General Chat

Me too, Greg ;-)

Hi Greg,

Very interesting questions.

Glad to have taken part and I will look forward to more results.

Kind regards
Amanda

Done.

nudge

Roy

Fascinating results so far

I am wondering if the N/A answers are so high because it is in the first column? I ticked the first column then realised that it was the wrong column so changed it to the last column, which was the one I wanted. Just goes to show we should read things carefully before ticking.

Re Americans, many of them arent really interested in genealogy, they just want to boast a tree with large numbers in, preferably going back to Adam and Eve or earlier. (Sorry to those Americans who know how to research and have a real tree).

Having put my tree on GR for somewhere to have it, I found that Hot Matches could be helpful for making contact with distant relatives, i.e. 3rd cousins right back to 6th cousins. Then I found the chat boards and thoroughly enjoy chatting to lovely people all over the world on them. I cant afford a lot of money for joining other websites and GR is not expensive, even if it is very frustrating at times. If I can find the money I will join Ancestry for a year and try to get my sister 'divorced' from John Downing who was b in 1723. But I wont hold my breath on that one as I have tried with a free fortnight in the past. In the meantime the number of people with that error just keeps on growing (about 200 at the last count).

1. Don't mind

2. Certainly the census' might not be as important to those who have been researching for a long time, in that they may have exhausted them for info on their own family...but some of the parish records ( eg for London) have only recently been put on line and are invaluable, so those N/A statistics surprise me.

3. Very important to look at BMD and census for new researchers, because so many start off relying on word of mouth from family, often wrongly.

4. GR community has a wealth of experience amongst the members, it is GR's biggest asset that the members help ( and remember that the site did not hold records initially so people who joined early on joined for the forums ).

5, Other than point 2, the results were as I expected.

Hi Greg

I have PM'd you

You will see my answers mirror what Roy has said in his post

All the best

Lolly

In answer to your questions


1. Do you prefer to consider yourself a genealogist or a family historian?

Family Historian - i tend to do my own really & watch WDYTYA I dont do them professionally - would love to if I could afford to

2. Why are BMD, Parish and Census records so often marked N/A? Is it because you have been doing this for so many years that those records are well and truly worked through and you need more detailed records now?

Very useful when I started - but as you said I am way past that stage now - have been for over 15 years - I need the older records now

We need more Parish record access


3. If the suggested reason from 2. Is correct, would you give more importance to the BMD and Census records to researcher new to family history?

They are very important when you start research - they give you proof

4. Genes Reunited bode pretty poorly in many of the questions, yet has the strongest community I have come across thus far. Is that why you all use it? Community? The forums?

I love the community and the help - but use the other sites for the records as i have already paid for it and dont see the point of paying twice and it does not help with parish Records - so its good for later years - not for the 1700 back

I wouldn't be this far forward now without some of the people from the GR community & the help they give me & others for research

5. Do you have some general comments with regards to the briefly summarised interim results above?

I think Ancestry seems to be the popular one - I have tried The Geneologist but it does not have Parish records for the areas I need - so at the moment its not worth paying for - where as Ancestry covers loads of different areas - I have outgrown FMP now as only keep it as I have loads of credits to use up & help friends -

I have no use for the War records or military ones as none of the family on either side were in any of the services in any wars & I have three very large family trees. Never used any of the business directories as no-one had any businesses either - so no use.

I think GR is the best one for Forums and getting help from others - everyone (well 98% at least are always friendly & very helpful)

Good luck in your research & i would love to hear how you got on

Answers to your questions

1. family historian

2. N/A, I rated them as very important

3. N/A because i always advise for people to back the theory up with documentary evidence an example, In the case of the bmd index that would include purchasing the cert to confirm the details

4. simple answer is that the community is GR's best asset for members wanting help, GR it's self as a resource for researching is imho very expensive and very hit and miss with the reliability on searches and only has access to a limited amount of records


5. See my post 31 Jul 2012 15:24 above but i will add to this later

Roy

I'm with you, Roy. But I am assuming that these people have answered N/A because they are not important to them, any more. Seeing as most respondents have been researching their family for over 5 years, I guess they have already covered those records and no longer find them important.

But what I really wanted to know was if they are important to users in general, especially at the beginning of research. which is why I have added these statistics and questions here, today. To give folk a chance to explain.

So this is a call out to any person who rated those records as N/A. What is your reasoning?

Thanks
Greg

Well Greg, I am astounded lost for words and gobsmacked all in one at the results for

- A lot of interesting trends in the types of records used/valued.
- - 94% of people put N/A for BMD records
- - 94% of people put N/A for Census records (1841-1901)
- - 85% of people put N/A for Census records (1911)
- - 80% average N/A over Parish Records

If these records are not applicable, used or valued how on earth have any of those who answered N/A manage to have a tree at all when these records are the basic building blocks of any family tree

Roy

Done.

Sue

Interim results update:

I thought some of you might like to see how the survey results are stacking up so far. Also, if you disagree with trends here, it gives you a chance to go and do the survey to get your voice heard (assuming you haven't done so yet).

Further, I have a few questions that I would like to get some responses too on here, stemming from trends in the survey.

Here goes... it is just a summary of facts. Enjoy
----
- 295 responses (so far)
- 76% female
- Average age is 56 with almost 90% of respondents over 50
- Just 7 under 40 and only 1 of those under 30

- 80% are UK respondents. Canada 6.1%, Aus 4.4%, US 4.1% NZ 3.1% (interesting considering how keen US is supposed to be on genealogy)

- 50% with secondary school, 43% with higher education

- 85% have been researching more than 5 years

- 98% research own family, 10.5% do this for clients

- Software used by 72%, of those 62% use Ancestry's Family Tree Maker
- Other software well used were Legacy Family Tree (11%), RootsMagic (8%) and Family Historian (about 7%)

- A lot of interesting trends in the types of records used/valued.
- - 94% of people put N/A for BMD records
- - 94% of people put N/A for Census records (1841-1901)
- - 85% of people put N/A for Census records (1911)
- - 80% average N/A over Parish Records

- - Business directories, education records, occupation directories, and other family trees were the most important records (generally) with about 80% of people rating important or very important.

- Full site search, search faceting, and regional search are the most important site features with address search and collection search not far behind.

- Forums are more important than guides and wikis. Online courses are not important to over 80% of respondents.

- Websites subscribed to/used are as follows (rounded to nearest whole number):
-- Ancestry – 88%
-- FreeBMD/CEN/REG – 77%
-- Family Search – 76%
-- Genes Reunited – 72%
-- National Archives – 66%
-- Find My Past – 65%
-- Origins Network – 12%
-- The Genealogist – 11%
-- World Vital Records – 10%
-- Family Relatives – 6%
- Scotland’s People was added 32 times by users. This equates to 11% of respondents.

- All of the sites were rated quite good in terms of quality and quantity of content. It is easier to show which received some poor ratings. They were:
-- Family Relatives – 20% poor or worse
-- Genes Reunited – 35% poor or worse (sorry guys)
-- Origins Network – 22% poor or worse
-- World Vital Records – 29% poor or worse
-- All other sites had less than 6.5% poor or worse

The following questions allowed users to select two sites for each category. So the total % look a little high.
- Best Search Features goes to:
-- Ancestry – 73% of repondents
-- Find My Past – 34%
-- FreeBMD/CEN/REG – 31%
-- Family Search – 23%
-- National Archives – 8%
-- Genes Reunited – 7%
-- The Genalogist – 3%
-- Origins Network – 1%
-- World Vital Records and Family Relatives were never selected


- Most content relevant to your family history
-- Ancestry – 74%
-- Find My Past – 35%
-- Family Search – 26%
-- FreeBMD/CEN/REG – 24%
-- National Archives – 9%
-- Genes Reunited – 7%
-- Everyone else, even less than 2%

- Websites offering the most unique content (not found on other sites) were:
-- Ancestry – 51%
-- National Archives – 34%
-- Find My Past – 30%
-- Family Search – 25%
-- FreeBMD/CEN/REG – 13%
-- Genes Reunited – 7%
- The rest, less than 3.5%

- Sites appearing to offer most content overall (according to marketing and image)
-- Ancestry – 82%
-- Find My Past – 38%
-- Family Search – 21%
-- National Archives – 11%
-- Genes Reunited and FreeBMD/CEN/REG – 8% each
-- the rest – 1% or less
- User friendliness of sites
-- Ancestry – 64%
-- Find My Past – 37%
-- FreeBMD/CEN/REG – 33%
-- Family Search – 17%
-- Genes Reunited – 9%
-- National Archives – 6%
-- The Genealogist – 1%
-- The rest were never selected

- 76% of you have visited an archive. 22% haven’t because it’s too far to go and 7% due to lack of time.

- 90% have used services provided by the Mormon church. Only 1 respondent cited religious reasons for not using them.

- 16% of respondents think it is unimportant to see a digital copy of original documents.

- 88% collate and save digital copies
- 84% have paid for copies of original records from an archive or pay-per-view site

:-( :-(
REGRETS
- 16% of respondents have regretted subscribing to a site or service
- Of those
-- 22% regretted subscribing to Genes Reunited
-- 12% to Ancestry
-- 4% to Find My Past
-- 4% to World Vital Records
-- 2% to Origins Network
-- 57% regretted subscribing to a site not listed. None of them were sites added to the survey by users. We may never know what sites they were.
Qualitative data collected about lessons learned needs to be collated and studied before I can make a summary here.

:-S :-S
The responses so far raise a few new questions. I will place them here somewhat unofficially but will also collate the answers later.
1. Do you prefer to consider yourself a genealogist or a family historian?
2. Why are BMD, Parish and Census records so often marked N/A? Is it because you have been doing this for so many years that those records are well and truly worked through and you need more detailed records now?
3. If the suggested reason from 2. Is correct, would you give more importance to the BMD and Census records to researcher new to family history?
4. Genes Reunited bode pretty poorly in many of the questions, yet has the strongest community I have come across thus far. Is that why you all use it? Community? The forums?
5. Do you have some general comments with regards to the briefly summarised interim results above?

Done ..

I've just done it too.

Done.

Emma

Done, good luck :-)

Carole

Done :-D

nudge

Roy