How much does genealogy cost?

In my last post, I talked a little bit about competition. Before getting back to that subject, I thought it would be a good idea to get some perspective on the cost of an enthusiastic genealogy involvement compared to some other pursuits. First, some comparisons with other activities you might be involved with individually or as a family.

What about that great American pastime, golf? A set of clubs can cost upwards of $2000 or more (although used garage-sale sets are probably a lot less). Golf balls run up to $60 a dozen, but again used or cheap balls can also be considerably less. Its not the equipment that gets to you in golf, its the green fees. The Salt River Valley is a haven for golf and green fees at a public golf course can run much over $100 (one round) in the months when the temperature isn't over 100 degrees). So realistically, an Ancestry.com subscription is around three rounds of golf.

Water skiing is big in Valley. A ski boat can run over $100 an hour to rent. So three hours of ski boat rental is more than the cost of Ancestry.com. If you want to buy a boat, the sky is the limit on the purchase price but there are also many other expenses that you will need to consider before purchasing your boat such as depreciation, maintenance, storage, gas, insurance, towing, registration, taxes, launch fees and accessories. You could probably have a subscription to every large online database in the world for years before you spent the cost of buying a ski boat.

ATV? From $500 on up to thousands of dollars. But just like a boat, you have to take into consideration depreciation, maintenance, storage, gas, insurance, towing, registration, taxes  and accessories.

Horses anyone? Bass fishing? I guess my point is that there are a lot of popular pastimes out there in the world and genealogy, even with conventions and online databases, is way down in the cost category. So when we talk about competition in the genealogy community, we are really talking about economic small potatoes. Genealogy software is really inexpensive compared to many main-line production programs like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office. Genealogy is time intensive, but won't break the bank even if you count part of the cost of a computer system. 

But one factor is important, the demographics. Genealogists are older and more likely to live on a fixed income. They are not usually the same people buying ski boats and ATVs. But all in all, genealogy is not one of the more expensive activities, unless you count the time commitment. If time is money, then genealogy takes the cake. You can only play so much golf, but you can do genealogy all day long, every day.

Competition among genealogical service providers?

When you choose to buy a new car and you pick a particular model, it is clear that you have excluded the purchase of some other model of car. So your choice is made among competitors for your hard-earned car purchasing dollars. In addition, your choice is likely to affect your future purchases of cars for some considerable time. If you are like me, you keep your cars, usually, for more than ten years, even though I know the average time is much lower. In a real sense, the car manufacturers are in direct competition with each other. Choosing one, excludes the others.

So, do genealogical service providers compete in the same way car manufacturers (or TVs, or computers or whatever) compete? Hmm. An interesting question. From the Ancestry.com TV ads, you would think that they were like a car manufacturer competing against other genealogical service providers for your hard-earned genealogical dollars. But there are some significant differences. I am not aware of anywhere nearby that I can go to use a car for as long as I want for free. But I can go down to my local FamilySearch Center (remember the names have changed) and use Ancestry.com to my heart's content day after day, as long as I want to sit there in the center.

If Ancestry.com is competing with some other entity, who are they competing with? FamilySearch.org is free. (There is, of course, another discussion on the concept of "free" but that will have to wait). For example, MyHeritage.com's WorldVitalRecords.com is also free at FamilySearch Centers. So if Ancestry.com and WorldVitalRecords.com are both free, how can they compete? It seems there is a fundamental difference between genealogical service providers and other commercial entities who compete in the marketplace.

In addition, if I have a subscription to Ancestry.com (which I do), I am in no way disincentivized from subscribing to another service. My commitment to Ancestry.com could be as short as a one month's subscription or as long as a year and the amount of money I have invested is much, much less than the cost of a car, and even considerably less than the cost of a TV or even a computer. I might be thinking, should I purchase an iPad or subscribe to Ancestry.com, but that is not the same thing as deciding which model car to purchase.

But how do you account for the fact that most of the genealogical information in the world is available to those willing to spend time and sometimes money to acquire it? Doesn't that mean there has to be competition there somewhere? In a very general sense, all commercial enterprises compete with all other commercial enterprises. You have to decide whether to eat or do genealogy. You may elect to do both or one or the other.

Let's expand this idea a little more. Do the various genealogical conventions around the country compete with each other? This is a little more difficult to determine. Some of the very local conventions are "free" or free to members of the organization, but the larger conventions all have a cost associated with attendance. In addition, the genealogists usually have additional expenses of travel and accommodation. You may choose to go to one national convention a year or all of them, but the factors determining your attendance are decidedly more complex than simply looking at the different conventions as competitors. Personally, I would go to them all if I had the money and time. But I would soon get tired of living in hotels and eating out. I know a lot of genealogists who have never been to a convention and don't intend to go at all. So does the fact that RootsTech will be in March next year, exclude you from attending a local convention of your genealogical society? If you live in Australia, it might work the other way around because of the cost. You may not be excluded from attending all of the local conventions, but not an expensive one like RootsTech.

What about other genealogical services? Are they in competition with each other? If they are not, then should they cooperate?

It looks like this topic needs some more development. Look soon for part two or three or whatever.

When is a source not a source?

In my early days of collecting family history, I relied heavily on work done by my relatives. My pre-computer efforts were primarily aimed at reviewing thousands of family group records submitted by my family over the years. I would show up at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah with a couple of rolls of quarters and look for the next series of family group records. I slowly extended my pedigree. Very quickly, I realized that not all of the records were either reliable or complete and I was soon looking for additional information to resolve the controversies. Years later, I was to discover that I was in the "survey" phase of the genealogical research cycle.

As time passed, I acquired a series of computers and computer programs for recording my research (really my survey). In most cases, back then, I would record the "source" as "Family Group Record in the possession of James L. Tanner." As I grew in understanding of genealogy, I rued the day I started to put that on my computer entries. In migrating the files over the years, I still have hundreds upon hundreds of sources recorded in that manner, despite my systematic efforts to replace those notations with accurate and correct sources.

I need to note, very few of the records I examined had any sort of source notation. My reference to a family group record was decidedly not a "source." In many cases, however, I did note the originator of the record, but usually the "source" citation stopped there. Later, I began documenting my genealogy systematically. What I found was that many of these older records were done from memory by the people who actually knew the ancestors listed. They had no sources because it did not occur to them to document their own family's record, known from memory. As a matter of fact, these early family group records have a tendency to be much more accurate than the general run-of-the-mill records produced today by family members with no knowledge of the family.

At some point, of course, I became obsessed with trying to document my family with original sources. That turns out to be an unending lifetime endeavor. But the question arises, is a citation to a family group record compiled by a living person about that person's family a source? I guess I would have to say yes in most instances. The point here is that citing the family group record is not the end of the verification process. It is still necessary to search for and record source documents that were created at of near the time of the events recorded by someone who witnessed the event or had a responsibility to record the event. That is the key to the source issue. But if you think about it, many of those early family group records fall into the definition of a source, especially those recorded about the immediate family members of the person supplying the record.

Where are these records found today? In the Ancestral File on FamilySearch.org. The task of pulling all those records over the years is much simpler now. But the trade off is that you do not get the opportunity to look at the original sheet and see all of the notations and comments made by the originators. Upon reflection, my early efforts taught me some valuable lessons. Most importantly, they taught me the importance of documenting my work through original source records and recording the sources.

Join Me on the Kearney to Grand Island Historic Tour

Central Nebraska has several historic pioneer overland trails some of which date back to prehistoric times and the Native Americans in the area. On 6 September, 2012 I will be going on a guided tour of the trails between Kearney and Grand Island, Nebraska. The tour is sponsored by Family History Expos and there is still time and room available for you to register and join us on the tour.

The trails include the Mormon Trail and the Oregon Trail also known as the Platte River Road. Our guide for the tour will be Ronnie O'Brien, Director of Cultural Education at The Great Platte River Road Archway in Kearney, Nebraska. 

Also on the tour will be R. Val Rasmussen, Past President of the Temple Fork Chapter, Sons of the Utah Pioneers - 1986. During 34 years with the LDS Church Education System, a highlight was assignment as Nebraska Area Coordinator / Lincoln Institute Director. Starting in 1996, he was Education Chairman for the Nebraska Mormon Trails Association. 

In addition, we will have Terry Welch along. He is a retired instructor of 38 years with the LDS Church Educational System. Terry has been actively involved with trail research and trail exploration for nearly twenty years, having been a tour director on multiple occasions. He was also involved with the Sesquicentennial Mormon Pioneer Wagon Train of 1997.

Following the tour, on the 7th and 8th of September, we will have the Midwest Family History Expo. Click here for information about registering for this outstanding event.

Ronnie O'Brien will be teaching 
Bringing the 1860's on the Central Nebraska Mormon/California Trail to Life.

It took her eleven years and a lot of determination to piece together what life was like for the pioneers who settled along the Mormon/California Trail in Central Nebraska in the 1860’s. To register for the Expo, click here. 

R. Val Rasmussen will also be presenting 
The Nebraska Corridor 1847 to 1869 "A Protected Exodus" "Are We There Yet!" 

Yearly thousands of western families travel the "Nebraska Slab", I-80 (463 mil.) , in route to pioneer historical sites in the Midwest. Mesmerized , because they have no idea where the trail is, or what happened in their current panorama! To prepare for the Sesquicentennial Wagon Train Celebration, Nebraska Travel and Tourism, in cooperation with the Nebraska Mormon Trail Association, produced: A Self - Guided Tour, "A 19th Century Exodus". We will provide material which allows you to be successful "Family Tour Guides". Included will be information on 18 sites you can choose from, to highlight your ancestors exodus experience, in the most romantic segment of the pioneer trail! 

Terry Welch will also be presenting
Uncommon Aspects of Mormon Pioneer Migration

From Nauvoo to Salt Lake; Mormon pioneers left a trail legacy of hardship and endurance which differed in many respects from other west bound groups. This presentation will explore those differences. 

Changes in New.FamilySearch.org overriding those in Family Tree

It appears that by linking FamilySearch.org's Family Tree to New.FamilySearch.org (NFS), that changes made in Family Tree to correct misinformation are quickly negated by careless actions in NFS. Here is part of a comment in the GetSatisfaction.com topic stream in the FamilySearch Help menu:

Just found that a person **with no contact info** combined (for third time) a relative with an unrelated person some 15 years older with different wife, made the older man son of my relative's father AND of his paternal grandfather and reattached wrong wives to both of the latter. Despite there being explanatory "Discussion" notes.

 Here is an excerpt from another comment:

Two days ago I spent two hours on an ancestor who was given two wrong names and married to three wrong husbands with total 17 wrong children. Separated her from the wrong spouses and children, straightened out the name stuff. Yesterday I found she was renamed, again attached to the wrong spouses, her actual spouse was combined with one of his nephews, and there was no "history" showing what I had done the previous day. The changes were made by "anonymous" with a long string of numbers for whom there is no contact information. What data there is suggests that this wrongness was re-migrated into FS-Family Tree yesterday.

My own experience is that inaccurate and duplicative data is still pouring over from NFS to Family Tree. It appears to me that the inaccurate data is being transferred a little at a time, so if you leave your information on Family Tree alone for a few days, you will find additional duplicated information from NFS. Added to this, there are unaccountable changes being made to the NFS data that show up in Family Tree such as changing the spelling of the birth name of an ancestor, contrary to a reference to the actual birth record with the spelling visible to the world.

In fact, the battle has yet to begin. Those changes coming over from NFS are from people who have yet to "discover" Family Tree. When they do, they will undoubtedly carry on their practices of messing up the data, without sources and without a contact email address. Those of us deluged with unbelievably inaccurate information from NFS need to have patience. Family Tree will ultimately win out and we will also win by using the program and correcting all the errors.

Is Merging Better than Combining? Comments on FamilySearch Family Tree

A basic concept in the New.FamilySearch.org (NFS) program is the preservation of all of the iterations of the data about every individual. The original data for the program came from a variety of sources with duplicate information. In order to try and contain the duplicates, the NFS program has a method of combining duplicate information into sort-of a super individual package. Even after the duplicates were combined, you could see all of the variations in the content and there was a way to "un-combine" individuals and restore them to their previous uncombined state.

The results was that many individuals recorded in NFS had hundreds of sometimes contradictory components. Unfortunately, there was no practical way to mark the "correct" information. Blatantly incorrect information was equally displayed with well documented correct information. The reason this occurred was likely a fear that unless all of the information was preserved, possible correct information may be lost. In addition, nothing could be changed. The only way to "correct" bad information was to add more.

The practical results of having all of the information visible and unable to be corrected was that some ancestral lines were entirely unusable. There was no way, practical or otherwise, to select the correct information from the huge information cloud and follow the most accurate pedigree line. As time went on, the information in the file grew even more muddled and complex. Families with huge numbers of duplicate individuals essentially could not use the program at all. At the same time, new users of the program, whose families had little or no information in the program, had a very positive experience. Because they had no duplicates, the program worked for them and did what it was designed to do.

At some point, the concept of preserving all of the data, contradictory or otherwise, was rejected by FamilySearch and they began developing the FamilySearch.org Family Tree program. Family Tree uses the concept of merging information rather than combining. In a merge, conflicting information is essentially hidden from the view of the user. The results is that the only information visible in the program is the consensus "correct" information. So if two separately recorded individuals who are really the same person are combined, all of the information from both individuals is available and visible for the now combined individuals. If the information were "merged" then the rejected information would disappear and the only information visible would be that selected as correct. In reality, the merged information does not go away, it is merely hidden and could be restored at any time.

Arguments can be made for both methods of preserving the information. But in the second example, as is supposed to eventually be the case with Family Tree, there is an inherent method for determining the most correct information and substantiating it through supporting sources. That means that hopefully, bad information will not continue to perpetuated off into the future and a more accurate pedigree can be established for each individual.

Some Random Thoughts

Warning: If your information diet is limited to low calorie genealogical content, you may wish to employ some moderation in reading the following blog post.

How would you like to live in blogging family that whips out cameras at dinner time to take photos of the food you are eating? (See Family Heritage Recipes). 

On the other hand, how would you like to go traveling with someone who keeps driving off the road and leaping out of the car to take pictures of flowers and weeds? (See Walking Arizona).

Or perhaps you would rather put up with having boxes stacked in every available corner full of photographs, letters, documents of every description and even bundles of hair? (I'm sorry there is nothing to see here, but there really is a huge braid of hair that came from my grandmother).

What about living with someone who is either on the computer, looking at an iPad or watching an iPhone about 90 percent of his waking time? Does that sound like fun?

And even further, what about living with someone who decides, in his old age, to drive all around the company talking to other old people about dead people?

How would you like it if periodically, you all had to jump up and go outside to look at the clouds or sunset or sunrise or rain or whatever was happening with the stars?

On to another subject, it seems like it is about time to upgrade all the computer systems and of course, that means that we have to think about new hardware. I think right now we have a total of about thirteen computers to upgrade or not.

It is really nice to find someone who not only is interested in finding their ancestors, but also spends the time to ask meaningful questions and listen to how the research should be done.

It is also nice to have a presentation where over 200 people show up and they are all really interested in what you are talking about.

That brings us back to old geezer who jumps in his car and drives 450 miles in one day just to take pictures of trees.

All of this while living in a place where it is not news for temperatures to reach 118 degrees.