Search for content in message boards

Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 17 Dec 2009 11:29AM GMT
Classification: Query
I'm currently an Ancestry.com member and receive invites to subscribe to other websites such as genealogy.com and yourfolks.com

Can someone explain to me if Ancestry.com already provides what geneaology.com provides, and/or what the benefits are to subscriptions?

I cannot find any comparisions online and/or blog answers to this question. I can't be the only one that doesn't know. Hope not. I have been researching for years.

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 12 Jan 2010 10:38AM GMT
Classification: Query
For starters, ancestry.com is the most expensive! lol

http://genealogy-search-review.toptenreviews.com/
Result of google search: comparison of ancestry.com and genealogy.com
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/census/a/subscriptions.htm

There is an article at same (1st) website that says "Ancestry.com is part of the MyFamily.com, Inc. Network that alsoincludes Genealogy.com, Ancestry.co.uk, FamilyHistory.com, Genealogy.org, RootsWeb.com and MyFamily.com, also featured on this review site."

Personally, I'm frustrated with all the sites. I've found more on ancestry.com, but I don't understand the rankings (relevance) in their returns; I can enter a specfic name "John A. Doe" and get pages and pages of obscure, not relevant listings, and a relevant one on say, the 20th page. (Often if you check 'exact' response is NO returns.) Which is precisely why I've avoided subscribing: wasting my time is one thing, paying in addition to - more than I can swallow.
As far as genealogy.com I've rarely found info there. Quality of info returned is horrible. I just viewed data there tonight - did another search (same name) and it said 'no info.' Go figure!
YourFolks.com, which I wasn't familiar with, is yet another pay site (some 'free' I guess.) YOu can't search wtihout being registered, which I did, and result was NO info on the names I entered. THey seem to be (at least at this point) primarily a Canadian resource.
You said you've been researching for years - what do you think the best genealogy research website is? Where have you had the most success?
I wish these sites would change their 'subscription' policies. In addition to reluctance to pay based on quality, it bugs me to subscribe to anything that has an 'automatic renewal' policy, e.g. you have to notify them so far in advance if you don't want to renew. Offering a shorter period (e.g. from say 1-7 days, on a time time payment) would be ideal for me. What do you think?

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 8 Mar 2010 6:06PM GMT
Classification: Query
I agree with your comments on the apparent lack of rhyme or reason concerning how Ancestry's search engine determines degree of relevance. It's frustrating to have to wade through 20 pages of results, rather than giving up after 150 items or so, simply because you know there's a good chance that the item you would consider most relevant is thought by Ancestry to be less significant and, thus, is way down the list. I often use my brower's "Find on this Page" feature against the results, but Ancestry's limit of 50 items at a time slows even that down.
It would be great if they could show us their engine's decision chart. It's a case of the old "I can play the game if I know the rules" thing. Even better would be the capability for the user to then rearrange the rules in order to produce results that make more sense to him or her.

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 10 Mar 2010 5:29AM GMT
Classification: Query
David, it never crossed my mind to use the 'find' feature - thanks much for sharing that. Boy oh boy if they'd fix this relevancy I'd get the number of subscribers would increase substantially. Returns on searches just aren't logical and frequently irrelevant and I just can't understand why such a variance. If Google (or other search engines) worked as poorly as this, the Internet probably wouldn't enjoy the success it does today.

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 3:02AM GMT
Classification: Query
Surnames: McKissick/Pearman
I have no idea whether we have a link or not......I am researching my paternal grandmother and your name and birthdate can possibly be related.
Are you from the McKissick family? If you are, we need to talk abaout our geneology!

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 11 Mar 2010 3:11AM GMT
Classification: Query
Disregard my message....got excited and posted to wrong area!

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 1 Sep 2010 4:04PM GMT
Classification: Query
I also agree... the results need to be better - I'd rather see all the names spelled like the one I searched before the names that don't even sound the same.

I've had to resort to looking through each and every page of a census in a town to find an ancestor only to find them listed there!

Would also like the results to be sortable - for instance if I'm searching in NY, list all the NY names first before the ones from California or Washington on the opposite side of the country. I've waded through 30 pages of results to get to the NY listings where they simply had the name spelled wrong [Hennessay instead of Hennessey].

UGH!

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 24 Mar 2011 4:51PM GMT
Classification: Query
On Ancestry, if you click on the "go to old search" link at the top right, and check the box exact match you get a lot more relevant results.

I do like Ancestry and Footnote, both of which I subscribe to.

If you don't want to renew automatically, right after you subscribe, you can cancel your account and it will last your year, then they will see if you want to continue.

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 17 May 2011 11:58PM GMT
Classification: Query
Even if you back to Old Search it is not the same as it was even the census you can't use soundex or like I have had to do several times is using only a first name in a county to find who I was looking for. It is terrible now.

Re: Genealogy.Com versus Ancestry.Com

Posted: 18 May 2011 11:36AM GMT
Classification: Query
On the Old Search, right above the space to put the first name, there is a box that says exact matches only, you need to check that box. Try that it should work the way you are explaining.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | New Privacy | New Terms and Conditions