Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Rumor

Expand Messages
  • Connie Bradbury
    Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no longer
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."
       
      How much of this is fact or fiction?
       
      Thanks.
       
      Connie
    • Kress Franzen
      I think that s silly since my stake center has an FHC which is full of computers which are there for that very reason - to allow access to all that digital
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        I think that’s silly since my stake center has an FHC which is full of computers which are there for that very reason - to allow access to all that digital content online.  Also, one of the primary purposes of our stake FHC is to involve members and provide knowledgeable workers who can help newcomers understand how to use the technology and resources available.  Sure we have microfiche and all that, and that could disappear and I wouldn’t mind, but the FHC still serves an important purpose.

         

        It would be a grave error to remove FHC’s from stake centers for the reason you mention.  Perhaps there are other reasons, but just because content is going online doesn’t remove the need for FHC’s, I feel.  I hope someone in that big meeting thought of that… :)

         


        From: fhctech@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fhctech@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Connie Bradbury
        Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:31 AM
        To: fhctech@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [fhctech] Rumor

         

        Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."

         

        How much of this is fact or fiction?

         

        Thanks.

         

        Connie

      • Roberto Galindo
        At the rate that President Hinckley runs, I doubt it will be long before the world is digitalized and we can all access research data online from the comfort
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At the rate that President Hinckley runs, I doubt it will be long before the world is digitalized and we can all access research data online from the comfort of our own homes. Imagine that: switching channels during the Thanksgiving Football or Real Madrid vs Barcelona game ads to read a microfilm on the TV screen showing birth certificates of an Italian town.
           
          Yet we don't run at President Hinckley's pace, much less do the parishes of the world. Eliminating Microfilm Readers (MFR)--or the need for them--means that the records department of the Mayor's office in Turmero, Aragua, Venezuela (and the rest of the developing countries of the world) digitizes all their entries. Yeah, not a chance. Perhaps we will end up having to microfilm first and then digitize all the records of the world. Bad logistics on that one.
           
          Yet, I think our microfilm takers will soon be walking the world carrying only 150GB laptops with 5 GB digital cameras to record straight away from the originals into a pic format and the indexing gurus will do the rest. Perhaps even a portable scanner instead of the camera (accounting for shadows and lighting set-ups). Thus, no more MFR's.
           
          Additionally, three quarters of the members in our stake here in Maracay, Venezuela don't have the resources to purchase a computer, let alone a fast enough internet connection to download microfilm entries from Duaca, Lara, Venezuela. These are fairly big size files and due to resolution requirements of these documents, I doubt they'll get any smaller. The blessings of tithing (and money management) has allowed many to walk into the digital world here. Most of you will porbably be shocked to hear that for the first time in the history of our stake, members watched the last General Conference proceedings online (6 interested families were setup, and did so successfully) without the iniciative of our technology specialist.

          Yet what I defenitely see is less and less need for microfilm, and more and more need of computer technology at the FHCs of the future to access the databases. Maybe the stake centers in downtown SLC and Rexburg, ID will soon come without FHCs. In the Venezuelas, and Quitos, Ghanas, and Jerusalems of the world, I see every meeting house gifted with one, not just the stake center. Or even better, a FHC per city on a building of its own, with a sign of its own and equipped to handle dozens of patrons an hour. Even up in Huehuetenango, Guatemala. For that we will need native Family History missionaries in each of these places, and for that to happen two or three generations will go by.
           
          I doubt we will be alive when stake centers start coming without a buff FHC. Now back to work ...
           
          Roberto Galindo
          Maracay, Venezuela 
           

          Kress Franzen <kmfranzen@...> wrote:
          I think that’s silly since my stake center has an FHC which is full of computers which are there for that very reason - to allow access to all that digital content online.  Also, one of the primary purposes of our stake FHC is to involve members and provide knowledgeable workers who can help newcomers understand how to use the technology and resources available.  Sure we have microfiche and all that, and that could disappear and I wouldn’t mind, but the FHC still serves an important purpose.
          It would be a grave error to remove FHC’s from stake centers for the reason you mention.  Perhaps there are other reasons, but just because content is going online doesn’t remove the need for FHC’s, I feel.  I hope someone in that big meeting thought of that… :)

          From: fhctech@yahoogroups .com [mailto:fhctech@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Connie Bradbury
          Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:31 AM
          To: fhctech@yahoogroups .com
          Subject: [fhctech] Rumor
          Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."
          How much of this is fact or fiction?
          Thanks.
          Connie


          Sponsored Link

          Rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Loan for $1698/mo - Calculate new house payment

        • Shanna Jones
          We have a brand new stake center. We are a new stake created in September of 2005. Our new stake center was completed in June 2006 and there is NO FHC. We
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
          • 0 Attachment

            We have a brand new stake center.  We are a new stake created in September of 2005.  Our new stake center was completed in June 2006 and there is NO FHC.  We had to plead for one in my past stake center when it was built in the year 2000.  However, there are several other stake centers and a regional FHC that we can use here in St. George , Utah .  Our stake was told that “they” are not putting FHCs in stake centers anymore.

            Shanna Jones

            St. George

             


            From: fhctech@yahoogroups.com [mailto: fhctech@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Roberto Galindo
            Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:23 PM
            To: fhctech@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [fhctech] Rumor

             

            At the rate that President Hinckley runs, I doubt it will be long before the world is digitalized and we can all access research data online from the comfort of our own homes. Imagine that: switching channels during the Thanksgiving Football or Real Madrid vs Barcelona game ads to read a microfilm on the TV screen showing birth certificates of an Italian town.

             

            Yet we don't run at President Hinckley's pace, much less do the parishes of the world. Eliminating Microfilm Readers (MFR)--or the need for them--means that the records department of the Mayor's office in Turmero, Aragua , Venezuela (and the rest of the developing countries of the world) digitizes all their entries. Yeah, not a chance. Perhaps we will end up having to microfilm first and then digitize all the records of the world. Bad logistics on that one.

             

            Yet, I think our microfilm takers will soon be walking the world carrying only 150GB laptops with 5 GB digital cameras to record straight away from the originals into a pic format and the indexing gurus will do the rest. Perhaps even a portable scanner instead of the camera (accounting for shadows and lighting set-ups). Thus, no more MFR's.

             

            Additionally, three quarters of the members in our stake here in Maracay , Venezuela don't have the resources to purchase a computer, let alone a fast enough internet connection to download microfilm entries from Duaca, Lara , Venezuela . These are fairly big size files and due to resolution requirements of these documents, I doubt they'll get any smaller. The blessings of tithing (and money management) has allowed many to walk into the digital world here. Most of you will porbably be shocked to hear that for the first time in the history of our stake, members watched the last General Conference proceedings online (6 interested families were setup, and did so successfully) without the iniciative of our technology specialist.


            Yet what I defenitely see is less and less need for microfilm, and more and more need of computer technology at the FHCs of the future to access the databases. Maybe the stake centers in downtown SLC and Rexburg , ID will soon come without FHCs. In the Venezuelas , and Quitos, Ghanas , and Jerusalems of the world, I see every meeting house gifted with one, not just the stake center. Or even better, a FHC per city on a building of its own, with a sign of its own and equipped to handle dozens of patrons an hour. Even up in  Huehuetenango , Guatemala . For that we will need native Family History missionaries in each of these places, and for that to happen two or three generations will go by.

             

            I doubt we will be alive when stake centers start coming without a buff FHC. Now back to work ...

             

            Roberto Galindo

            Maracay , Venezuela  

             


            Kress Franzen <kmfranzen@yahoo. com> wrote:

            I think that’s silly since my stake center has an FHC which is full of computers which are there for that very reason - to allow access to all that digital content online.  Also, one of the primary purposes of our stake FHC is to involve members and provide knowledgeable workers who can help newcomers understand how to use the technology and resources available.  Sure we have microfiche and all that, and that could disappear and I wouldn’t mind, but the FHC still serves an important purpose.

            It would be a grave error to remove FHC’s from stake centers for the reason you mention.  Perhaps there are other reasons, but just because content is going online doesn’t remove the need for FHC’s, I feel.  I hope someone in that big meeting thought of that… :)


            From: fhctech@yahoogroups .com [mailto: fhctech@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Connie Bradbury
            Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:31 AM
            To: fhctech@yahoogroups .com
            Subject: [fhctech] Rumor

            Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."

            How much of this is fact or fiction?

            Thanks.

            Connie

             

             


            Sponsored Link

            Rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Loan for $1698/mo - Calculate new house payment

          • Larry Jackson
            Connie Bradbury: Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Connie Bradbury:

              Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from
              a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being
              built will no longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be
              closed down "because all the holdings of the FHL will be digitized
              and online."

              _______________

              Mostly true. Part wishful thinking.

              Newly built stake centers have not had FHCs for some years. It
              is hoped that existing FHCs will become training centers to assist
              patrons (wouldn't it be nice if they were members) in learning how
              to do online family history work, and then sending them back to
              their homes to actually do it on their own computers.

              Personally, I still see a need for a few machines to be available
              for those who are not yet connected at home. And in spite of the
              best efforts of thousands, it will be another week or two before all
              the microfilm in the world gets indexed.

              Timing? Last year at this time, I was trying to troubleshoot a
              problem in a different calling. The easy answer was to wait for
              a software release that was in testing and would be available in
              "a week or two". I was cautioned that the timeline was not firm.

              I solved the problem in another, more painful, way. We are still
              awaiting the software release that would have made it easy.

              Larry Jackson
            • Connie Bradbury
              Shanna and all: I can understand that is cases as you describe. I visit my kids in Northern Utah and Ogden FHC is a Regional Center. There are a few closet
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Shanna and all:
                 
                I can understand that is cases as you describe.  I visit my kids in Northern Utah and Ogden FHC is a Regional Center.  There are a few "closet" genealogy rooms but I don't know if they were designated as an FHC or if the Wards meeting in that building got a computer and a small desk and permission to put they in a little room.  Meetinghouses I have visited with such rooms - I saw no evidence that films were being ordered as there were no film or fiche files nor the usual forms and supplies.
                 
                Just north of Ogden, Brigham City has quite a large FHC in a building separate from any church building. I think it used to be the old seminary building.  And, of course, Logan has a FHC.
                 
                Connie
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:49 AM
                Subject: RE: [fhctech] Rumor

                We have a brand new stake center.  We are a new stake created in September of 2005.  Our new stake center was completed in June 2006 and there is NO FHC.  We had to plead for one in my past stake center when it was built in the year 2000.  However, there are several other stake centers and a regional FHC that we can use here in St. George , Utah .  Our stake was told that “they” are not putting FHCs in stake centers anymore.

                Shanna Jones

                St. George


                From: fhctech@yahoogroups .com [mailto: fhctech@yahoogroups .com ] On Behalf Of Roberto Galindo
                Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:23 PM
                To: fhctech@yahoogroups .com
                Subject: RE: [fhctech] Rumor

                At the rate that President Hinckley runs, I doubt it will be long before the world is digitalized and we can all access research data online from the comfort of our own homes. Imagine that: switching channels during the Thanksgiving Football or Real Madrid vs Barcelona game ads to read a microfilm on the TV screen showing birth certificates of an Italian town.

                Yet we don't run at President Hinckley's pace, much less do the parishes of the world. Eliminating Microfilm Readers (MFR)--or the need for them--means that the records department of the Mayor's office in Turmero, Aragua , Venezuela (and the rest of the developing countries of the world) digitizes all their entries. Yeah, not a chance. Perhaps we will end up having to microfilm first and then digitize all the records of the world. Bad logistics on that one.

                Yet, I think our microfilm takers will soon be walking the world carrying only 150GB laptops with 5 GB digital cameras to record straight away from the originals into a pic format and the indexing gurus will do the rest. Perhaps even a portable scanner instead of the camera (accounting for shadows and lighting set-ups). Thus, no more MFR's.

                Additionally, three quarters of the members in our stake here in Maracay , Venezuela don't have the resources to purchase a computer, let alone a fast enough internet connection to download microfilm entries from Duaca, Lara , Venezuela . These are fairly big size files and due to resolution requirements of these documents, I doubt they'll get any smaller. The blessings of tithing (and money management) has allowed many to walk into the digital world here. Most of you will porbably be shocked to hear that for the first time in the history of our stake, members watched the last General Conference proceedings online (6 interested families were setup, and did so successfully) without the iniciative of our technology specialist.


                Yet what I defenitely see is less and less need for microfilm, and more and more need of computer technology at the FHCs of the future to access the databases. Maybe the stake centers in downtown SLC and Rexburg , ID will soon come without FHCs. In the Venezuelas , and Quitos, Ghanas , and Jerusalems of the world, I see every meeting house gifted with one, not just the stake center. Or even better, a FHC per city on a building of its own, with a sign of its own and equipped to handle dozens of patrons an hour. Even up in  Huehuetenango , Guatemala . For that we will need native Family History missionaries in each of these places, and for that to happen two or three generations will go by.

                I doubt we will be alive when stake centers start coming without a buff FHC. Now back to work ...

                Roberto Galindo

                Maracay , Venezuela  


                Kress Franzen <kmfranzen@yahoo. com> wrote:

                I think that’s silly since my stake center has an FHC which is full of computers which are there for that very reason - to allow access to all that digital content online.  Also, one of the primary purposes of our stake FHC is to involve members and provide knowledgeable workers who can help newcomers understand how to use the technology and resources available.  Sure we have microfiche and all that, and that could disappear and I wouldn’t mind, but the FHC still serves an important purpose.

                It would be a grave error to remove FHC’s from stake centers for the reason you mention.  Perhaps there are other reasons, but just because content is going online doesn’t remove the need for FHC’s, I feel.  I hope someone in that big meeting thought of that… :)


                From: fhctech@yahoogroups .com [mailto: fhctech@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Connie Bradbury
                Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:31 AM
                To: fhctech@yahoogroups .com
                Subject: [fhctech] Rumor

                Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."

                How much of this is fact or fiction?

                Thanks.

                Connie

                 


                Sponsored Link

                Rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Loan for $1698/mo - Calculate new house payment

              • Dana Repouille
                The stake center in Council Bluffs, Iowa was dedicated in August 2003, and has a FHC. It looks like the architect intended us to have two computers, but we
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  The stake center in Council Bluffs, Iowa was dedicated in August 2003, and
                  has a FHC. It looks like the architect intended us to have two computers,
                  but we have eight computers, three film readers, and a fiche reader.

                  Dana in CB

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: fhctech@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fhctech@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  Larry Jackson

                  Newly built stake centers have not had FHCs for some years. It
                  is hoped that existing FHCs will become training centers to assist
                  patrons (wouldn't it be nice if they were members) in learning how
                  to do online family history work, and then sending them back to
                  their homes to actually do it on their own computers.
                • Gary Templeman
                  New stake centers in the United States (and probably Canada) are not being built with FHCs. I can certainly understand why that would be the case in a place
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    New stake centers in the United States (and probably Canada) are not being
                    built with FHCs. I can certainly understand why that would be the case in a
                    place such as St. George. I mean, really, how far do you need to drive to
                    get to a neighboring stake, 10 minutes? <VBG>

                    But even for us out in the mission field, any new stake created is going to
                    come out of one or more existing stakes, so no one is going to need to drive
                    any farther then they do already. I think the belief is that the US has
                    *enough* to do the job and that resources are better spent in other parts of
                    the world or on other projects.

                    As to the "eventually all FHCs will be closed down 'because all the holdings
                    of the FHL will be digitized and online' ", I don't see that happening very
                    soon. It will be impossible for ALL the holdings in the FHL to be digitized
                    because many of the original owners have not given such permission. Logic
                    makes one ask, would the FH Department be spending thousands and thousands
                    of dollars sending out new digital imaging machines and new computers,
                    developing (and paying for the licenses) of a new XP image for the
                    computers, or going to the expense of installing LANDesk and Symantec A/V if
                    they were planning on closing up shop soon? And if anything like that was
                    imminent, provisions for FHC Directors and FHC staff would not have been
                    included in the new handbook.

                    Gary Templeman, Director
                    Corvallis Oregon FHC

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Connie Bradbury" <bradbury@...>
                    To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:30 AM
                    Subject: [fhctech] Rumor


                    Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big
                    meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no
                    longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all
                    the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."

                    How much of this is fact or fiction?

                    Thanks.

                    Connie
                  • Bill Henderson
                    I have read Connie s original message and the replies to this point. I have heard the same rumor that Connie did. However, I also noticed a significant
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have read Connie's original message and the replies to this point.  I have heard the same "rumor" that Connie did.  However, I also noticed a significant detail in Connie's message: she used the work "eventually."   Currently, there are not enough resources to achieve total online Family History support.  Will it happen?  Eventually.  It only makes sense.  SLC is still shipping computers to FHCs, and these computers have a 5-year functional life.  Start worrying when SLC stops shipping computers to FHCs.  That means they will have another way to perform the same or similar tasks. 
                       
                      I also suspect that when there are no more FHCs to support the patrons, genealogy and Family History efforts by patrons will taper-off, perhaps significantly.  Just loose thoughts.
                       
                      Bill H.

                      Dana Repouille <drepouille@...> wrote:
                      The stake center in Council Bluffs, Iowa was dedicated in August 2003, and
                      has a FHC. It looks like the architect intended us to have two computers,
                      but we have eight computers, three film readers, and a fiche reader.

                      Dana in CB

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: fhctech@yahoogroups .com [mailto:fhctech@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of
                      Larry Jackson

                      Newly built stake centers have not had FHCs for some years. It
                      is hoped that existing FHCs will become training centers to assist
                      patrons (wouldn't it be nice if they were members) in learning how
                      to do online family history work, and then sending them back to
                      their homes to actually do it on their own computers.



                      Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                    • Mark Jarvis
                      Until access to ancestry.com is available at a reasonable cost, there will be a definite need for FHCs--and even after that, there will be many who won t have
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Until access to ancestry.com is available at a reasonable cost, there will be a definite need for FHCs--and even after that, there will be many who won't have a subscription.

                        For training, the expanded corp of FH Consultants who will go to members' homes will help, but until every unit has strong consultants and every home has a decent PC and broadband, there will be a need for FHCs. Maybe not in every stake in high density LDS areas, but definitely in the more spread out areas of the church

                        Minor rant:  The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census record--on one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to view a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available from an ancestry.com login.  I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a major money maker.

                        Mark Jarvis

                        On 11/22/06, Gary Templeman <gtempleman1@...> wrote:
                        New stake centers in the United States (and probably Canada) are not being
                        built with FHCs. I can certainly understand why that would be the case in a
                        place such as St. George. I mean, really, how far do you need to drive to
                        get to a neighboring stake, 10 minutes? <VBG>

                        But even for us out in the mission field, any new stake created is going to
                        come out of one or more existing stakes, so no one is going to need to drive
                        any farther then they do already. I think the belief is that the US has
                        *enough* to do the job and that resources are better spent in other parts of
                        the world or on other projects.

                        As to the "eventually all FHCs will be closed down 'because all the holdings
                        of the FHL will be digitized and online' ", I don't see that happening very
                        soon. It will be impossible for ALL the holdings in the FHL to be digitized
                        because many of the original owners have not given such permission. Logic
                        makes one ask, would the FH Department be spending thousands and thousands
                        of dollars sending out new digital imaging machines and new computers,
                        developing (and paying for the licenses) of a new XP image for the
                        computers, or going to the expense of installing LANDesk and Symantec A/V if
                        they were planning on closing up shop soon? And if anything like that was
                        imminent, provisions for FHC Directors and FHC staff would not have been
                        included in the new handbook.

                        Gary Templeman, Director
                        Corvallis Oregon FHC

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Connie Bradbury" <bradbury@... >
                        To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 10:30 AM
                        Subject: [fhctech] Rumor


                        Our facilities person is passing along a rumor (he says it came from a big
                        meeting he was at [church meeting]) that stake centers being built will no
                        longer have FHCs and eventually all FHCs will be closed down "because all
                        the holdings of the FHL will be digitized and online."

                        How much of this is fact or fiction?

                        Thanks.

                        Connie



                        Home Page: http://fhctech.org/
                        Community email addresses:
                          Post message: fhctech@yahoogroups.com
                          Subscribe:    fhctech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          Unsubscribe:  fhctech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          List owner:   Rick@...
                        Shortcut URL to Yahoo! group page:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fhctech
                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fhctech/

                        <*> Your email settings:
                            Individual Email | Traditional

                        <*> To change settings online go to:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fhctech/join
                            (Yahoo! ID required)

                        <*> To change settings via email:
                            mailto:fhctech-digest@yahoogroups.com
                            mailto:fhctech-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            fhctech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                      • Gary Templeman
                        ... Why, shouldn t ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they should be providing the images as a public service? BTW, I have never noticed any
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 22, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          >
                          > Minor rant: The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census
                          > record--on
                          > one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to
                          > view
                          > a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available from
                          > an ancestry.com login. I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a
                          > major money maker.
                          >
                          > Mark Jarvis
                          >

                          Why, shouldn't ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they
                          should be providing the images as a public service?

                          BTW, I have never noticed any differences in the images. Could it be that
                          the computer you used did not have the advanced viewer installed (and
                          perhaps didn't prompt for the install since it was a direct link)?

                          Gary Templeman
                        • Travis Morris
                          Perhaps the reason Ancestry has so much available is because it is a major money maker. Indexing and formatting takes time and effort. They probably have a
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 23, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Perhaps the reason Ancestry has so much available is because it is a "major money maker."  Indexing and formatting takes time and effort.  They probably have a large staff that accomplishes these results and they must be paid.  I once belonged to a loose organization that collected and posted information on a volunteer bases.  It worked somewhat but nowhere near what Ancestry is doing.  Money talks.
                            Travis

                            Mark Jarvis wrote:

                            Minor rant:  The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census record--on one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to view a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available from an ancestry.com login.  I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a major money maker.

                            Mark Jarvis


                          • ldsskier@rusticate.net
                            ... If and ONLY if ancestry.com is paying hefty royalties to familysearch.com for the redirected traffic. If familysearch.com is providing the links for free
                            Message 13 of 28 , Nov 23, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > ----- Original Message -----
                              >>
                              >> Minor rant: The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census
                              >> record--on
                              >> one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to
                              >> view
                              >> a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available
                              >> from
                              >> an ancestry.com login. I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a
                              >> major money maker.
                              >>
                              >> Mark Jarvis
                              >>
                              >
                              > Why, shouldn't ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they
                              > should be providing the images as a public service?

                              If and ONLY if ancestry.com is paying hefty royalties to familysearch.com
                              for the redirected traffic. If familysearch.com is providing the links
                              for free then ancestry.com should provide full access to the data for
                              free.
                            • Mark Jarvis
                              I have no objection to making a profit. AAMOF, I agree with Winston Churchill who said (approx. quote) Some people believe that making a profit is immoral. I
                              Message 14 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I have no objection to making a profit. AAMOF, I agree with Winston Churchill who said (approx. quote) "Some people believe that making a profit is immoral.  I believe that NOT making a profit is immoral."  I was just put off by the stories about the size of their profit and their being therefore a ripe acquisition target.

                                -mj-

                                On 11/22/06, Gary Templeman <gtempleman1@...> wrote:

                                ----- Original Message -----
                                >
                                > Minor rant:  The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census
                                > record--on
                                > one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to
                                > view
                                > a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available from
                                > an ancestry.com login.  I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a
                                > major money maker.
                                >
                                > Mark Jarvis
                                >

                                Why, shouldn't ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they
                                should be providing the images as a public service?

                                BTW, I have never noticed any differences in the images. Could it be that
                                the computer you used did not have the advanced viewer installed (and
                                perhaps didn't prompt for the install since it was a direct link)?

                                Gary Templeman



                                Home Page: http://fhctech.org/
                                Community email addresses:
                                  Post message: fhctech@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subscribe:     fhctech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Unsubscribe:  fhctech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  List owner:   Rick@...
                                Shortcut URL to Yahoo! group page:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fhctech
                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fhctech/

                                <*> Your email settings:
                                    Individual Email | Traditional

                                <*> To change settings online go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fhctech/join
                                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                                <*> To change settings via email:
                                    mailto: fhctech-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                    mailto:fhctech-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                     fhctech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                              • Roberto Galindo
                                Unless ancestry.com pays a truckload for having payed folks transcribe their films. Roberto Galindo ... If and ONLY if ancestry.com is paying hefty royalties
                                Message 15 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Unless ancestry.com pays a truckload for having payed folks transcribe their films.
                                   
                                  Roberto Galindo

                                  ldsskier@... wrote:
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  >>
                                  >> Minor rant: The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census
                                  >> record--on
                                  >> one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to
                                  >> view
                                  >> a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available
                                  >> from
                                  >> an ancestry.com login. I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a
                                  >> major money maker.
                                  >>
                                  >> Mark Jarvis
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  > Why, shouldn't ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they
                                  > should be providing the images as a public service?

                                  If and ONLY if ancestry.com is paying hefty royalties to familysearch. com
                                  for the redirected traffic. If familysearch. com is providing the links
                                  for free then ancestry.com should provide full access to the data for
                                  free.


                                  Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

                                • ldsskier@rusticate.net
                                  If this is the case I would still disagree. There are plenty of volunteers out there willing to do the work, though perhaps a bit more slowly. The church
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    If this is the case I would still disagree. There are plenty of
                                    volunteers out there willing to do the work, though perhaps a bit more
                                    slowly.

                                    The church should not be engaged in the practice of steering business to
                                    other parties. Period.


                                    > Unless ancestry.com pays a truckload for having payed folks transcribe
                                    > their films.
                                    >
                                    > Roberto Galindo
                                    >
                                    > ldsskier@... wrote:
                                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Minor rant: The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census
                                    >>> record--on
                                    >>> one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to
                                    >>> view
                                    >>> a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available
                                    >>> from
                                    >>> an ancestry.com login. I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a
                                    >>> major money maker.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> Mark Jarvis
                                    >>>
                                    >>
                                    >> Why, shouldn't ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they
                                    >> should be providing the images as a public service?
                                    >
                                    > If and ONLY if ancestry.com is paying hefty royalties to familysearch.com
                                    > for the redirected traffic. If familysearch.com is providing the links
                                    > for free then ancestry.com should provide full access to the data for
                                    > free.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ---------------------------------
                                    > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                                  • Gary Templeman
                                    ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [fhctech] Rumor ... Providing a link
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: <ldsskier@...>
                                      To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 2:41 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [fhctech] Rumor


                                      >> ----- Original Message -----
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Minor rant: The other day I used FamilySearch to check a census
                                      >>> record--on
                                      >>> one of the few years available there--and was linked to ancestry.com to
                                      >>> view
                                      >>> a degraded image of the original record compared to what is available
                                      >>> from
                                      >>> an ancestry.com login. I deeply resent the fact that ancestry.com is a
                                      >>> major money maker.
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Mark Jarvis
                                      >>>
                                      >>
                                      >> Why, shouldn't ALL business strive to be profitable? Do you think they
                                      >> should be providing the images as a public service?
                                      >
                                      > If and ONLY if ancestry.com is paying hefty royalties to familysearch.com
                                      > for the redirected traffic. If familysearch.com is providing the links
                                      > for free then ancestry.com should provide full access to the data for
                                      > free.
                                      >

                                      Providing a link costs the Church next to nothing, although the entire site
                                      costs the Church money to run. The links to the 1880 census images work for
                                      registered Church members only, so it is not as if the Ancestry link is
                                      creating additional traffic to the FamilySearch site that the Church somehow
                                      makes any money on. Ancestry also allows every approved FHC to have access
                                      for ALL their computers at no charge to us (whether the Church pays Ancestry
                                      for that I don't know). Seems to me it is a mutually beneficial
                                      relationship.

                                      The payment arrangement is for the two parties to agree on. If you go buy a
                                      car, what you pay is between you and the dealer. I would not presume to
                                      judge whether you *should* have paid more or less. As long as you and the
                                      dealer are happy, why is it any of my business?

                                      Gary Templeman
                                    • Gary Templeman
                                      Any time money gets discussed I always wonder who gets to decide how much profit is *too much*? Gary Templeman ... From: Mark Jarvis
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Any time money gets discussed I always wonder who gets to decide how much
                                        profit is *too much*?

                                        Gary Templeman

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Mark Jarvis" <mark.w.jarvis@...>
                                        To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 12:49 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [fhctech] Rumor


                                        >I have no objection to making a profit. AAMOF, I agree with Winston
                                        > Churchill who said (approx. quote) "Some people believe that making a
                                        > profit
                                        > is immoral. I believe that NOT making a profit is immoral." I was just
                                        > put
                                        > off by the stories about the size of their profit and their being
                                        > therefore
                                        > a ripe acquisition target.
                                        >
                                        > -mj-
                                      • Gary Templeman
                                        ... From: To: Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:24 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [fhctech] Rumor ... Seems
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: <ldsskier@...>
                                          To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 6:24 AM
                                          Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [fhctech] Rumor


                                          > If this is the case I would still disagree. There are plenty of
                                          > volunteers out there willing to do the work, though perhaps a bit more
                                          > slowly.
                                          >
                                          > The church should not be engaged in the practice of steering business to
                                          > other parties. Period.
                                          >

                                          Seems to me that we shouldn't be worried about trying to tell the prophet
                                          what the Church should or shouldn't be engaged in.

                                          Gary
                                        • Greg A. Anderson
                                          That would be up to the purchaser. If no one will pay it the price will come down. Or the company will go under. _____ From: fhctech@yahoogroups.com
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            That would be up to the purchaser. If no one will pay it the price will come down. Or the company will go under.


                                            From: fhctech@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fhctech@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Templeman
                                            Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:17 AM
                                            To: fhctech@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [fhctech] Rumor

                                            Any time money gets discussed I always wonder who gets to decide how much
                                            profit is *too much*?

                                            Gary Templeman

                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Mark Jarvis" <mark.w.jarvis@ gmail.com>
                                            To: <fhctech@yahoogroups .com>
                                            Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 12:49 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [fhctech] Rumor

                                            >I
                                            have no objection to making a profit. AAMOF, I agree with Winston
                                            >
                                            Churchill who said (approx. quote) "Some people believe that making a
                                            >
                                            profit
                                            > is immoral. I believe that NOT making a profit is immoral." I was
                                            just
                                            > put
                                            > off by the stories about the size of their profit and
                                            their being
                                            > therefore
                                            > a ripe acquisition
                                            target.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            -mj-

                                          • ldsskier@rusticate.net
                                            ... Think very carefully about your claims before you make them: are you stating that you believe that GBH requested that the redemption of the dead be tied to
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > Seems to me that we shouldn't be worried about trying to tell the prophet
                                              > what the Church should or shouldn't be engaged in.
                                              >
                                              > Gary

                                              Think very carefully about your claims before you make them: are you
                                              stating that you believe that GBH requested that the redemption of the
                                              dead be tied to a private, commercial venture?
                                            • Gary Templeman
                                              ... From: To: Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [fhctech] Rumor ... Well,
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Nov 24, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: <ldsskier@...>
                                                To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:11 PM
                                                Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [fhctech] Rumor


                                                >
                                                >> Seems to me that we shouldn't be worried about trying to tell the prophet
                                                >> what the Church should or shouldn't be engaged in.
                                                >>
                                                >> Gary
                                                >
                                                > Think very carefully about your claims before you make them: are you
                                                > stating that you believe that GBH requested that the redemption of the
                                                > dead be tied to a private, commercial venture?
                                                >

                                                Well, let's see, the computers we use in the FHC are built and sold to the
                                                Church by private, commercial ventures, as is the equipment used to create
                                                and read the microfilm records. Private ventures operate the Internet, run
                                                the trucking companies that deliver necessary items to the temples, provide
                                                the gas and electricity to run the temple, provide the gasoline you use to
                                                drive there to do the ordinances, and so on. Are you saying that *anything*
                                                that assists in the redemption of the dead has to come purely through
                                                volunteer efforts by Church members only?

                                                Besides, there is nothing *requiring* anyone to use those Ancestry images in
                                                order to provide ordinances. Anyone who has some moral aversion can choose
                                                to spend $5.50 and order the microfilms.

                                                I am really not sure what has gven you such a bee in your bonnet, but I
                                                certainly was not a party to the negotiations between the Church and
                                                Ancestry, and therefore have inside knowledge on who is paying who for what
                                                and under what terms. I DO trust President Hinkley to make wise decisions in
                                                those matters and do not presume to second guess him.

                                                In the past I have done my share of criticism when Church employees seem to
                                                overstep their authority. The fact that the Church happens to use Ancestry
                                                to provide a nice service to members does not concern me in the slightest.

                                                Respectfully,

                                                Gary
                                              • ldsskier@rusticate.net
                                                ... You misunderstand. The satellite that carried general conference was built, launched and is maintained by a private company. All church buildings are
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Nov 25, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  > Well, let's see, the computers we use in the FHC are built and sold to the
                                                  > Church by private, commercial ventures ...

                                                  > Are you saying that *anything* that assists in the redemption of the dead
                                                  > has to come purely through volunteer efforts by Church members only?

                                                  You misunderstand.

                                                  The satellite that carried general conference was built, launched and is
                                                  maintained by a private company. All church buildings are built by
                                                  private companies. There is NOTHING WRONG with the church doing business
                                                  with private companies. It is a necessary part of life on this planet.

                                                  But the links from familysearch.com are -advertisements- for ancestry.com
                                                  and are as inappropriate as running commercials for Bob's Discount Suits
                                                  during a missionary broadcast.

                                                  > I DO trust President Hinkley to make wise decisions
                                                  > in those matters and do not presume to second guess him.

                                                  Again, why do you think GBH personally signed off on the deal? Or even
                                                  reviewed it?
                                                • RussellHltn
                                                  ... reviewed it?
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Nov 25, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    >>> Again, why do you think GBH personally signed off on the deal? Or even
                                                    reviewed it? <<<

                                                    Having dealt with church HQ, I'm sure that the decision to refer people to
                                                    outside websites was reviewed at high levels before proceeding. Maybe not
                                                    GBH personally, but someone at high levels.
                                                  • James W Anderson
                                                    We also have to remember the early days, and now known mistakes made, to see why we are using outside websites. When they first came up with the library
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Nov 25, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      We also have to remember the early days, and now known
                                                      mistakes made, to see why we are using outside
                                                      websites.

                                                      When they first came up with the library catalog and
                                                      parts of FamilySearch as we knew it when it came out,
                                                      someone or a group at CHQ had come up with a custom
                                                      programming language to do it all in.

                                                      By the late 90s, they found they had to migrate to
                                                      Windows, there was only one person left there that
                                                      knew that custom language. Now they farm out whatever
                                                      they can or work with outside vendors. That is also
                                                      the case with the indexing program now, they went to
                                                      two software vendors who had products they thought
                                                      might work when customized to fit the Church's needs,
                                                      they tested both, and decided on what you see now.

                                                      They are using Macromedia products to generate the
                                                      clerks training you see on lds.org, they are using an
                                                      outside company to host the family history training,
                                                      all at probably lower costs than doing it 'in house'.

                                                      --- RussellHltn <RussellHltn@...> wrote:

                                                      > >>> Again, why do you think GBH personally signed
                                                      > off on the deal? Or even
                                                      > reviewed it? <<<
                                                      >
                                                      > Having dealt with church HQ, I'm sure that the
                                                      > decision to refer people to
                                                      > outside websites was reviewed at high levels before
                                                      > proceeding. Maybe not
                                                      > GBH personally, but someone at high levels.
                                                      >
                                                      >




                                                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                                      Do you Yahoo!?
                                                      Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                                                      http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                                                    • Gary Templeman
                                                      ... From: To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:11 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [fhctech] Rumor ... If
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Nov 25, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                                        From: <ldsskier@...>
                                                        To: <fhctech@yahoogroups.com>
                                                        Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:11 AM
                                                        Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: [fhctech] Rumor


                                                        >> Well, let's see, the computers we use in the FHC are built and sold to
                                                        >> the
                                                        >> Church by private, commercial ventures ...
                                                        >
                                                        >> Are you saying that *anything* that assists in the redemption of the dead
                                                        >> has to come purely through volunteer efforts by Church members only?
                                                        >
                                                        > You misunderstand.
                                                        >
                                                        > The satellite that carried general conference was built, launched and is
                                                        > maintained by a private company. All church buildings are built by
                                                        > private companies. There is NOTHING WRONG with the church doing business
                                                        > with private companies. It is a necessary part of life on this planet.
                                                        >
                                                        > But the links from familysearch.com are -advertisements- for ancestry.com
                                                        > and are as inappropriate as running commercials for Bob's Discount Suits
                                                        > during a missionary broadcast.

                                                        If you are logged on to FamilySearch.org and have previously registered as a
                                                        Church member, the image link takes you directly to the image with no
                                                        intervening advertising or solicitations. I am assuming that Ancestry
                                                        provides that at no cost (or a discounted rate) to the Church. The are under
                                                        no obligation to do so, they could keep it totally subscription based. Or
                                                        they could choose a third option, and that is to give the access away to
                                                        everyone. It is difficult for a business to stay in business if they give
                                                        away too much of their product or service.

                                                        From the Church's end, they could choose to not link to the images at all.
                                                        That means every Church member needing to look at 1880 census images either
                                                        needs to order the microfilms or purchase an individual subscription to
                                                        Ancestry (or other web service). That would have the perverse effect of
                                                        stimulating MORE people to subscribe to Ancestry. Or the Church could choose
                                                        to give (and I assume pay for) "free" access for everyone, member and
                                                        non-member.

                                                        If there is access for everyone then the Church would be using tithing funds
                                                        to pay for the general public, or Ancestry would be giving away their
                                                        service. Neither of those is appropriate either, IMO. The last option is to
                                                        provide a link for members but no link at all for non-members. I doubt
                                                        Ancestry would agree to that restriction so the current arrangement seems a
                                                        *reasonable* compromise to me.

                                                        The FamilySearch.org web site is open to the public, and as such I think
                                                        your analogy of advertisements during a missionary broadcast is too extreme.
                                                        I think it is more akin to advertisements on BYU TV. However, I don't think
                                                        you are going to change my opinion, or I yours, so at this point I think we
                                                        should agree to disagree and drop the topic.

                                                        Respectfully,

                                                        Gary Templeman
                                                      • RussellHltn
                                                        As I ve said before, the policy of allowing the FS website to link to Ancestry.com was probably reviewed at high levels before it was allowed. Higher then the
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Nov 26, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          As I've said before, the policy of allowing the FS website to link to
                                                          Ancestry.com was probably reviewed at high levels before it was allowed.
                                                          Higher then the Family History Department, I'm quite sure. I'd guess at
                                                          minimum, the Presiding Bishopric.

                                                          It's OK to ask questions as a means of coming to an understanding, but I
                                                          think it's outside of our stewardship to question it's validity. If anyone
                                                          feels differently, then by all means, call the Family History Department and
                                                          talk to someone in charge.
                                                        • Don L. Blanchard
                                                          I think that the following quotation by President Hinckley from his talk The Faith to Move Mountains found on page 82 of the November Ensign sheds some light
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Nov 26, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            I think that the following quotation by President Hinckley from his talk "The Faith to Move Mountains" found on page 82 of the November Ensign sheds some light on this subject.

                                                            "The Lord has permitted me to live; I do not know for how long. But whatever the time, I shall continue to give my best to the task at hand. It is not an easy thing to preside over this large, complex Church. Nothing escapes the attention of the First Presidency. No major decision, no expenditure of funds is made without their approval. The responsibility and stress are great.

                                                            But we shall carry on as long as the Lord wishes. As I said last April, we are in His hands. I feel well; my health is reasonably good. But when it is time for a successor, the transition will be smooth and according to the will of Him whose Church this is. And so, we go forward in faith and faith is the theme I wish to discuss this morning."

                                                            I personally look for information on this reflector to assist me with technical problems in running the FHC computers, NOT the personal opinions of those wishing to question Church policies that does little to make our jobs easier to perform.  I don't think that the intent of this reflector is to discuss the pros and cons of Church policy.

                                                            Don


                                                            At 10:10 AM 11/26/2006 -1000, you wrote:

                                                            As I've said before, the policy of allowing the FS website to link to
                                                            Ancestry.com was probably reviewed at high levels before it was allowed.
                                                            Higher then the Family History Department, I'm quite sure. I'd guess at
                                                            minimum, the Presiding Bishopric.

                                                            It's OK to ask questions as a means of coming to an understanding, but I
                                                            think it's outside of our stewardship to question it's validity. If anyone
                                                            feels differently, then by all means, call the Family History Department and
                                                            talk to someone in charge.
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.