In making these observations, please understand that I am not disclosing any confidential information received from any of the participants in the agreements. This post is pure speculation on my part. On the other hand, I have been following this situation rather closely and the one key statement in the press release is the following:
Ancestry.com announced today an extension of their collaborative efforts with FamilySearch International that will make more than 1 billion additional records from 67 countries available on Ancestry.com. These already digitized records, provided by FamilySearch, are in addition to the agreement the two largest providers of family history resources announced a few months ago that will help digitize, index and publish an expected 1 billion global historical records never before published online from the FamilySearch vault over the next five years.The key statements are "never before published online" and "1 billion additional records." Here's what I think.
FamilySearch and its predecessor the Genealogical Society of Utah, began microfilming records around the world since back in 1938. The number of records accumulated so far is huge, consisting of 2.4 million rolls of microfilm. In addition, FamilySearch has been digitizing records for the past 8 to 10 years in ever-increasing numbers.The digitized records consist of records previously microfilmed as well as newly digitized records that continue to be acquired. You can read about this on the FamilySearch.org Archives webpage. Now, I have been aware for some time that the process of converting the existing microfilmed records into digital copies and putting them online has two components. Those two components are records to which FamilySearch has an absolute right and those records for which it has to negotiate the rights to put the records online. The records to which it has rights are being shared on FamilySearch.org's Historical Record Collections. It is my guess, that there are a considerable number of records, probably 1 billion or so, for which FamilySearch.org has been unable to adequately negotiate rights for publication online.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. FamilySearch has a huge pile of unpublished records for which it cannot negotiate rights for publication and as stated in the above press release, Ancestry.com has $100 million to spend on records. Since, FamilySearch has been unable to negotiate rights my guess is that they approached Ancestry.com for assistance. Ancestry.com likely could immediately see the advantage of acquiring the rights to already digitized records and agreed to negotiate with the record providers for rights of access to the records. Money talks and so Ancestry.com probably now has the rights to put the previously unavailable records online.
Now, as part of this deal it is my guess that FamilySearch wished to preserve access to these records for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, again my guess is that part of the negotiations involved the issue of access to the records for members of the Church. These are records that would never have made it online any other way.
Now, I need to move to a completely different issue. For some considerable time, anyone who visits a FamilySearch Center (formerly Family History Centers) has had free access to Ancestry.com's Library Edition. In the past, because of some disagreement, Ancestry.com pulled the free copies out of the FamilySearch Centers. However, for some time now anyone can gain free access to Ancestry.com in the FamilySearch Centers. Also, there has been a rumor about all of the members of the Church gaining access to Ancestry.com for free. Why would Ancestry.com do this?
My guess about this situation is that Ancestry.com does not view giving free access to members of the Church as a big deal. From my own observations I would further guess that even if the members of the Church had free access, only a very, very small percentage of the actual membership would even be aware of the access and/or use it.
For me, the missing piece was how this potential deal would benefit both parties. Please understand that this is my guess but looking at it from the standpoint that FamilySearch has records it cannot publish and Ancestry.com has the resources and ability to publish the records I would think that this is a beneficial deal for all parties concerned. I expect that we will really never know the details of the agreement. But I think my analysis (guess) probably fits.
Good analysis James. I wonder if we'll ever know the truthReplyDelete
Are you suggesting that LDS members will have free access to Ancestry from home or will it just extend the current deal of free Ancestry at the Centers (or perhaps give members free access to an extended version of Ancestry library edition at the Centers)?ReplyDelete
I hope I am not suggesting anything. Those questions have not yet been answered or clarified by FamilySearch.Delete
Check out the current list of recently added and updated collections on Ancestry at http://www.ancestry.com/cs/reccol/default?o_iid=31891&o_lid=31891&o_it=31891ReplyDelete
It is very enlightening!
Yep, quite a list.Delete
A large body of what appears to be a product of the new agreement was uploaded to Ancestry.com on January 21. You can see a partial list here:ReplyDelete
The number of databases is too large to display on that page and there is no way I know of to see the rest of the list for Jan. 21.
Spot-checking in several of the new items, I see only extracts from poorly identified documents. No images. Some items are mis-titled. In one database (supposed select marriages from Denmark) the database lists what seem to be household members, but patronymics for women are not indexed or displayed in search results.
Randy Seaver's guess that this is from the old IGI may be correct, but I am not going to try to check it since IGI has been significantly modified in the past 2 years.
There are many more updated records today. These records are definitely not from the IGI. See my latest blog post.Delete
Ancestry.com does give links for each database to the FS-Wiki, which did not describe the databases for which I looked, but linked to another vague description which suggested looking in the FHL catalogue for the microfilm number for a given specific indexed entry.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately for many of the entries there are no microfilm numbers. Or dates or particular locations.
Nice numerical addition to "number of records," akin to tree owners' adding swathes of individual entries from other trees.
"Digitized" can have several different meanings.
I am not sure you are correct. I will be writing a reply post shortly. Thanks for the comment.Delete
You can get a more complete list by opening up Ancestry, going to the dropdown under Search, choosing Card Catalog, then on the top right, choosing Sort by: Date Updated. There are pages and pages of new listings. The listings that I looked at seem to be from the film extraction projects that were used in the IGI - hence - no images.Delete
Yes, I figured that out after I did the post. Thanks for the comment.Delete