PDA

View Full Version : Footnote.com reactions


Cormac
11 August 2009, 03:18 PM
I just signed up for a monthly membership at Footnote.com. I didn't want to signed up for a yearly membership. I spent some time there searching. I wasn't really impressed. I think sites like Footnote are great if your ancestor(s) lived in or near a large city. If they lived in the country away from any large population centers, you are pretty much out of luck. Based on my limited time there today, I doubt that I would renew my membership at Footnote.

Are there any other reactions to time spent at Footnote?

Kate McCain
11 August 2009, 09:05 PM
I maintain an annual membership to FN because I sporadically chase the very expensive Civil War service records ($75 for an unknown number of pages if you order through NARA as I recall). My folks lived in very small towns or farms/plantations in the south. Also, it's an alternative, as I recall, for some census records (the issue of image quality is really paramount). The search engine has improved immensely since they first went online.

Kate McCain

martha
12 August 2009, 01:59 AM
Are there any other reactions to time spent at Footnote?

I am not a subscriber but have used Footnote whenever it was free for a limited time. I found some wonderful stuff from their FBI records - irregardless of whether the person was from a small town or even from Canada. They have material on Footnote that I have not see available elsewhere.

Martha

S McCormick
14 August 2009, 10:02 AM
We have just renewed footnote for the second year. The 1860 and 1930 census reports have helped me "anchor" my family search in several states. Small-town Indiana and North Carolina residents have appeared in the records for both world wars. They have many small town newspapers on line and are adding more. You can use their interactive engine to assemble "on the fly" portions of your family history which can later be used in your own personal family history.

It provides a good background of the times in which our ancestors lived in the "new world."

But I agree that it would not be a useful tool for every searcher in genealogical fields.

Sue

bchaplin
01 September 2009, 09:07 PM
Just curious, how does the information available on Footnote compare to ancestry.com?
Do they have any census info that ancestry might be lacking?

steveoc
02 September 2009, 11:15 AM
Just curious, how does the information available on Footnote compare to ancestry.com?
Do they have any census info that ancestry might be lacking?

I have been rather disappointed with Footnote.com. As far a census records go, they have US Censuses for 1930 and 1860.

Ancestry has much more information. I have found very little of use in Footnote. I'll keep trying, but I haven't had much luck.

Kate McCain
03 September 2009, 07:00 AM
I've found these things of value--getting scans of civil war records, scans of applications for early war pensions (and later requests/responses from other folks seeking these applications to DAR), and checking the available corresponding census when I couldn't find something in ancestry (different transcriber) or needed to see a possibly better image. But beyond that I haven't gotten much use of it. However, one lengthy Civil War record pays for the subscription.

Kate McCain
03 September 2009, 07:07 AM
Just curious, how does the information available on Footnote compare to ancestry.com?
Do they have any census info that ancestry might be lacking?

AFAIK, ancestry.com has all national and many state census records for the US, all available Canadian census records and all of the UK/Scotland census records except for the recently released 1911 census. Sometimes the transcription sucks and a page was missed in the digitization of microfilm (I know because I found the record from another source) and there are notoriously bad microfilm images. You might also take a look at familysearch.com -- they're bringing more census records online, free, and the images/indexing were done separately -- and check your local library to see if you can get remote online access to heritagequest.com (the indexing isn't as good but the images are sometimes better). Many of the Canadian census records are also available free online from Canadian sites.

mhougland
05 September 2009, 12:56 AM
I just signed up for a monthly membership at Footnote.com. I didn't want to signed up for a yearly membership. I spent some time there searching. I wasn't really impressed. I think sites like Footnote are great if your ancestor(s) lived in or near a large city. If they lived in the country away from any large population centers, you are pretty much out of luck. Based on my limited time there today, I doubt that I would renew my membership at Footnote.

Are there any other reactions to time spent at Footnote?

Frankly the Revolutionary War Pension records from Footnote alone were worth the price of a subscription for me. It saved me many $$$ and time over getting them from the NARA. HeritageQuest through your local library does a better job of census records than Footnote.

I also have an Ancestry subscription. Although it is an excellent site, it does not have everything. I find that Ancestry and Footnote's strongest point are the digital images of the records. FamilySearch and HeritageQuest are tops in the freebie category.

One size does not fit all.

Cormac
09 September 2009, 11:20 PM
Frankly the Revolutionary War Pension records from Footnote alone were worth the price of a subscription for me. It saved me many $$$ and time over getting them from the NARA. HeritageQuest through your local library does a better job of census records than Footnote.

I also have an Ancestry subscription. Although it is an excellent site, it does not have everything. I find that Ancestry and Footnote's strongest point are the digital images of the records. FamilySearch and HeritageQuest are tops in the freebie category.

The RWP are great if your family was here then. The family that I am researching wasn't. I really didn't like their interface. I think my subscription expires in a couple of days.

True, Ancestry doesn't have everything. Although it seems lately that they like "eye candy" more than substance. I have found a dozen or more records that come from collections that are not on Ancestry.