Last week in Numbers
In the past week, we have served 4.4 million searches during 476 thousand Visits by 239 thousand Visitors, resulting in 18.7 million Page Impressions.
Since launch that brings us to: 15.8 million searches, 2.34 million Visits, 1.26 million Visitors, 70.7 million Page Impressions.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Does the number of visits count every time I log on on to download and can’t get the transcript? That would add 5 a day fro the last 5 days, just for me! Today when I log on and go to my searches I can’t even see any hits that were ther yesterday.
GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER
January 28th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
the ireland 1911 census has free image downloads
what’s so different about the uk having to pay.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
matt,
I think the Irish Goverment pay for theirs and the UK one is a commercial venture. I think that what it is.
mark
January 30th, 2009 at 10:32 am
@mark: In Ireland, taxpayers fund the digitisation of the census. In the UK, it is effectively paid for only by those who access the records, including those overseas. I expect Dublin is funding the research of many US genealogists!
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hi Just been chatting to Ancestry in America on their free phone 0800 line and interestingly they said that they would be seeking to get the 1911 on subscription before 1911.
The reason they haven’t got it at the moment is because they are not into “pay as you go” which they would have had to do……interesting chat, interesting comments
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
@Tony: very interesting chat. To clarify, there will not be a subscription option available via 1911census.co.uk but there will be via findmypast.com later in the year.
I can’t comment on ancestry’s position but you could always google to look for any statements they have made regarding this.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Hi Ian….thanks for getting back and great news about later in the year reguarding the 1911 subscription offer, its going to be well worth it for both us and you.
Cheers
February 4th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Tony,
I also contacted Ancestry by email amd this was their reply I received,
“Ancestry.co.uk is keen to include the 1911 Census in our census collection - the most comprehensive collection of British censuses available online - when we are able to do so, however due to the nature of the distribution agreement with The National Archives, this census is currently only available pay per view via the 1911 Census website. It is not yet known when it will be available to publishers to provide within a subscription service. ”
February 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Mark
Thanks for the addition information reguarding Ancestry.
Its good we can talk about Ancesty within this Blog so thanks “iantester” for allowing us to do so as I assume you are the moderator.
Cheers
February 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I picked up a “cheat” last week on a forum showing how to get addresses by modifying the URL. This was quite useful and enabled me to identify family members before having to pay out for a transcription but this “loophole” now seems to have been plugged.
Could you say why this is? It was simply a method by which you were able to confirm that the image you were going to buy was actually for your relative and not some random person.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@Ste: unfortunately, this was being used by some people to attempt to avoid paying for transcripts. This is not fair to the vast majority of users and has therefore been closed.
Everyone should note that modifying the URL of the site, or any other form of hacking designed to give unauthorised access to paid records, violates the Terms & Conditions of using this site and that all attempts are monitored and logged.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Could you please explain “70.7 million Page Impressions.” does that relate to how many original images have been paid for?
As regards the cheat previously mentioned, I have downloaded £50 worth of originals pages that I would not otherwise have spent and I know of several other people who have done the same. Perhaps if you modified the information given in the search results to enable people to narrow down the possibilities they would not need to resort to cheats.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@Disgruntled: no, definitely not original images - it is simply the number of web pages that have been requested and served.
In terms of downloading incorrect information, unfortunately, that is one of the hazards (and perhaps the thrill of the chase) of genealogy - it gets even worse when you start trying to order BMD certificates for relatives with common names as I have been finding recently to my costs (curses on the Thomas and Smith lines).
We believe that we offer a very extensive range of search features to refine your search (and transcribe more fields than other census providers to help that process) but obviously we cannot guarantee you will find your ancestor first time, every time.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“In terms of downloading incorrect information, unfortunately, that is one of the hazards (and perhaps the thrill of the chase) of genealogy.”
Downloading incorrect information from the majority of web sites does not cost £3.50.
“We believe that we offer a very extensive range of search features to refine your search (and transcribe more fields than other census providers to help that process)”
I agree that the range of SEARCH features is second to none. But the details of RESULTS leaves a lot to be desired.
As to BMD certificates, with direct lines being Jones & Hughes I know of the difficulties, but I use other information to narrow down the results before spending money.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Ian
Thanks for the update. I knew it would be a matter of time before the “loophole” was plugged.
But as “Disgruntled” states, and I know this is supported by many, many people, the method offered for confirming the results of a search is quite poor and does not offer either a good service of value for money.
Most of us simply can’t afford to just keep buying more and more credits to download images which we then find aren’t for the correct person. In my view, I should know for certain from the index results that the image I am downloading belongs to my relative. You have developed a search facility capable of delivering these results but are preventing me from using it.
It is not “the thrill of the chase”, it is intensely frustrating and poor service.
I have no issue whatseoever with the commercial nature of this venture. As you mention, the users of the service should pay for it and not the taxpayers (or anybody else). Agreed totally. But I might as well be pouring money down the drain, really.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
@Ste: however, if you have a number of searches to carry out with some hit-and-miss inevitable, the subscription service available on findmypast.com later in the year will let you undertake this in a more cost-effective way.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Ian
Thanks for the reply.
The subscription service later in the year is exactly what I’m waiting for, and I readily acknowledge that the occasional hit and miss as being inevitable.
I take nothing away from the quality of the final stage of the service, the amazing images, web site performance (I well remember the 1901 debacle) and am perfectly happy with the pricing model. My gripe, as mentioned, is with the quality of the search&results, which I feel is poor.
But then of course, we’re all spoilt these days aren’t we. We want everything on a plate, straight away and free of charge
Now when I were a lad…….
(cont. P94)
February 5th, 2009 at 8:17 am
“The exclusive license granted to 1911census.co.uk only lasts for 6 months
from the final content launch - after that other providers will be able to
provide online access to the 1911 census at more affordable rates”
I for one am looking forward to this, because as soon as you get some competition you might start looking at your prices.
And who else thinks that regardless of what’s been said, if you read the above statement, little wonder we are still waiting for you to release the remaining counties.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Oh yes, David, I think we will be kept waiting a very long time for the Army and Navy sections, so that they can defer their “final content launch” as long as possible, and only then will the six month period of exclusivity begin. Not all of us were born yesterday.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I just had an email to another address (where I am not registered) purporting to be from FMP.
It said the operating name of the company is to change and T&M have changed. Is this spam??
February 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@David: it wasn’t spam: that email was from findmypast.com to an email address registered on findmypast.com about changes to that site rather than 1911census.co.uk.
Full details of the changes to findmypast.com are available on the findmypast.com blog:
http://blog.findmypast.com
February 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Thanks for the explanation; a mystery how my other address was on your list!
February 6th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
There is a problem with the counting of blog entries.
The front page of this blog currently says there are two comments.
On accessing the comments I find that there are 17!
February 6th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Why is this service SO expensive?
February 6th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I agree with CC’s sentiments. It’s far too expensive.
You are sitting on a gold mine at the moment, but unless you treat your
customers fairly at this stage, you will soon lose them once the competition
arrives. £3.50 for a single download is exorbitant. Have you considered how many people you are depriving of this service because of its cost?
February 6th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I agree with CC’s sentiments. It’s far too expensive.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I agree with the expence but it has still not stopped me just having a small amount of credits, could it not be the same price as the 1901 a lot of people out there are maybe retired or not working and do this not only as a hobbie but passes the time as well , please try and bring it down to a more affordable rate
February 7th, 2009 at 11:04 am
When the 1911 comes onto subscription I wonder will you need to have a FMP subscription and buy the 1911 as an add on or will we be able to purchase a separate 1911 subscription?
Also any chance of an update on where you are with the counties waiting to come on? It would be nice to have some kind of idea which county/counties may be next and an estimated time they will become available?
February 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
It may seem expensive but it is on a par with other recent releases from the National Archives. It also has to be remembered that this is a multi-million pound project and FMP/1911census/BrightSolid have to recover as much of their outlay as possible within a limited time. They are a commerical venture and if they don’t recoup their expenditure, they won’t be able to make any further databases available to us.
The 1901 was expensive when it was first release AND it crashed within 5 days of launch and spent the next seven months down. That hasn’t happened with the 1911 which indicates not only a greater understanding of the needs and requirements of the genealogical community but a greater investment by BrightSolid.
It would be interesting to know just how much the 1911 has cost.
The only thing I’m not wholly happy about is having to pay a supplement to my subscription in order to get unlimited access, even if it is with a discount, although why I appreciate why it’s being done.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I agree that it is a commercial venture and the National Archive has to recoup their expenses, but this IS without a doubt the most expensive site for family research.
A lot of genealogical research is guess work, but with only 6 search downloads per £6.95 it is going to cost an absolute fortune to do this. I agree with Dave, many people are going to abandon this census because it’s not financially viable. I’m sure more people would use this service if it could have been offered as a subscription service as well as a pay-per-view option.
Family history is so popular these days, that I can’t believe that costs could not have been recouped by charging for access in a different and more inclusive way. There is a credit crunch on after all…
February 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Personally, I think it is excellent value for money.
I don’t have to take a day off work to travel to the PRO or wherever and search amongst hundreds of different records for people who had moved or died and I didn’t know and consequently can’t find them. That does get a tad expensive when you break it down.
The transcripts are excellent in comparison with many others and the downloads are excellent quality.
My glass is definitely half full and I think the team are to be congratulated in supplying us with good value for money.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:49 am
@cc - the subscription option will be available via findmypast.com later in the year.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
While I agree that it is an excellent service and well worth the money for the original image if you have the correct person/family, but I and many others think it is too expensive for the hit & miss nature of the search results. How difficult would it be to show the place of birth in the result list? at least this would help to cut down on the amount of wasted credits. I am aware that this would not guarantee you have the correct person as other census returns show a person can give differing information with regard to this question but as things are at the moment we don’t have much to go on especially if it is a common name. Other people have suggested that if you spend credits to view a transcript of the household could we then view the original at less cost. I have purchased several pounds worth of credits since the launch but sadly I have wasted most of them on people/families that have no relevance to me. I will not be purchasing anymore unless the search results are improved.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:44 am
MLM
I have to agree that leaving out the place of birth from the results list, was a mistake, and for those who have very common names in their tree, such as myself, it is a nightmare narrowing down the results.
Along with others, the expense of credits, will limit me on the amount of transcripts that I can afford to view, and so will wait until it goes live on “Ancestry”, before I try to find the cadet branches of my family, as the cost would put me in the poorhouse!!!.
PS….To iantester and the crew. Thanks for finally giving us a tentative date for the release of the remaining counties.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Keenly awaiting North Yorkshire but unable to find reference to iantester’s information re release dates. Where can I find this?
Many thanks.
February 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Maybe it would be interesting to know what sort of income you have had from transcripts and from original pages - and what is the agreement with the National Archives?
February 16th, 2009 at 8:27 am
@David: unfortunately as we are a private company this information is confidential.
@Linda: this information is in the latest blog post.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
There is no reason why you can’t make it public
February 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Any truth in the rumour that the project is to be terminated because of the credit crunch.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
@jimbat: no truth whatsoever! Sounds like a very odd rumour!
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Just joined today - thinking reistration was a necessary option to access the ste at all. For some reason, there is a total failure of connection. Not a time out issue. The search completes and merely delivers a blank white page.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:46 am
At last - Wales gets the 1911! Good search facility but I do agree that it is expensive (even if the pricing structure is on par with the National Archives).
Most of us have many ancestral lines to look at whereas we probably wouldn’t need to access quite so much from the NA and therefore don’t mind that particular cost so much.
The quality of the original images is excellent but why do I have to pay more to access the transcriptions in addition to the original image simply to get the household address? Once the £3.50 has been paid surely I shouldn’t have to pay more to find out where my ancestors lived - this should be made available as a matter of course.
June 12th, 2009 at 6:37 am
@Deb - the address panel on the original image is bottom right, although often it is not comprehensively filled in because of the small size of the box: the transcription doesn’t include anything that’s not on the image as that is the primary source for the transcript information! HTH.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
I have only just found this blog and wanted to add something that is incorrect.
Iantester said “as a private company that is private” in response to a question asking for figures as to how much had been made from the images.
As a Limited company this should be in the end of year accounts that they have to publish at Companies House. Limited companies figures are only private during their tax year and not at the end which for brightsolid online publishing will be 7th Mar 2010.
I wonder also what the monopolies and mergers will think if they try to acquire any more genealogical sites. The company in my opinion should be investigated now like BAA was because they provide a poor and expensive service and have a far to great market share
Rob
March 8th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
@Rob: you are correct and are more than welcome to peruse our accounts when they are made available - you will be able to get them online via the Companies House website.
December 24th, 2010 at 5:58 am
Really interesting, I enjoyed reading this text, bookmark’d for later uses.
September 26th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
This website online is mostly a stroll-by for the entire information you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse right here, and also you’ll positively discover it.