submitted and eliminate the
outliers. Since some errors I've found are widely propagated, I didn't
think that would be a very justifiable way to come up with accurate
data, so declined to subscribe to One World Tree. I agree that their
English subscription is worth the money. The US one is too, if you
still need to access US Census data.

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 20:57 -0400, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/1/05 5:49:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
> << Mary Gardiner, daughter of Christopher Gardiner.
> There are no Gardiners in the Hampshires Visitations (both old and
> new). So where next? She married Thomas Dowse, a gentleman, so
> chances are her father was a gentleman also. >>
>
> Go to www.ancestry.com
> Type in Christopher Gardiner, and select as country "ENGLAND"
> Even if you do *NOT* have a subscription to the British collection, it will
> still show you that the person appears in this or that reference. But no
> details.
>
> Of course then it will helpfully ask you to *buy* that subscription :)
>
> I can truly say, my money was well spent when I bought it myself.
> On the other hand, I can't necessarily say the OneWorldTree subscription was
> as well-spent. Mostly because I abhor databases that give NO sources and NO
> notes.
>
> Will Johnson

This thread: