TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-09 > 1094066661


From: Gordon Banks <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Family & Local History Subscriptions
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 12:24:26 -0700
References: <00b101c48fbe$14ab8600$6401a8c0@Tower1>
In-Reply-To: <00b101c48fbe$14ab8600$6401a8c0@Tower1>


Godfrey Library is far and away the best value for what you get. I have
subscribed to Genealogy.com's library and got some good stuff out of
there, but have pretty well mined out my ancestors. Their family
message lists are the most valuable thing there and they are free
anyhow. I've subscribed to Ancestry and used their census mostly before
I had the Godfrey subscription. Their British section is not very good,
but they keep promising they'll put more on line. If they would do a
deal with the UK government they could probably have a great site, as
there are now getting to be a lot of online British records that it
would be nice to find all in one place. The NEHGS site is quite good if
you have a lot of New England ancestors.


On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 17:53, Kith-n-Kin wrote:
> I had an experience today that I want to share, to perhaps help others save money.
>
> To not bore you with the details, I found out that a subscription called "Family & Local History" at
> Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com basically point you to HeritageQuest and have virtually the same content as
> HeritageQuest. Apparently there are some "value added" slave narratives (maybe), but nothing else (yet).
>
> The difference, and it may make a difference to some, is that the interface and search engines are
> different. As some know, the HeritageQuest search engine could use an upgrade <G>.
>
> So, if you already have "the Godfrey Library", or (as I have) a membership in the Kentucky Historical
> Society, or any other way of accessing HeritageQuest, you do *not* need to subscribe to "F&LH" on Ancestry
> or Genealogy.com.
>
> I have to tell you, since I was talking with nice young men at both Ancestry and Genealogy.com (and they
> were verrry nice), I had to ask the $64,000 question, which was "do they have meetings at the highest
> level of this organization to decide what each subsidiary gets to include in its subscriptions" -- sorry
> to say no one knew <G>. I did say "wouldn't it be nice if they could all be rolled into one and we could
> not mess around with separate subscriptions -- and would be cheaper, of course."
>
> Oh, and Genealogy.com canceled my Census subscription without problem (don't seem to ever use it anymore)
> and Ancestry refunded my money for my three week old redundant subscription to the "F&LH". Absolutely no
> hassle.
>
> I'm going to be looking carefully at the remainder of my subscription at Gen.com. I may have more
> duplicate coverage.
>
> Pat (in Tucson)
>
>
>
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> To un-subscribe from TMG-L (in MAIL mode), send a message to <> [to <> in Digest mode] with just the word "unsubscribe" (no quotes)in the text and turn off your signature.

This thread: