The Missouri State Archives has added scans of certificates from 1937 to the Missouri Death Certificate Database.
[genealogy]
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Mmm, rootbeer.
Craig has posted half of his so far excellent four-part series on the "Internet Biographical Collection" (IBC) fiasco at geneablogie.
My position on this now is that I'd actually like to use a genealogy-oriented search engine, one that didn't require me to use all sorts of filtering tricks to ignore the rest of the web. Just a search engine, though. Not a site that does what Ancestry did, though. They really screwed up, in my opinion, all in the name of making a buck.
PS - I'm behind on podcasts and just finished listening to the Aug. 28th edition of "The Genealogy Guys." I like George and Drew, but I can't believe they were supporting the IBC. Sorry, but I don't think it compares to Google or the Internet Archive. (Actually, I'll let Craig determine that.) Google is free to use. The IA's Wayback Machine is free to use. Ancestry, for the most part and specifically in this case, was not free. Additionally, the content was presented in a way that implied it was Ancestry's or submitted to them. That clearly wasn't the case and I think that's what caused most of the backlash. If Ancestry had simply put a new "Internet Genealogy Search" section on their front page or put it on a new domain (GeneaGoogle?), they may have been hailed as heroes.
[genealogy]
My position on this now is that I'd actually like to use a genealogy-oriented search engine, one that didn't require me to use all sorts of filtering tricks to ignore the rest of the web. Just a search engine, though. Not a site that does what Ancestry did, though. They really screwed up, in my opinion, all in the name of making a buck.
PS - I'm behind on podcasts and just finished listening to the Aug. 28th edition of "The Genealogy Guys." I like George and Drew, but I can't believe they were supporting the IBC. Sorry, but I don't think it compares to Google or the Internet Archive. (Actually, I'll let Craig determine that.) Google is free to use. The IA's Wayback Machine is free to use. Ancestry, for the most part and specifically in this case, was not free. Additionally, the content was presented in a way that implied it was Ancestry's or submitted to them. That clearly wasn't the case and I think that's what caused most of the backlash. If Ancestry had simply put a new "Internet Genealogy Search" section on their front page or put it on a new domain (GeneaGoogle?), they may have been hailed as heroes.
[genealogy]
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)