A certain segments of the genealogical community act and speak as if they are mortally offended by the fact that certain large online corporations "sell" access to genealogical source data. In writing on this topic, I have pointed out that there are no "free" online sources, only ones where the cost of maintaining the database is passed on to other than the direct users. I have further addressed the issue of the need for commercial genealogy
subscription companies and the propriety of paying for source
information. However, this issue of paid online genealogy services is only part of a larger issue concerning the future of the huge online genealogy databases.
It has happened that genealogists with subscriptions to a website have found the site sold out from under them with unresolved issues about availability and features.
In the past, because of my interest in these large genealogy companies, I have also written several posts analyzing their ownership. I have done this so that the community at wide, has a better idea of who they are paying for their online services. For example, it might interest you to know that when you have an Ancestry.com subscription and then also subscribe to Fold3.com, that you are paying the same company. Not that it matters any more than if you purchase two different models made by a certain car manufacturer. But, if you were purchasing a certain brand of air conditioner, for example, you just might be interested to know that several other brands are made by the same company although they appear to be in competition.
One topic I have yet to address is the fact that many of the sources held by the larger commercial enterprises are duplicated between the collections. The U.S. Federal Census is a prime example. There are multiple copies of the entire U.S. Census online, some for free and others available only by subscription. In some of these cases, you are paying for convenience and not unique access to a certain type of record.
In the online world, there are definitely economies of scale. A large online database can host a million records or a billion records and the overhead of handling those addition electronic records does not increase proportionately. In addition, the companies can become more profitable because technological innovations continue to reduced data storage costs per unit, i.e. the cost of storing 1 MB of data. The reasons for this decrease is, in part, the increase in the capacity of storage devices, such as the currently available, 4 to 6 Terabyte hard drives. Larger capacity drives allows an almost unlimited expansion of the records held by the larger companies. For example, FamilySearch.org recently added a portion of the International Genealogical Index to their Historical Record Collections consisting of over 667 million records all at one time. In the past, such an addition would have been quite expensive, now, from the hardware standpoint, it is merely a process of adding a few more hard drives.
By no means are these huge online databases cheap to operate or maintain. There is a major expense in acquiring hardware, programming and support. But as I noted, the increase in size does not necessarily create a concomitant increase in costs.
It is obvious to me that memory storage capacities will continue to increase and the cost per unit of storage will continue to decrease, thus enabling larger and larger databases. Today, a 6 Terabyte external hard drive costs just over $400. That price will come down and even larger drives will be available. The availability of cheap storage at those capacities forebodes the further expansion of the large online databases and the continued consolidation of the companies. So, Ancestry.com, MyHeritage.com and brightsolid.com, as well as FamilySearch.org, will continue to expand both by adding more records and either by strategic alliances or, in the case of the commercial operations, by purchasing existing online databases.
Since there is a finite number of historically significant records, I would expect more and more duplication between databases. There is always the possibility that two or more of the major players either merge or one buys out the others.
There will also be a huge increase in the number of records about individuals and families who are living or who have lived since the introduction of computers and that are now being created. For example, no one has or will have any trouble at all in finding information about me or anyone else online.
The continued expansion of records online, will begin to depend more on funding and politics than on the size of the large online companies. As the big players chase even more elusive record sources, the cost of adding individual record collections will likely increase.
All of this is not particularly bad for the genealogical consumer. More and more records will become available on line and there will likely be fewer places to search for the bulk of the online records. What is a given, however, is that the need to search off line, paper records will not likely diminish in the near future.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
An Expanded Family Tree Source Box, Wow!
Thanks to the Ancestry Insider for cluing me into a new feature on FamilySearch.org and the Family Tree program. I don't want to take away any of his thunder, but this feature should be heavily advertised. I hope he gives us all more insight soon.
The relatively new Family Tree program is quickly becoming outstanding. Family Search has done a first rate job so far of repenting of all the shortcomings of New.FamilySearch.org and producing an extremely useful and easy-to-use program. Granted, some of the new features are copies of features on Ancestry.com and other programs, but that is how software programs progress.
The new feature is the Source Box. I have been demonstrating this feature for the past few weeks as a way to organize your sources in Family Tree. The key here is that now this way of organizing sources becomes a powerful tool for adding sources to your Family Tree individuals. In short, when you find a source in the FamilySearch Historical Record Collections, you can use a link to save the source to your Source Box and then in Family Tree, attach the record to the appropriate individuals. This is similar to the Ancestry.com Shoe Box, but much simpler and easier to use. In addition, it saves huge amounts of time in adding sources to Family Tree. Good job FamilySearch!
The relatively new Family Tree program is quickly becoming outstanding. Family Search has done a first rate job so far of repenting of all the shortcomings of New.FamilySearch.org and producing an extremely useful and easy-to-use program. Granted, some of the new features are copies of features on Ancestry.com and other programs, but that is how software programs progress.
The new feature is the Source Box. I have been demonstrating this feature for the past few weeks as a way to organize your sources in Family Tree. The key here is that now this way of organizing sources becomes a powerful tool for adding sources to your Family Tree individuals. In short, when you find a source in the FamilySearch Historical Record Collections, you can use a link to save the source to your Source Box and then in Family Tree, attach the record to the appropriate individuals. This is similar to the Ancestry.com Shoe Box, but much simpler and easier to use. In addition, it saves huge amounts of time in adding sources to Family Tree. Good job FamilySearch!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Movement among the giants
This has been a very active time for alliances, new announcements and other developments among the mega-sites of the genealogy world. Its time for some analysis and a recap of the current events. First, the players:
I guess I should talk about the news first. MyHeritage.com had a webinar news conference yesterday, 11 June 2012. Even though I was invited and signed up, I got involved helping some friends set up their computer for genealogy, which is my first priority, and missed the actual broadcast. Essentially, MyHeritage.com now has over a billion individuals in 23 million family trees. Of course, you also remember that MyHeritage.com relatively recently purchased FamilyLink.com which includes WorldVitalRecords.com. If you follow the link, you will see a short video presented by Gilad Japeth, the CEO. The video shows their very lovely offices in Israel. It took them seven years to reach a billion individuals.
As far as MyHeritage.com goes, I hope they can keep their very helpful and accommodating personal style of doing business. They are certainly more approachable than any of the other companies and that makes for a very responsive and supportive atmosphere. Theirs is a strikingly different model from the other large genealogy companies and I applaud them for their efforts. I guess you could say I am a real fan of MyHeritage and hope they can keep up the growth.
I may have missed some along the way, but here is the lineup for the Ancestry.com acquisitions and alternative websites. I have not included all of the regional and country specific Ancestry.com websites.
The purchase of Archives.com was significant because of the number of records claimed. What isn't clear is whether or not Ancestry.com will maintain Archives.com's interest in records of living individuals. Does this move mean that Ancestry.com will enter the arena now dominated by WestLaw.com and LexisNexis.com? In addition, there was some online speculation about potential purchasers of Ancestry.com in the form of Google and Facebook. This speculation has moved well out of the genealogy community and is the subject of the stock traders. See Buy Ancestry.com Before It Gets Acquired.
I acknowledge that Ancestry.com is a vastly useful and valuable online resource, but its involvement in the genealogical community is definitely on the wane. It is no longer interested in local or small conferences and has now little or now contact with the blogging community. Its activities seem very high level and impersonal. I do note that by its acquisitions, there are significantly more connections between Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org. Also, Ancestry.com has added a directly updated index of all of the records added to FindAGrave.com.
brightsolid.com (yes, it has a lower case "b" at the beginning) has only recently begun to move out of the UK and into the US market. The first foray into the U.S. is the CensusRecords.com website. brightsolid has extensive involvement in network services outside of genealogy related websites. Here is a list of what I have found for brightsolid.com
The big news at FamilySearch is the replacement of the data duplication plagued New.FamilySearch.org website with FamilySearch Family Tree (part of FamilySearch.org). It has been about a month or so since there were significant additions to the Family Tree program and I would expect some additions within the next couple of weeks. Speculating, they might allow editing of families or links to digitized documents. The big news will be when you can add new people to the program. I hope it is still on schedule to replace New.FamilySearch.org by the end of the year.
Keep tuned in for more maneuvers and developments.
I guess I should talk about the news first. MyHeritage.com had a webinar news conference yesterday, 11 June 2012. Even though I was invited and signed up, I got involved helping some friends set up their computer for genealogy, which is my first priority, and missed the actual broadcast. Essentially, MyHeritage.com now has over a billion individuals in 23 million family trees. Of course, you also remember that MyHeritage.com relatively recently purchased FamilyLink.com which includes WorldVitalRecords.com. If you follow the link, you will see a short video presented by Gilad Japeth, the CEO. The video shows their very lovely offices in Israel. It took them seven years to reach a billion individuals.
As far as MyHeritage.com goes, I hope they can keep their very helpful and accommodating personal style of doing business. They are certainly more approachable than any of the other companies and that makes for a very responsive and supportive atmosphere. Theirs is a strikingly different model from the other large genealogy companies and I applaud them for their efforts. I guess you could say I am a real fan of MyHeritage and hope they can keep up the growth.
I may have missed some along the way, but here is the lineup for the Ancestry.com acquisitions and alternative websites. I have not included all of the regional and country specific Ancestry.com websites.
The purchase of Archives.com was significant because of the number of records claimed. What isn't clear is whether or not Ancestry.com will maintain Archives.com's interest in records of living individuals. Does this move mean that Ancestry.com will enter the arena now dominated by WestLaw.com and LexisNexis.com? In addition, there was some online speculation about potential purchasers of Ancestry.com in the form of Google and Facebook. This speculation has moved well out of the genealogy community and is the subject of the stock traders. See Buy Ancestry.com Before It Gets Acquired.
I acknowledge that Ancestry.com is a vastly useful and valuable online resource, but its involvement in the genealogical community is definitely on the wane. It is no longer interested in local or small conferences and has now little or now contact with the blogging community. Its activities seem very high level and impersonal. I do note that by its acquisitions, there are significantly more connections between Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org. Also, Ancestry.com has added a directly updated index of all of the records added to FindAGrave.com.
brightsolid.com (yes, it has a lower case "b" at the beginning) has only recently begun to move out of the UK and into the US market. The first foray into the U.S. is the CensusRecords.com website. brightsolid has extensive involvement in network services outside of genealogy related websites. Here is a list of what I have found for brightsolid.com
- Findmypast.com.uk
- Findmypast.com.au
- Findmypast.com.ie
- Findmypast.com
- FriendsReunited.com
- ScotlandsPeople.com
- The British Newspaper Archive
- 1911census.co.uk
- 1901CensusOnline.com
- GenesReunited.com
- Ancestorsonboard.com
- CensusRecords.com
The big news at FamilySearch is the replacement of the data duplication plagued New.FamilySearch.org website with FamilySearch Family Tree (part of FamilySearch.org). It has been about a month or so since there were significant additions to the Family Tree program and I would expect some additions within the next couple of weeks. Speculating, they might allow editing of families or links to digitized documents. The big news will be when you can add new people to the program. I hope it is still on schedule to replace New.FamilySearch.org by the end of the year.
Keep tuned in for more maneuvers and developments.
Monday, June 11, 2012
The mechanics of accessing court records
Even avoiding hyperbole, court records are valuable for genealogical research. But at the same time, they are amazingly difficult to understand and access. Even in this day of online digitized images, court records lag far behind other types of records in availability. For example, "Court Records," are not listed as a category in Ancestry.com's list of subject headings. Some types of court records are listed, such as probates and criminal prosecutions, but by and large civil and family court records are still locked up in individual courts across the world.
It is important to understand the different types of records that are created in the course of either a civil or criminal lawsuit and where and how the records are kept. Depending on the location and management of the court records, they can vary from impossible to access to freely available online. However, freely available online is the very small exception to the general rule.
Arizona is a good example of both partial accessibility and complete inaccessibility at the same time. All of Arizona has public access to case lookup. So, what does that do for you as a genealogical researcher? As it turns out, not much. This is a copy of the disclaimer:
If I want to actually look at a case file, I have to contact the Clerk of the individual court and find out where the records are kept and the terms of availability. Some of the records might be kept in the Court houses around the State but some are separately housed in storage areas. Significantly, there is very little on the Arizona Judicial Branch website that tells anyone where to examine the case files. For example, if you wanted to see a case file for a case pending before the Arizona Supreme Court, you must go to the Clerk's Office to look at the documents and call before hand to reserve a "viewing room."
In Arizona, most recently, all of the pleadings and documents in court cases filed in Maricopa County are digitized and online. But, you have to have registered with the Court and have a login and password to see the records. In reviewing other courts' procedures in other jurisdictions, I get the impression that most courts have about the same attitude toward mere mortals accessing their records.
If your state or other jurisdiction has an online court docketing system, you may be able to find mention of your ancestor in the court's index of cases. But if you ancestor was a witnesses or a non-participating witness, you may never find them. Is it worth going to individual courts and messing around in piles of old cases? I would only do that if I had some actual indication that the ancestor was involved in litigation or if this were the only avenue left open to me.
It is important to understand the different types of records that are created in the course of either a civil or criminal lawsuit and where and how the records are kept. Depending on the location and management of the court records, they can vary from impossible to access to freely available online. However, freely available online is the very small exception to the general rule.
Arizona is a good example of both partial accessibility and complete inaccessibility at the same time. All of Arizona has public access to case lookup. So, what does that do for you as a genealogical researcher? As it turns out, not much. This is a copy of the disclaimer:
Please be aware of the following limitations of the case records displayed:In addition, the "public" records only list each individual filing or pleading by title, nothing else. So, let's suppose you find that your ancestor was in a lawsuit in Arizona and you find the case listed in the Public Records. What you get is a long list of pleadings or filings and nothing else. No details. No copies of the documents. Just a list. So where are the original case files? Either on microfilm, sitting in filing cabinets or unavailable. Oh, did I mention that the online access only includes 153 of the 180 courts in Arizona? And to add to the issues of finding court cases, the Arizona Public Access site lists the following as unavailable:
• The information may not be a current, accurate, or complete record of the case.
• The information is subject to change at any time.
• The information is not the official record of the court.
• Not all cases from a participating court may be included.
• The information should not be used as a substitute for a thorough background search of official public records.
The following case types are excluded from search results: sealed cases, cases involving un-served Orders of Protection, mental health and probate cases, victim and witness data. Juvenile incorrigible/delinquency case information also cannot be viewed on this website; however other types of cases in which juveniles are parties, such as traffic cases, may be displayed. Certain administrative functions carried out by superior court clerk's offices in each county are not included in this website, such as passport application processing and private process server registration.
If I want to actually look at a case file, I have to contact the Clerk of the individual court and find out where the records are kept and the terms of availability. Some of the records might be kept in the Court houses around the State but some are separately housed in storage areas. Significantly, there is very little on the Arizona Judicial Branch website that tells anyone where to examine the case files. For example, if you wanted to see a case file for a case pending before the Arizona Supreme Court, you must go to the Clerk's Office to look at the documents and call before hand to reserve a "viewing room."
In Arizona, most recently, all of the pleadings and documents in court cases filed in Maricopa County are digitized and online. But, you have to have registered with the Court and have a login and password to see the records. In reviewing other courts' procedures in other jurisdictions, I get the impression that most courts have about the same attitude toward mere mortals accessing their records.
If your state or other jurisdiction has an online court docketing system, you may be able to find mention of your ancestor in the court's index of cases. But if you ancestor was a witnesses or a non-participating witness, you may never find them. Is it worth going to individual courts and messing around in piles of old cases? I would only do that if I had some actual indication that the ancestor was involved in litigation or if this were the only avenue left open to me.
Lurkers Welcomed
Don't feel like you have to have a blog, genealogy or otherwise. Blogging is not a requirement for being interested in genealogy. Some people try blogging for a while and then abandon the blog when it begins to interfere with real life (or the other way around). Before I began blogging I did my usual research and reading. Of course, because I read the "How to become rich and famous through blogging" books, I had visions of becoming independently wealthy. In my zeal, I started six (count them) blogs. Whoa. That turned out to be impossible. I kept some of them up for a while and then slowly dropped them one by one. Finally, I ended up with two active blogs on two entirely different topics; genealogy and photography.
Now, the difference was that I am more than involved and more than passionate about both topics. In both cases, I decided to try an experiment. Could I keep going long enough to build a readership in both categories? If you have read this blog even once before, you can probably guess that I am seldom at a loss for topics. Every time I sit down to write, all I have to do is start typing and the topics just pop out like dandelions in a summer lawn. I talk to people all the time who express agony at the thought of having to write something even once a week. They fuss and fidget over every sentence and paragraph. I just write, most of the day, almost every day. Books, blogs, email, letters, notes, whatever comes to mind.
If you don't have passion for your topic and you have to agonize over every word and sentence, then I suggest doing research and forgetting blogging. If I stop writing, I start talking. Fortunately, most of the people around me have learned to ignore me almost completely so I can talk all I want because they just tune me out. The nice thing about writing rather than talking is that people actually read this stuff!
I tried writing a legal blog for a while and found out pretty soon that despite 37 years of going to court, I really didn't have a passion for writing about law. I would find myself falling asleep in the middle of composing a post. I also felt really sorry for anyone who had such a severe problem that they needed to read about the law. So the law stuff was really dull.
I tried a current events blog. But I hate to keep up with current events. I get painfully tired of politics and avoid the news. I haven't watched TV news for years and years. I only get what leaks through on the Internet or on NPR when I am driving. Plus the comments were insufferable. That ended.
I tried a practical preparedness blog. Not even the end of the world could keep me motivated to keep writing about the end of the world. That ended also.
I tried an eclectic, funny, thoughtful, philosophical blog. The pressure of trying to be cute or funny almost killed me off. Finish.
OK, so that left this blog, the Star thing and Walking Arizona. Walking Arizona, the photography blog started out to be semi-historical and biographical. But I realized that I took thousands of photographs and I might as well start putting them online. Walking Arizona is well on the way to becoming my most popular blog yet. You are right, there is a vast difference between my photographs and those of "famous and rich" photographers. But I like my photos even if no one else does.
That leaves Genealogy's Star. When I go back and read my early posts, I feel awfully sorry for my early readers. (I only feel a little less sorry now). I have found out that I have a higher statistical chance of being hit by a meteorite than becoming rich and famous through blogging about genealogy. I have made some really interesting and good friends. I have met a lot of wonderful people. I really enjoy the comments. I get the shakes when I can't write for a while, so it looks like, like it or not, I will keep shuffling along, pouring out everything I come across in the genealogical universe that catches my attention. I also try hard not to copy any one else's style or manners. Someday I may even get the attention of someone at Ancestry.com.
Now, the difference was that I am more than involved and more than passionate about both topics. In both cases, I decided to try an experiment. Could I keep going long enough to build a readership in both categories? If you have read this blog even once before, you can probably guess that I am seldom at a loss for topics. Every time I sit down to write, all I have to do is start typing and the topics just pop out like dandelions in a summer lawn. I talk to people all the time who express agony at the thought of having to write something even once a week. They fuss and fidget over every sentence and paragraph. I just write, most of the day, almost every day. Books, blogs, email, letters, notes, whatever comes to mind.
If you don't have passion for your topic and you have to agonize over every word and sentence, then I suggest doing research and forgetting blogging. If I stop writing, I start talking. Fortunately, most of the people around me have learned to ignore me almost completely so I can talk all I want because they just tune me out. The nice thing about writing rather than talking is that people actually read this stuff!
I tried writing a legal blog for a while and found out pretty soon that despite 37 years of going to court, I really didn't have a passion for writing about law. I would find myself falling asleep in the middle of composing a post. I also felt really sorry for anyone who had such a severe problem that they needed to read about the law. So the law stuff was really dull.
I tried a current events blog. But I hate to keep up with current events. I get painfully tired of politics and avoid the news. I haven't watched TV news for years and years. I only get what leaks through on the Internet or on NPR when I am driving. Plus the comments were insufferable. That ended.
I tried a practical preparedness blog. Not even the end of the world could keep me motivated to keep writing about the end of the world. That ended also.
I tried an eclectic, funny, thoughtful, philosophical blog. The pressure of trying to be cute or funny almost killed me off. Finish.
OK, so that left this blog, the Star thing and Walking Arizona. Walking Arizona, the photography blog started out to be semi-historical and biographical. But I realized that I took thousands of photographs and I might as well start putting them online. Walking Arizona is well on the way to becoming my most popular blog yet. You are right, there is a vast difference between my photographs and those of "famous and rich" photographers. But I like my photos even if no one else does.
That leaves Genealogy's Star. When I go back and read my early posts, I feel awfully sorry for my early readers. (I only feel a little less sorry now). I have found out that I have a higher statistical chance of being hit by a meteorite than becoming rich and famous through blogging about genealogy. I have made some really interesting and good friends. I have met a lot of wonderful people. I really enjoy the comments. I get the shakes when I can't write for a while, so it looks like, like it or not, I will keep shuffling along, pouring out everything I come across in the genealogical universe that catches my attention. I also try hard not to copy any one else's style or manners. Someday I may even get the attention of someone at Ancestry.com.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Learning from the kids' menu
Many restaurants learned a lesson a long time ago. If you want families to eat at your restaurant, you offer a reduced price, simplified kids' menu. In most cases, you also cater to the kids by making the offerings the exact things that they eat most, like macaroni and cheese. Now why haven't the genealogy companies taken a lesson the restaurants? That is a very good question.
For example, FamilySearch is evidently very concerned about attracting and serving entry level genealogists. In their listing of topics for RootsTech 2013 Presenters, they suggest a possible topic as "Reaching and engaging new genealogists through technology." The FamilySearch.org website, in my opinion, is not particularly "new genealogist" friendly. In fact, it isn't particularly friendly to experienced genealogists. For example, useful tools like the Research Wiki, Forums and the Learning Center are buried in the site. But the dilemma is how do you support the the experienced and highly technical users, while at the same time extending a warm welcome to the newbies? My suggestion. Take a lesson from the restaurants. Have a "newbies" menu that is more attractive, easier to digest and doesn't require understanding "a la carte."
Why does all this have to happen on one website? Here is another example. Adobe Photoshop is easily the most complicated consumer program in the world. It takes a nearly 1000 page manual just to cover the basics. So does Adobe try to "water down" Photoshop to cater to the photo editing beginners? Not on your life. Photoshop just gets more and more complicated with each release. How do they solve the problem of the untutored newbie? They release an entirely separate program that costs a fraction of the price of Photoshop and has only a small number of the features and they call it "Photoshop Elements." Notice, it is not called Photoshop Easy or watered down, it is just the "Elements."
Now, instead of dumbing down FamilySearch.org, why not have either a kids' menu of basic items in its own area of the website, with links to the meatier portions when the "kids" are ready to move on, or maybe have a different site altogether called FamilySearch Essentials or Elements whatever that has the basics but nothing else and suggestions that the people move on to the main site when they think it appropriate. That way you don't ruin a perfectly good website, you can include intermediate and advanced topics and not "offend" the naive, untutored, new researcher.
Now, I have picked on FamilySearch.org here, but my comments are equally appropriate to all of the other websites and most of the genealogical database programs. Some of the developers have released "free" versions of their programs with a limited number of features, hoping to capture some of the market when the users move up to the full program. They are missing the point. You have a simplified version at a much reduced price, but have the full version for a full price that reflects its usefulness.
Back to Adobe for an example, you may or may not know that Photoshop Elements retails for around $65 or less while the complete version of Adobe Photoshop Extended CS6 is around $950. Do you get the point? There are people (like me) who use Photoshop nearly every single day. Do I want the kids' watered down version? Not on your life. (I have copy of Photoshop Elements 10 so I can show people how it works, but I use CS6 Extended). Do I advocate that genealogy programs should cost more? Yes, as a matter of fact. But the more expensive programs should be demonstratively more useful than the cheaper programs.
Side note: I realize that genealogists are basically poor and tight wads besides, but that is no reason for them to get a free ride from the developers.
My concern is that in attempting to dumb down the useful websites, the developers will alienate those who need the industrial strength products. How about some consideration for the seasoned researchers for a change?
For example, FamilySearch is evidently very concerned about attracting and serving entry level genealogists. In their listing of topics for RootsTech 2013 Presenters, they suggest a possible topic as "Reaching and engaging new genealogists through technology." The FamilySearch.org website, in my opinion, is not particularly "new genealogist" friendly. In fact, it isn't particularly friendly to experienced genealogists. For example, useful tools like the Research Wiki, Forums and the Learning Center are buried in the site. But the dilemma is how do you support the the experienced and highly technical users, while at the same time extending a warm welcome to the newbies? My suggestion. Take a lesson from the restaurants. Have a "newbies" menu that is more attractive, easier to digest and doesn't require understanding "a la carte."
Why does all this have to happen on one website? Here is another example. Adobe Photoshop is easily the most complicated consumer program in the world. It takes a nearly 1000 page manual just to cover the basics. So does Adobe try to "water down" Photoshop to cater to the photo editing beginners? Not on your life. Photoshop just gets more and more complicated with each release. How do they solve the problem of the untutored newbie? They release an entirely separate program that costs a fraction of the price of Photoshop and has only a small number of the features and they call it "Photoshop Elements." Notice, it is not called Photoshop Easy or watered down, it is just the "Elements."
Now, instead of dumbing down FamilySearch.org, why not have either a kids' menu of basic items in its own area of the website, with links to the meatier portions when the "kids" are ready to move on, or maybe have a different site altogether called FamilySearch Essentials or Elements whatever that has the basics but nothing else and suggestions that the people move on to the main site when they think it appropriate. That way you don't ruin a perfectly good website, you can include intermediate and advanced topics and not "offend" the naive, untutored, new researcher.
Now, I have picked on FamilySearch.org here, but my comments are equally appropriate to all of the other websites and most of the genealogical database programs. Some of the developers have released "free" versions of their programs with a limited number of features, hoping to capture some of the market when the users move up to the full program. They are missing the point. You have a simplified version at a much reduced price, but have the full version for a full price that reflects its usefulness.
Back to Adobe for an example, you may or may not know that Photoshop Elements retails for around $65 or less while the complete version of Adobe Photoshop Extended CS6 is around $950. Do you get the point? There are people (like me) who use Photoshop nearly every single day. Do I want the kids' watered down version? Not on your life. (I have copy of Photoshop Elements 10 so I can show people how it works, but I use CS6 Extended). Do I advocate that genealogy programs should cost more? Yes, as a matter of fact. But the more expensive programs should be demonstratively more useful than the cheaper programs.
Side note: I realize that genealogists are basically poor and tight wads besides, but that is no reason for them to get a free ride from the developers.
My concern is that in attempting to dumb down the useful websites, the developers will alienate those who need the industrial strength products. How about some consideration for the seasoned researchers for a change?
Critical mass of tablets among smartphone users
In a Cnet article entitled "U.S. tablet usage hits 'critical mass,' ComScore reports" is it states:
My further perception is that tablets, particularly high-end Android tablets and Apple iPads are becoming serious data platforms. Not only do I see more of them at genealogy conferences, I also see them used in places where computers were never used previously, such as church meetings and social gatherings. It has evidently become acceptable to open you iPad in public and use it to look up addresses, phone numbers or to go onto the Internet and do research.
If you were wondering Kindle Fire sales are slipping dramatically. The purported Apple iPad competitor has fizzled in the first quarter of 2012. See "Amazon's Kindle Fire Sales Fizzle in 2012, Market Share Slips to Third." On the other hand, Apple's iPad sales have climbed from a 4th Quarter 2011 figure of 54.7% to a much higher 68% in Q1 2012. All of this is diametrically counter to the predictions of the pundits during the last year.
I would guess that these figures will not be lost on the genealogical software developers and I would further guess that we will see a lot more apps for genealogy in the near future.
In just the two years since the release of Apple's iPad, the U.S. tablet market has reached a "critical mass," with nearly one in four smartphone owners also using a tablet in the three-month period ending in April, according to data released by market researcher ComScore.Apparently what is happening is that smartphone users are adopting tablet computers, such as the Apple iPad, in huge numbers. They are also beginning to use the tablets for viewing downloaded movies and TV shows. From personal experience, I can confirm that since my wife just recently started watching movies and TV shows on her iPad 2. Although, I have neither the time nor the inclination to yet do so.
My further perception is that tablets, particularly high-end Android tablets and Apple iPads are becoming serious data platforms. Not only do I see more of them at genealogy conferences, I also see them used in places where computers were never used previously, such as church meetings and social gatherings. It has evidently become acceptable to open you iPad in public and use it to look up addresses, phone numbers or to go onto the Internet and do research.
If you were wondering Kindle Fire sales are slipping dramatically. The purported Apple iPad competitor has fizzled in the first quarter of 2012. See "Amazon's Kindle Fire Sales Fizzle in 2012, Market Share Slips to Third." On the other hand, Apple's iPad sales have climbed from a 4th Quarter 2011 figure of 54.7% to a much higher 68% in Q1 2012. All of this is diametrically counter to the predictions of the pundits during the last year.
I would guess that these figures will not be lost on the genealogical software developers and I would further guess that we will see a lot more apps for genealogy in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)