> The one thing that I found puzzling was that only 20% of Rootsweb
> users used Ancestry in one particular period. I would have expected
> the Rootsweb to Ancestry figure to be considerably higher since
> Ancestry is regularly mentioned on the lists.
>
> That only 25% of Ancestry users used Rootsweb, doesn't surprise me
> since there isn't an obvious link from one to the other.
Actually, I would think it would be the otherway around. People who
habitually focus on RootsWeb Sources possibly do so because they
don't want to pay a service like ancestry, Perfectly reasonable,
but that would suggest RootsWeb Users wouldn't use Ancestry as much
as you would expect.
On the other hand, Ancestry users ARE willing to pay the fee. But
at the same time, that doesn't mean they wouldn't make use of a free
resource. If in truth, few Ancestry users bother with RootsWeb
(doubtful, but that's what was said), then that would probably mean
they don't find RootsWeb resources that useful. I do subscribe, and
find both resources about equally valuable. Though now that I think
of it, some of the advantages of Ancestry (their transcriptions of
old genealogies, histories, etc.) are becoming less useful. Google
Books, and Project Gutenberg, and similar sites now include many of
the things I'm looking for---and they are free (except for having to
read the advertisements.)
Q
"Bill Willis" <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
