Ancestry free Trial ?
Poul Petersen
you must tell about your credit card and number.
Is that normal procedure in USA ?
I don´t call the offer " free " - and I´m not going to take the offer.
Poul.
TwoSides22
you must tell about your credit card and number. Is that normal procedure in
USA ? >>
Hi Poul....I'm usually just a listener on this board, but I've just closed the
Ancestry.com window and given up the free trial for the same reason. I was
also annoyed that they wanted my phone number, which I pay to have unlisted. A
phony one worked there, maybe that will work for the credit card number too.
Jeanne
TwoSides22
Jeanne
Elfmaid
the snag is you have to notify them to cancel it or they will automatically
renew you on a monthly basis for their standard fee <zing!>
if you forget, they will tell you they can't refund it since it says you have to
cancel it yourself <and it will say that somewhere, very small, in an
unnoticeable place>.
I have found this to occur for online services, magazine subscriptions, et al.
B Keeton
unwritten policy to make the act of unsubscribe as difficult as possible.
There are some vendors who are so adept at this it is virtually impossible
to cancel your account online & must be done by registered letter.
Whatever services or programs you subscribe to with a recurring fee, if you,
just as an excercise, attempt to find the links to cancel your service, the
results of your search would make interesting reading.
dti
of combinations. The CC#s are not generated at random, there sets of
numbers that have certain significance (ie. if the # starts with 3 = Amex, 4
= Visa, 5 = MC, 6 = Discover, etc.). If you give a fake CC#, though, give a
fake name, too.
--
Diane I.
Life is good.
Email is dti (at) nyc.rr.com
"TwoSides22" <twosi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010816074651...@mb-mk.aol.com...
Peggy Heard
was charged the $60 for a year subscription. The lady was very rude when I
tried to explain I did not want to subscribe but had been unable to logon to
cancel.
Well I paid the darn $60, but I'm either to dumb to know where to get into
some of the areas or they are having problems
Cindy Igl
<3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk>:
I recently had a frustrating exchange with Ancestry.com. I tried to cancel
before the 14 day free trial and no luck (long story). Got stuck with the
charges.
My concern was that the yearly subscription was from the FIRST DAY of the
14 "free trial" to 365 days later... where the blankety-blank was the 14
days? I never got an answer, even after letters to the company. I did
speak to some nasty customer "no"-service people. Live and learn.
Here's one for you, I just got another 14 day free trial offer. NOT ME!!!
NO SIR!!!
Stephen R. Sherrill
of being stung for a membership is to cancel by phone during business hours
Pacific time BEFORE the trial period ends. Keep track of the days; you
won't get any warning the time is up and they won't block your access when
it ends. Good luck finding the phone number and instructions, they are
buried about 3 frames deep. You also will not get full access to their best
information with the free trial. The good stuff will still be blocked off.
I was not able to find anything significant that was not located in the
already free areas. They have sent me two free invitaions since my narrow
escape - I couldn't delete them quick enough.
"Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Poul Petersen
"Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Can see I did the right choice - not taking the " free offer "
Ancestry really need a better ethic behavior - and seems to use a slyly
procedure
Poul.
Liz
>
> If you accept a free trial from this bunch of highwaymen, the only way out
> of being stung for a membership is to cancel by phone during business hours
> Pacific time BEFORE the trial period ends. Keep track of the days; you
> won't get any warning the time is up and they won't block your access when
> it ends. Good luck finding the phone number and instructions, they are
> buried about 3 frames deep. You also will not get full access to their best
> information with the free trial. The good stuff will still be blocked off.
> I was not able to find anything significant that was not located in the
> already free areas. They have sent me two free invitaions since my narrow
> escape - I couldn't delete them quick enough.
I was interested in this thread because I was sure that in the past I
had taken up one of their free offers and found it to be genuine.
But on going to the site for the latest offer I see that they want my
credit card details. No way.
Can anyone else recollect that they used to genuinely give a 14 day
trial, around Christmas, I think, which did not require any cc details
in advance?
Since my research is primarily in UK they didn't have much that I
wanted. But given that this is an online resource I find it particularly
devious, especially for those of us outside the US, that the
subscription cannot be cancelled online as well.
Surely they must be aware of the bad press they generate every time they
issue these 'free' offers? or are there enough new suckers every time to
make it worthwhile? In other repects they seem to be a good searchable
database, and I have no problem with them charging for what they offer,
but this 'freebie' is very close to being a scam if they do not live up
to their clearly stated promise of easy unsubscribing.....
Liz (Greenwich UK)
johnf
You jogged my memory and I remember trying a free access offer at the
beginning of the year, definitely no C.C. information requested.
-- John
(To reply, ensure my address ends with .net.au)
"Liz" <pan...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B7E11...@dircon.co.uk...
Steven Gibbs
From: johnf <joh...@bigpond.net.a>
Newsgroups: alt.genealogy
Sent: 18 August 2001 09:20
Subject: Re: Ancestry free Trial ?
> You're right, Liz
>
> You jogged my memory and I remember trying a free access offer at the
> beginning of the year, definitely no C.C. information requested.
>
> -- John
> (To reply, ensure my address ends with .net.au)
>
There was a free trial - no CC - when they merged with Rootsweb.
Regards
Steven Gibbs
Bedford, England
Barry Norton
and after finding some good info decided I wanted to subscribe.
Barry Norton
"Liz"
kmp
that I was really looking for. I copied it - it was a picture of the
application for pension records for my great-great grandfather- and lost it,
thinking I'd get it with the NARA stuff. Well, I don't think it was...
Anyway, there isn't much there that couldn't be accessed with a little elbow
grease and good grace from others...
Just my 2 cents....
--
Kathy
Liz
By chance I have just read this in another Newsgroup. Since the lady
intended to publicise her unhappy experience I hope she won't mind my
copying it here .....
----------
From: "Kathy Ward" <kw...@hwcn.org>
To: <ance...@lists.postmastergeneral.com>, <sup...@ancestry-inc.com>,
<sup...@ancestry.com>, <ka...@myfamilyinc.com>, <sup...@myfamily.com>,
<edi...@ancestry-inc.com>
Subject: BEWARE-Ancestry.com Free Two Week Trial Subscription
Date: Fri, Aug 17, 2001, 06:29
After reading this, please forward this message to others who you think
are
interested in genealogy and perhaps save them from the same problem....
A Lesson to Learn About Using Your Credit Card Online (this happened to
me)
I won't use my credit card on the Internet anymore. I did once and this
is
what happened .... a real nightmare.
MAY 30
I decided to try a two-week trial subscription to Ancestry.com, a
genealogical website. Several parts of the web site are locked to
non-members. So I thought I'd give it a try and see what information I
could
find about my ancestors.
"There is no risk at all. You can cancel any time during your
trial membership and owe nothing."
Unfortunately, you have to give your credit card number before you get
your
free trial. I had never used my credit card online and won't ever again
after this experience.
JUNE 11
I used the trial membership but could find no additional information
about any of the people on my family's tree so decided a membership
would be
of
no use to me. Two days before the end of the trial period, on Monday,
June
11, I sent two messages to Ancestry.com (sup...@ancestry-inc.com) to
cancel
the free trial subscription. I also mentioned in the e-mails that the
1-800
262-3787 number they give for people who wish to cancel their
subscription
does not work from our area.
JUNE 12
Tera, Customer Solutions, MyFamily.com / Ancestry.com sent a
message. "We have received a request to cancel your account. Please note
that we do not cancel subscriptions via email. Please contact our
Account
Services at 1-800-262-3787 and they will be able to assist you."
I sent messages to several of the email addresses telling them the
number is not available from our calling area - Ontario, Canada.
Ka...@myfamilyinc.com
sup...@ancestry-inc.com
sup...@ancestry.com
Greg, Customer Solutions, MyFamily.com / Ancestry.com
"We will cancel that for you."
JUNE 19
I received an email message re a notice of shipment of Annual Data
Subscription with Genealogical Computing Magazine $59.95
I sent messages to advise them "I did not order anything."
order...@myfamilyinc.com also to sup...@ancestry-inc.com
JUNE 22
Note from Order status. "The confirmation of shipment you just
received is for the free gift offered with your membership to
Ancestry.com
site. .... included at no extra cost. We hope you that you enjoy your
free
gift."
I answered the "free gift" message giving all the details,... that I
had cancelled my subscription and had been assured that it would be
cancelled
etc....
Greg, Customer Solutions, MyFamily.com / Ancestry.com said I should
be calling 1-800 number to cancel.
I sent several more notes back reminding them that I was from
Ontario, Canada and could not use the 1-800 number and told them that I
had already received assurances earlier that my subscription was
cancelled.
JULY 3
Gabe, Customer Solutions, Ancestry.com "We have cancelled your
account effective immediately. We weren't able to get your account
cancelled
before it started billing so we will issue a full refund in the amount
of
$59.95 USD."
I sent a note back to Gabe explaining that I couldn't understand why
my account had not already been cancelled. I insisted that they remove
all
my information from their system.
JULY 6
Stephanie, Customer Solutions, Ancestry.com assures me "As you
requested, we have cancelled your account with Ancestry.com You access
to
online databases will expire on: 7/3/01
.... you will be receiving a credit for $59.95."
"I have also requested that your email address be removed from our
mailing
list. That request will probably take a few days to process."
JULY 10
I receive a notice. "Thank you for shopping MyFamily & Ancestry
Production Stores."
Order No. 5217075 Invoice No. 1 Shipped 27-Jun-2001 1 Ancestry Magazine
CD
(In Sleeve)
AUGUST 9
Received my second Visa Bill since I had cancelled my account on
June 11. The amount has not been credited and Visa has now added an
interest
charge on the unpaid balance.
I fired off an e-mail sent to many of their addresses (including the
editor
of the Ancestry.com newsletter) requesting a check in US dollars equal
to
$99.11 Canadian to be sent via courier and received no later than
Tuesday,
August 14. If I have not received a check by then, I would start
advising
others about this situation and tell others of my experience.
AUGUST 15
I sent to all three addresses a copy of this chronology and told them I
would be sending it to my local newspaper.
A reply came with another number 1-801-705-7000. I tried the number and
it
didn't appear to be a number for Ancestry.com.
I told them it was a wrong number and gave them my number to contact me.
Later that day I received an e-mail for a free two-week trial
subscription
to Ancestry.com!!!!!
AUGUST 16
Have again received an e-mail for a free two-week trial subscription to
Ancestry.com!!!!
I just can't believe this.
I have submitted this information to Allan Macrury who does the Action
Line
column in The Hamilton Spectator hoping he can help sort this mess out
and
hopefully save other readers from the same fate.
Kathy Ward
Stoney Creek, Ontario
kw...@hwcn.org
forwarded by
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Dave
"Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking the
offer
> you must tell about your credit card and number.
> Is that normal procedure in USA ?
> I don愒 call the offer " free " - and I惴 not going to take the offer.
> Poul.
>
>
Jack
World Genealogy & Cemetery Sites
efmb1970
CANCEL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EXPIRATION...they will renew and charge your cc
without your permission...I speak from experience :(
"Cindy Igl" <igl2n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9100B846F7...@24.2.4.74...
> "Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> wrote in
> <3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk>:
>
> > When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking the
> > offer you must tell about your credit card and number.
> > Is that normal procedure in USA ?
> > I don´t call the offer " free " - and I´m not going to take the offer.
> > Poul.
> >
> >
>
> I recently had a frustrating exchange with Ancestry.com. I tried to
cancel
> before the 14 day free trial and no luck (long story). Got stuck with the
> charges.........
>
Anty
interesting. I just wish I could have read it before I tried the service!
I subscribed for one quarter, and actually found that I liked their service.
At quarter end I had decided to cancel until a later date, knowing I was
going to be too busy to do much research for a bit.
After several emails I found that you can NOT cancel a subscription online.
I am at work during their business hours when you supposedly can call and
cancel, so just having to take the time from work to make the call attempts
was very inconvenient. The first number they gave me was always
"unavailable." After many attempts, I finally got thru the day AFTER my
renew date.
I agree with whoever it was termed these NO service people. The guy was
positively gleeful in his attitude while telling me my card would be charged
anyway for a service I didn't want and had not logged into since my attempts
to cancel.
I called my credit card people, sent them all the emails regarding this
transaction and my attempts to cancel. They credited my account. I'm happy
that I kept all correspondence regarding this transaction!
"Dave" <pcco...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:BUxf7.877$sn.3...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
> It certainly isn't a company that I want to do business with.
>
>
> "Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> wrote in message
> news:3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> > When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking the
> offer
> > you must tell about your credit card and number.
> > Is that normal procedure in USA ?
> > I don´t call the offer " free " - and I´m not going to take the offer.
> > Poul.
> >
> >
>
>
silvagirl
believe you all saved me money and headaches!
Silvagirl
Richard A. Pence
news:Iczf7.6500$D4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Be sure, if you have (or got stuck with!) a year's subscription,
that you
> CANCEL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EXPIRATION...they will renew and charge
your cc
> without your permission...I speak from experience :(
Actually, they do have your permission. When you sign up, it
clearly says (at least it did when I signed up) that your credit
card will be billed annually unless you notify them of your desire
to cancel. You agreed to that when you signed up.
Regards,
Richard
Donald E Sessler
me grief from time to time is that I print out what I agree to. Mastercard
has helped me out 2 times when I put item into dispute and sent them copy of
what I agreed to.
Better to pay a little postage rather than $$$.
"Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:9lp1np$mk6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
efmb1970
for those that forget when their year is up)...which they don't/didn't.
"Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:9lp1np$mk6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Richard A. Pence
> They ALSO state that they will notify you BEFOREHAND
> (probably as a reminder for those that forget when their
> year is up)...which they don't/didn't.
I was called and, when I checked with my friends, they say they
were called. So I have to wonder if (a) you entered the right
phone number (or changed it during the year) or (b) if you were
available when they tried to call.
There seems to be some unnammed "law" here: Those who plan on
renewing always seem to get called and those who have a bitch
never seem to get called. I often wonder why that it . . .
Regards,
Richard
Mary Jo Benjamin
you can get hold of any people, and are absolutely NO Help.
Bob
"Cindy Igl" <igl2n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9100B846F7...@24.2.4.74...
efmb1970
to be renewed...just said that I would have appreciated being asked first.
And just as YOU know people who were asked, I know people who weren't. I
was trying to be helpful by letting others know about ANC subscriptions and
renewals...having a bad day??
"Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:9lrnok$7t0$2...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
efmb1970
"Mary Jo Benjamin" <4benj...@networksplus.net> wrote in message
news:Fodg7.217$vI2....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Yes, and their people are almost the most surley that I have spoken to,
when
> you can get hold of any people, and are absolutely NO Help.
>
> Bob
> "Cindy Igl" <igl2n...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9100B846F7...@24.2.4.74...
> > "Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> wrote in
> > <3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk>:
> >
> > > When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking the
> > > offer you must tell about your credit card and number.
> > > Is that normal procedure in USA ?
> > > I don愒 call the offer " free " - and I惴 not going to take the offer.
Liz
Clearly that is happening with some people .... but do they really call
persons outside the USA?
I don't know if you read the piece I forwarded from the Canadian lady
who was unable to use the phone number given to unsubscribe ....
If there is a difficulty with subscribers outside US would it not be
better to say so upfront? It does say on the current 'free trial' site
that cancelling will be easy and quite clearly for some people it is
not.
I think it a great shame that an otherwise value for money database is
putting its reputation at risk every time one of these offers comes up.
yes, there are bound to be some people who just forgot to cancel and
then got agitated when they were charged ... but I have seen reports
from what appeared to be level-headed individuals who made every effort
to be timely but were thwarted and left out of pocket .... I cannot help
but think there is a serious flaw in the system which is costing
Ancestry a lot of goodwill.
It might be a good thing if those who feel positive about Ancestry and
what it has to offer put a little gentle pressure on them to sort out
this repetitive PR disaster .....
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Heather Figueroa
> Richard A. Pence wrote:
> >
> > "efmb1970" <republi...@byteme.com> wrote in message
> > news:yIbg7.338$ZN5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > They ALSO state that they will notify you BEFOREHAND
> > > (probably as a reminder for those that forget when their
> > > year is up)...which they don't/didn't.
> >
> > I was called and, when I checked with my friends, they say they
> > were called. So I have to wonder if (a) you entered the right
> > phone number (or changed it during the year) or (b) if you were
> > available when they tried to call.
> >
> > There seems to be some unnammed "law" here: Those who plan on
> > renewing always seem to get called and those who have a bitch
> > never seem to get called. I often wonder why that it . . .
>
> Clearly that is happening with some people .... but do they really
call
> persons outside the USA?
>
> I don't know if you read the piece I forwarded from the Canadian lady
> who was unable to use the phone number given to unsubscribe ....
Liz.....I wrote the Canadian Lady and advised her to phone Visa and have
them do a 'charge back' to Ancestry as she had good reason to do so.
She is looking into it, as others had written her with the same advice.
If you don't order something and get charged for it, etc., the credit
card folks will charge it back, with some proof of same from the
consumer.
Heather
Donald E Sessler
a credit card company:
1. Call them to let them know what item is in dispute. They will record this
in their system BUT YOU MUST follow up with letter to them stating your
case. I when dealing over internet make a snapshot of what I am sending
which shows what the offer said. I send this with letter outlining my
objection.
2. They will contact involved company and generally it is taken off within
at most 2 billing cycles. Interest does not accrue on outstanding balance.
Should the credit card company side with the company then you will be
assessed finance charges plus you have to pay. This is only fair!
3. This goes to prevent User Fraud! And importantly don't let issue drag.
Some people are hesitant to open their CC Bill when it comes in.
Don
"Heather Figueroa" <heat...@CASEYsprint.ca> wrote in message
news:V7gg7.3935$j_2....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
Richard A. Pence
> money database is putting its reputation at risk
> every time one of these offers comes up.
> yes, there are bound to be some people who just
> forgot to cancel and then got agitated when they
> were charged ... but I have seen reports from what
> appeared to be level-headed individuals who made
> every effort to be timely but were thwarted and left
> out of pocket .... I cannot help but think there is a
> serious flaw in the system which is costing Ancestry
> a lot of goodwill.
I totally, emphatically agree. Not only is the system obviously
flawed, I think the whole concept is flawed. This is what you
expect from fly-by-night outfits. Ancestry, Inc., in its
before-Intenet life, was one of the most reputable of a fine lot
of genealogical booksellers. Its entry into the Internet market
brought with it some big-money financing. I am afraid that what we
are seeing is the result of the fast-money people pushing for
immediate results at the risk of long-term success.
> It might be a good thing if those who feel positive
> about Ancestry and what it has to offer put a little
> gentle pressure on them to sort out this repetitive
> PR disaster .....
Again, I totally agree. Unfortunately, I am not sure the those I
am acquainted with in the company have any control over this
aspect of their marketing.
In my working life, I was a public relations consultant who
traveled throughout the U.S. advising small companies that were
having public relations or customer relations problems. It simply
astonishes me to watch as Ancestry seems to be operating its
business by each day selecting a new item from the list marked
"WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T EVER DO THIS."
Incredible.
Regards,
Richard
Richard A. Pence
> What's your problem?? I wasn't "bitching" nor did I
> ever say I didn't WANT to be renewed...just said that
> I would have appreciated being asked first.
Here is the entirety of your message:
> > They ALSO state that they will notify you BEFOREHAND
> > (probably as a reminder for those that forget when their
> > year is up)...which they don't/didn't.
If that ain't a bitch, I never heard one.
As for my problem, I am quite sure it is Republicans who think
they can rule.
Regards,
Richard
Diane Q. Stamps
subscription to ancestry.com
Check at Legacy and download a standard free version of Legacy 3.0. You
might find information about a free month subscription to Ancestry.com.
"Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking the
offer
> you must tell about your credit card and number.
> Is that normal procedure in USA ?
> I don´t call the offer " free " - and I´m not going to take the offer.
> Poul.
>
>
efmb1970
> "efmb1970" <republi...@byteme.com> wrote in message
> > > They ALSO state that they will notify you BEFOREHAND
> > > (probably as a reminder for those that forget when their
> > > year is up)...which they don't/didn't.
>
> If that ain't a bitch, I never heard one.
Bitch, no...statement of fact...YES.
> As for my problem, I am quite sure it is Republicans who think
> they can rule.
But Richard, we DO rule. You're not only showing your politics, but your
lack of tolerance and/or intelligence.
Good Day.
Robert Heiling
> <snip>
> I totally, emphatically agree. Not only is the system obviously
> flawed, I think the whole concept is flawed. This is what you
> expect from fly-by-night outfits. Ancestry, Inc., in its
> before-Intenet life, was one of the most reputable of a fine lot
> of genealogical booksellers. Its entry into the Internet market
> brought with it some big-money financing. I am afraid that what we
> are seeing is the result of the fast-money people pushing for
> immediate results at the risk of long-term success.
>
> <snip> It simply
> astonishes me to watch as Ancestry seems to be operating its
> business by each day selecting a new item from the list marked
> "WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T EVER DO THIS."
I was very happy to see you post this and especially so because your
other posts on this topic seem to be of the nature that Ancestry could
do no wrong and I found that very disappointing.
My subscription which I'd had for years as opposed to months was allowed
to expire after their obscene percentage increase. Then my 14 day "free"
offer was received via email spam. This is NOT a free 14 day trial! A
credit card number is not necessary for a *free* trial as there is no
charge for something that is free. So why are they asking for one? The
track record shows that they hoped people would forget or be unable to
opt-out and Ancestry could collect that money then. What a slime-bucket
operation! I urge anyone in this situation to contact their credit card
company for a reversal of the charges.
It might have been reasonable for Ancestry to request the identification
portion. Then after the 14 day "free" period has ended, an email could
be sent saying it was hoped that the party had been satisfied with the
trial and requesting a signup and credit card information at that point.
That's an opt-in approach and would have saved everyone a lot of
trouble. Why signup and charge people who don't want the service?
Best regards
Bob
Richard A. Pence
news:3B830093...@qwest.net...
> "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > I totally, emphatically agree. Not only is the system
obviously
> > flawed, I think the whole concept is flawed. This is what you
> > expect from fly-by-night outfits. Ancestry, Inc., in its
> > before-Intenet life, was one of the most reputable of a fine
lot
> > of genealogical booksellers. Its entry into the Internet
market
> > brought with it some big-money financing. I am afraid that
> > what we are seeing is the result of the fast-money people
> > pushing for immediate results at the risk of long-term
> > success.
> I was very happy to see you post this and especially so
> because your other posts on this topic seem to be of
> the nature that Ancestry could do no wrong and I found
> that very disappointing.
Bob, if you'll review my other messages I think you will find that
I was reminding those who were complaining that none of this
should have come as a shock to them. It is pretty much spelled out
when you sign up.
> My subscription which I'd had for years as opposed to
> months was allowed to expire after their obscene
> percentage increase.
What increase? I signed up years ago and my annual subscription
has never changed.
Regards,
Richard
TwoSides22
<< This is NOT a free 14 day trial! >>
And they don't intend it to be. I wrote to them and asked why they wanted my
credit card for a "free" trial and this was their response:
"Thank you for your e-mail.
A credit card is required to activate your 14 day free trial toreserve
your paid subscription. You will not be charged during the initial 14
days, and you may cancel your membership during that time without risk
of being charged. If you do not cancel your membership within your 14
free days, your credit card will be charged $69.95 for 12 months of
access to over one billion names on Ancestry.com (all databases except
Census Images Online). You will also receive the Ancestry Magazine CD
(which includes articles from 1994-1999) as a FREE gift (PC version,
$49.95 retail value).
To activate your 14 day free trial, go to
http://www.ancestry.com/freetrial and enter your access code. If you do
not have an access code, you can use F11HS
If there is anything else we can assist you with, please let us know.
TwoSides22
and asked them where they got the idea I wanted to reserve anything. All I
wanted was the "free" trial. I haven't heard anything else yet.
Jeanne
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B830093...@qwest.net...
> > "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > I totally, emphatically agree. Not only is the system obviously
> > > flawed, I think the whole concept is flawed. This is what you
> > > expect from fly-by-night outfits. Ancestry, Inc., in its
> > > before-Intenet life, was one of the most reputable of a fine lot
> > > of genealogical booksellers. Its entry into the Internet market
> > > brought with it some big-money financing. I am afraid that
> > > what we are seeing is the result of the fast-money people
> > > pushing for immediate results at the risk of long-term
> > > success.
>
> > I was very happy to see you post this and especially so
> > because your other posts on this topic seem to be of
> > the nature that Ancestry could do no wrong and I found
> > that very disappointing.
>
> Bob, if you'll review my other messages I think you will find that
> I was reminding those who were complaining that none of this
> should have come as a shock to them. It is pretty much spelled out
> when you sign up.
My *feeling* on reading them was that you had taken that approach that
the victim had made some error as opposed to there being a problem with
Ancestry. They had *not* wanted to sign up and be charged. If their
credit card numbers had not been requested, that would not have
happened. If the user interface had been clearer and more usable, that
would not have happened. Please don't look for ways to blame the victim!
> > My subscription which I'd had for years as opposed to
> > months was allowed to expire after their obscene
> > percentage increase.
>
> What increase? I signed up years ago and my annual subscription
> has never changed.
How's this for starters? "Ancestry.com Announces Price Increase -
Effective 15 June 2001, annual subscriptions to Ancestry.com's popular
data subscription will be $69.95. Subscriptions to the U.S. Federal
Census Images will also increase by $10.00 to $69.95 for stand-alone
subscriptions. Individual quarterly subscriptions will be increased by
$5.00 to $24.95, at the same time."
If you have an annual, then it went from $59.95 to $69.95. My own
quarterly subscription at $19.95 went up an outrageous 25% to $24.95. I
allowed it to lapse and will not do business with Ancestry again. That's
what I was referring to.
Bob
TwoSides22
password to access the site for free for SEVEN days. I don't usually look a
gift horse in the mouth, but it just doesn't sit right. I wrote back and asked
why I wasn't given the full 14 day period of their original and UNSOLICITED
email offer. I'll keep you posted. Maybe a few hundred complaints would get
them to change their policy.
Jeanne
TwoSides22
or 13 days, and I was given the impression it could be extended even after
that. Both of the representatives I was in contact with by email were
courteous and did what they could to make the customer happy. After reading
all the posts of this thread, I'm very glad I never supplied them with my
credit card number, but glad I challenged them.
Jeanne
Always Lynne
Date: 8/18/01 1:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time wrote:
". . . the only way out
of being stung for a membership is to cancel by phone during business hours
Pacific time BEFORE the trial period ends. "
WRONG !!!! I canceled my "free" subscription on day 12, BEFORE the trial
period ended. I was told that they "just" charged me that morning for a year's
subscription, but they would cancel that subscription "right away". Imagine my
surprise when three weeks later, I get my credit card bill with the charge on
it! The credit card company told me that it sometimes takes them as long as
two weeks to process a credit, but after looking at their records, there was no
credit to process!
I then recalled Ancestery and asked where was my credit. The operator looked
at my records and told me none was given! She then assured me that they would
credit my account "immediately"! Two weeks later, I called my credit card
company... no credit from Ancestery. Another call to Ancestery... another
promise to "immediately" credit my account... another broken promise! Three
months later and way too many calls to my credit card company and Ancestery, I
finally have that charge off my bill.
Will I ever do business with Ancestery again? ahhhhhhhh.... NO!
Robert C. Long
I was tempted until I saw this thread. How can they stay in business with
this kind of ethics?
Regars, Bob
Poul Petersen wrote:
> "Poul Petersen" <pou...@mail.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3b7b6821$0$97078$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
> > When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking the
> offer
> > you must tell about your credit card and number.
> > Is that normal procedure in USA ?
> > I don´t call the offer " free " - and I´m not going to take the offer.
> > Poul.
> >
> Thank you to all -
> Can see I did the right choice - not taking the " free offer "
> Ancestry really need a better ethic behavior - and seems to use a slyly
> procedure
>
> Poul.
Peggy Heard
credit card there was a charge for $59.95, I called them & told them I did
not subscribe for it. The lady was very rude, said I should the print
before hand, I tried to explain I couldn't get on line to cancel. I also
think they should send reminder, they sure are free with all their FREE
trial notices.
My husband wasn't one to "make a fuss" , I paid the darn bill & told the
rude lady that I would but you could just bet I'd not subscribe to anything
else of theirs nor buy anything.
Just my thoughts on this mess.
Robert Heiling
> I tried the FREE? 10 day trial. I was off line for awhile. When I got my
> credit card there was a charge for $59.95, I called them & told them I did
> not subscribe for it. The lady was very rude, said I should the print
> before hand, I tried to explain I couldn't get on line to cancel. I also
> think they should send reminder, they sure are free with all their FREE
> trial notices.
From the various experiences I've been reading about they seem to specialize in
rudeness.
> My husband wasn't one to "make a fuss" , I paid the darn bill & told the
> rude lady that I would but you could just bet I'd not subscribe to anything
> else of theirs nor buy anything.
You should have contacted your credit card company to reverse that charge. It
may not be too late to do that and $60 that you got nothing for should be
enough reason to "make a fuss".<g>
> Just my thoughts on this mess.
Bob
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
If you do not read carefully (and possibly take action) they also
may renew you a year from now.
Mike Block - Tax Cut CPA
#1 QuickBooks Top Tester
FREE NetLedger accounting &
462p QB book,error codes,shortcuts
120+ QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/
-----------------------------------
Spam bait admin@localhost abuse@localhost
webmaster@localhost postm...@127.0.0.1
enfor...@sec.gov cyber...@nasaa.org
Alexander Moon
it.
Likely you used a credit card. A simple letter to your credit card company
would
have back-charged that bill to them. You did not keep the trial after ten
days,
and you did not have to pay. I would STILL complain to your card company.
=================================================
ETM
here.
It apparently doesn't matter that you weren't on line. From everything said
on the mailing lists you are required to cancel by telephone (800#) and
could not have successfully canceled via the internet. If you are still
within 60 days of the charge, write a letter to Ancestry that you did *not*
subscribe for a year, and ask your bank to back out the charge as being
disputed. If you are beyond 60 days from the charge to your account, then
take full advantage of the Ancestry offerings because I think you are a
yearly subscriber.
Good luck!
Elaine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peggy Heard" <phea...@bellsouth.net>
To: <ALT-GEN...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestry NOT free Trial ?
> I tried the FREE? 10 day trial. I was off line for awhile. When I got my
> credit card there was a charge for $59.95, I called them & told them I did
> not subscribe for it. The lady was very rude, said I should the print
> before hand, I tried to explain I couldn't get on line to cancel. I also
> think they should send reminder, they sure are free with all their FREE
> trial notices.
>
> My husband wasn't one to "make a fuss" , I paid the darn bill & told the
> rude lady that I would but you could just bet I'd not subscribe to
anything
> else of theirs nor buy anything.
>
> Just my thoughts on this mess.
>
***********
> This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason:
>
> Each of the following recipients was rejected by a remote mail server.
> The reasons given by the server are included to help you determine why
> each recipient was rejected.
>
> Recipient: <phea...@bellsouth.net>
> Reason: Invalid recipient: <phea...@bellsouth.net>
Robert Heiling
> The poster's address apparently is not a good address. I am posting reply
> here. <snip>
As a general rule, responses to posts should appear in the newsgroup unless
there are over-riding reasons not to such as privacy. Posting to the newsgroup
gives everyone the benefit of knowing what information has been passed on and
avoids duplication of effort. In the case of some recent lookups, the people
doing the lookups have really been on the ball by posting here that a private
email had been sent, but avoiding the details of the lookup. That's sharp! :-)
Bob
Hank C
the same boat.
Hank
Richard A. Pence
> ETM wrote:
>
> > The poster's address apparently is not a good address. I am
posting reply
> > here. <snip>
>
> As a general rule, responses to posts should appear
> in the newsgroup unless there are over-riding reasons
> not to such as privacy. Posting to the newsgroup gives
> everyone the benefit of knowing what information has
> been passed on and avoids duplication of effort.
"As a general rule" I seldom find fault with your postings. But
...
Bob, you are making that up, right? Nearly every FAQ concerning
newsgroup partiicpation states pretty much the opposite: Responses
should be sent privately unless the the responder (at his or her
option) feels that the reply is of general interest to the group.
That's why a munged return address is breach of netiquette.
> In the case of some recent lookups, the people doing the
> lookups have really been on the ball by posting here that
> a private email had been sent, but avoiding the details of
> the lookup. That's sharp! :-)
I thought it was, too. But that's not quite the same thing as
privately advising someone regarding a credit card charge. In this
case Elaine was correct in thinking she should have replied
privately.
Regards,
Richard
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B87EA6F...@qwest.net...
> > ETM wrote:
> >
> > > The poster's address apparently is not a good address. I am
> posting reply
> > > here. <snip>
> >
> > As a general rule, responses to posts should appear
> > in the newsgroup unless there are over-riding reasons
> > not to such as privacy. Posting to the newsgroup gives
> > everyone the benefit of knowing what information has
> > been passed on and avoids duplication of effort.
>
> "As a general rule" I seldom find fault with your postings. But
> ...
>
> Bob, you are making that up, right?
Nope!<g>
> Nearly every FAQ concerning
> newsgroup partiicpation states pretty much the opposite: Responses
> should be sent privately unless the the responder (at his or her
> option) feels that the reply is of general interest to the group.
That's basically what I said isn't it? I mean how much detail am I
forced to give so that it won't be misunderstood? Responses to *all*
postings in a newsgroup should be in the *newsgroup* unless - - - it's a
private matter, it's of no general interest, etc. That posting was of
general interest as there has been a long thread on this matter and many
lurkers probably got caught in that trap also.
> That's why a munged return address is breach of netiquette.
Under what circumstances? I know some, but let's hear your reasons.
> > In the case of some recent lookups, the people doing the
> > lookups have really been on the ball by posting here that
> > a private email had been sent, but avoiding the details of
> > the lookup. That's sharp! :-)
>
> I thought it was, too. But that's not quite the same thing as
> privately advising someone regarding a credit card charge. In this
> case Elaine was correct in thinking she should have replied
> privately.
We don't agree on that. She should have noticed that her advice had
already been given and saved herself the effort, but posting to the
newsgroup alerts the general public that something in particular has
already been said so that others don't waste their time giving the same
answer. See my paragraph above regarding the lookups (and you agreed<g>)
for a good example of what I'm saying.
> Regards,
> Richard
Bob
ETM
The only reason I publicly shared what I considered a private email was
because I always doubt the claims when an address doesn't work.
Sorry I might have publicly repeated information already shared with the
group. I tend to skim messages.
Elaine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net>
To: <ALT-GEN...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestry NOT free Trial ?
> ETM wrote:
>
> > The poster's address apparently is not a good address. I am posting
reply
> > here. <snip>
>
> As a general rule, responses to posts should appear in the newsgroup
unless
> there are over-riding reasons not to such as privacy. Posting to the
newsgroup
> gives everyone the benefit of knowing what information has been passed on
and
> avoids duplication of effort. In the case of some recent lookups, the
people
> doing the lookups have really been on the ball by posting here that a
private
> email had been sent, but avoiding the details of the lookup. That's sharp!
:-)
>
> Bob
>
>
>
Robert Heiling
> Bob,
>
> The only reason I publicly shared what I considered a private email was
> because I always doubt the claims when an address doesn't work.
That person is a regular in this newsgroup and I have no doubt as to her claim.
A lot of people have been caught in the trap that was set by Ancestry.
> Sorry I might have publicly repeated information already shared with the
> group. I tend to skim messages.
That's wasn't any big deal and requires no apology, but it made a good
discussion point.
> Elaine
btw: You cc'ed me on this posting which is a practice that is unnecessary and
one that I dislike strongly. I read the newsgroups and follow the posts there.
Bob
Richard A. Pence
> "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
>
> > "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net> wrote:
> > > As a general rule, responses to posts should appear
> > > in the newsgroup unless there are over-riding reasons
> > > not to such as privacy. Posting to the newsgroup gives
> > > everyone the benefit of knowing what information has
> > > been passed on and avoids duplication of effort.
> > Nearly every FAQ concerning
> > newsgroup partiicpation states pretty much the opposite:
> Responses should be sent privately unless the the responder
> (at his or her option) feels that the reply is of general
interest
> to the group.
> That's basically what I said isn't it? I mean how much
> detail am I forced to give so that it won't be misunderstood?
> Responses to *all* postings in a newsgroup should be in the
> *newsgroup* unless - - - it's a private matter, it's of no
general
> interest, etc.
Bob - I understood what you said. However, I do believe you didn't
read what I wrote. It was the OPPOSITE of your statement.
According to long-standing netiquette, newsgroup participants
shoud ALWAYS reply privately UNLESS they (and the option is
theirs) decide the response is of general interst to the group.
> That posting was of
> general interest as there has been a long thread on this
> matter and many lurkers probably got caught in that
> trap also.
I disagree. Ellen's instinct to reply privately was the correct
one.
> > That's why a munged return address is breach of netiquette.
> Under what circumstances? I know some, but let's hear your
> reasons.
For starters, a good many of the questions here have been
answeeered so often that I deem it proper to reply via e-mail. I
am quite tired spending a lot of time writing responses to people
who are asking for help and having the message bounce. People who
make it didificult to respond don't deserve the help they are
seeking.
> We don't agree on that. She should have noticed that her
> advice had already been given and saved herself the effort,
Oh, goodness, Bob - you know perfectly well that messages to a
newsgroup show up in no particular order (and as our recent
private exchange has noted, some messages don't show up in
everyone's incoming mail). Just a few moments ago, I saw your
message giving advice to the person who asked about LDS CDs. That
query came through here well over a week ago. Your response, dated
19 Aug (last Sunday), arrived this evening.
I want to repeat what I said at the outset: Newsgroup etiquette
says that messages should be answered privately UNLESS there is a
good reason to do otherwise (and that reason is in the eyes of the
responder). Your statement that messages should be responded to in
the group unless there is a good reason not to is new Usenet
policy. Perhaps you will want to see to it that the FAQs get
altered to conform.
Regards,
Richard
Lois
re-ordering and he said to cancel via the internet.. I told him that didn't
work and why and he said to call them directly.. I also got a letter from
Ancestry.com giving me a phone number to call by my cut off date..
LR
"efmb1970" <republi...@byteme.com> wrote in message
news:yIbg7.338$ZN5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: They ALSO state that they will notify you BEFOREHAND (probably as a
reminder
: for those that forget when their year is up)...which they don't/didn't.
:
:
: "Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
: news:9lp1np$mk6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
: > "efmb1970" <republi...@byteme.com> wrote in message
: > news:Iczf7.6500$D4.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
: > > Be sure, if you have (or got stuck with!) a year's subscription,
: > that you
: > > CANCEL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EXPIRATION...they will renew and charge
: > your cc
: > > without your permission...I speak from experience :(
: >
: > Actually, they do have your permission. When you sign up, it
: > clearly says (at least it did when I signed up) that your credit
: > card will be billed annually unless you notify them of your desire
: > to cancel. You agreed to that when you signed up.
: >
: > Regards,
: > Richard
:
:
:
jd
> Hi, I got a phone call just last week from Ancestry.. I told them I
> wasn't re-ordering and he said to cancel via the internet.. I told
> him that didn't work and why and he said to call them directly.. I
> also got a letter from Ancestry.com giving me a phone number to call
> by my cut off date.. LR
I've been subscribed to Ancestry for 9 months (on the 3-month plan), and
this is the first time I've received an e-mail telling me that my three
months is almost up and that I'll be automatically renewed unless I call
them and cancel.
On the other hand, I think before now they had pop-up boxes reminding me
that my subscription was about to run out, so perhaps they've gone to the
automatic renewal just now. But at least they're sending out e-mails
telling people that they'll get renewed, instead of just doing it.
That being said, I called them a month ago to ask to change my quarterly
main subscription and census subscription to yearly ones, and I was told
that it was impossible to do that unless I called during the month that
the subscription was about to lapse, which is one of the stupidest things
I've heard. Especially since I started the two subscriptions at different
times, which requires two separate phone calls.
It's a shame that their customer service is somewhat lacking (though I've
generally had good dealings with them), because their site is so dang
much better than genealogy.com. Every time I use genealogy.com, during
the interminable waits I have for the search results to come back, I
dream of rewriting their search interface and results displays. It is so
atrociously awful....
--
--jd
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B884B42...@qwest.net...
> > "Richard A. Pence" wrote: <etc>
> <much snipping for brevity>
>
> I understood what you said. However, I do believe you didn't
> read what I wrote. It was the OPPOSITE of your statement.
> According to long-standing netiquette, newsgroup participants
> shoud ALWAYS reply privately UNLESS they (and the option is
> theirs) decide the response is of general interst to the group.
Then since you are one of the authors of that FAQ (that doesn't get
posted monthly as claimed<g>), I would like to ask you to explain the
rationale behind that statement. It appears that you view a newsgroup as
sort of a bulletin board where postings should ideally elicit only
private responses. My own view is that of a public discussion where many
viewpoints and pieces of information are contributed for the benefit of
all. Reading on-topic responses is an informative and educational tool
for the benefit of all who read these groups (lurkers included).
> > > That's why a munged return address is breach of netiquette.
> > Under what circumstances? I know some, but let's hear your >
> reasons.
>
> For starters, a good many of the questions here have been
> answeeered so often that I deem it proper to reply via e-mail.
But *when* were they answered before? and how many people are new and
never saw those? Private responses cheat the public by hiding that
information from them.
> I am quite tired spending a lot of time writing responses to people
> who are asking for help and having the message bounce. People who
> make it didificult to respond don't deserve the help they are
> seeking.
If you post to the newsgroup you don't have to worry about those
addresses. As you may already recall, I believe that people should use
their full names in these genealogy newsgroups. I no longer reply to
posts from anonymous posters, even when I have an answer or useful tip
for them. But for a public response you don't need to worry about an
anti-spammed address.
> I want to repeat what I said at the outset: Newsgroup etiquette
> says that messages should be answered privately UNLESS there is a
> good reason to do otherwise
Rationale?
> (and that reason is in the eyes of the responder).
and how else could it be?
> Your statement that messages should be responded to in
> the group unless there is a good reason not to is new Usenet
> policy. Perhaps you will want to see to it that the FAQs get
> altered to conform.
I'm not the one who screwed that up, so why should *I* have to fix
it?<vbg>
Best regards
Bob
Richard A. Pence
news:137hoto6va0bmeb79...@4ax.com...
> "Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> > According to long-standing netiquette, newsgroup
> > participants shoud ALWAYS reply privately UNLESS
> > they (and the option is theirs) decide the response
> > is of general interst to the group.
> On it's face, that's the stupidest statement I've read all week.
> Perhaps it's a mis-statement, and you meant something else?
> On it's face, that's the stupidest statement I've read all
> week. Perhaps it's a mis-statement, and you meant
> something else?
Dear Reg:
I don't make the Usenet guidelines and conventions. As a
matter of fact, I don't necessarily agree with them.
However, I do try to know what they are and make a
good-faith effort to follow them.
You say: "Usenet is a public discussion forum. ALL replies
to posts are expected to be ON the forum. There's nothing
wrong with two posters having a private dialog via email,
but that's not a REPLY to a post. Replies to posts are, by
definition, posted
ON the newsgroup. Private email is a separate thing."
Fine. What you say is a common conception of how Usenet
works or is supposed to work. I have seen it so stated many
times.
But the problem is that no one seems to be able to provide
any authority for these statements.
Perhaps you have some official credentials which entitle you
to make these authoritative-sounding claims. Do let me know
if that is the case. If not, then maybe you will be kind
enough to provide some documentation in support of your
statements, because whenever I research this, I get the same
answer: The Usenet FAQs, whether with regard to Usenet in
general or most individual newsWgroups, clearly say that private
messages are the expected mode of exchange among Usenet
participants. Honest. Now that may be "stupid" in your eyes,
but it is a fact.
I really would like to know where it says that replies "by
definition" are made in the group. You flatly state this, but to
put it bluntly: I don't think you will be able to find any such
definition, at least not in any official or even
semi-official Usenet documentation.
If you also look at the history of Usenet you will see the
same pattern. In the early 1990s, for example, most on-line
genealogists didn't have Internet access but had been
participating for several years in FidoNet, an amateur
bulletin board network. Because FidoNet used standard phone
lines for message transfer, practically all messages were
public and few private. When FidoNetters began making the
switch to Usenet, the experience of most of them was the
same: They were called cultural idiots and blasted for
putting their responses within the group and not replying
privately. Some were so rudely treated because of this that
they simply never went back.
Now if you think the ground rules are now different or
should be different, then I suggest you try to get them
changed. Either that or stop saying those who quote them are
making "the stupidest statement I have heard." I'll bet that
"by definition" turns out to be YOUR definition and not a
Usenet definition at all.
I have had this same argument a half dozen times in the past
several years and it always seems to end the same: "Well, it
may not say what I believe, but it should." Since you seem to
be so emphatic in your beliefs, I trust you will have a much
better response. And, please, don't try the usual
lame-brained effort to twist what is in the documentation to
support what you say. Either it says what you think it does as
emphatically as you state it or what you say is not an
accurate assessment. One of the things you should have
learned on the Net - or will eventually learn - is that what
"everybody" knows or thinks they know isn't necessarily the
truth of the matter. Conventional wisdom is seldom wisdom at
all.
You also wrote: "As for your assertion that "munged" email
addresses are bad Usenet netiquette, only a spammer-loving
troll would make such an outrageous claim. People use
anti-spam addresses, or plain fake addresses, because it's
the only functional self-defense against having their REAL
email addresses rendered unuseable by an endless flood of
spam email."
And you have the audacity to call what other people write
stupid. Good god.
I challenge you to provide some scrap of legitimate evidence
that supports YOUR outrageous claim that use of actual
addresses renders them "unusable by an endless flood of spam
e-mail."
I have never munged my address in more than 8 years of
active Usenet participation. I get a trickle of spam and
that address is the same now as it was on day one. Even that
trickle of spam is irritating - but the evidence indicates
that most of what I do get comes not from using my real
address in Usenet, but making the mistake of logging into
certain web sites. Some of these companies seem to have a
good aftermarket selling valid e-mail addresses. I wandered
on to a financial news sute once three years ago. Ever since
there has been a flood of spams trying to sell me stock or
financial services. One came today. This one contact has
resulted in far more spam than 8 years of active Usenet
participation.
And maybe you can explain to me why it is that all these
people who never have used their real return addresses in
Usenet seem to be the ones that do the most complaining
about the amount of spam they receive. If what you claim is
true, then I should be getting a flood of spam and those who
don't use their actual return addresses should be getting
none or little. That is demonstrably not the case, is it?
And, finally, you said: "And besides that, using real email
addresses would allow people like you to invade our homes
and offices by sending us unwanted emails whining about
Usenet issues, instead of keeping the discussions HERE where
they belong."
Another of your statement that qualifies as stupid. Look, for
instance, at how many people give the keys to unlocking the
munged addresses. That aside, the given is that if you want
to play in Usenet your right to not have someone send you an
e-mail is forfeited. How can you expect otherwise?
I do hope you conduct your genealogical research with more
discrimination that you spout off youf undocumented opinions.
Regards,
Richard Pence
dti
Richard A. Pence
> "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> > I understood what you said. However, I do believe you didn't
> > read what I wrote. It was the OPPOSITE of your statement.
> > According to long-standing netiquette, newsgroup
> > participants shoud ALWAYS reply privately UNLESS
> > they (and the option is theirs) decide the response
> > is of general interst to the group.
> Then since you are one of the authors of that FAQ (that
> doesn't get posted monthly as claimed<g>), I would like
> to ask you to explain the rationale behind that statement.
1. I think the FAQ does get posted in some of the soc.genealogy.*
groups,but not always per schedule. Not my job <g>.
2. It has been many years, but I think my contribution to the FAQ
was solely some excerpts quoted with permission from an article I
once wrote on effective on-line queries (but can't recall for
sure).
3. However - As it was explained to me, the rationale was
resources - both the resources of the entire system and those of
the individual user. The general feeling was that most - at least
many - of the queries posted in newsgroups simply do not require a
public response. As I understood it, it was not only a waste
valuable system resources but it clutters up the newsgroup (and my
incomings) each time a post that should be sent privately is sent
publicly.
Why send a message that says, "Thanks for that, Charles" to tens
of thousands of people when only one person needs to see
it?Likewise, how many times must we publicly whip the cousins
question or the Jno. question or so many, many other pedestrian
requests?
Admitedly, these ground rules were established amidst an
environment of scarcity of resources (archivial space begged off
of a university computer, for example), but the old rules are
still the ones in the book.
I don't think that the real answer is "all messages should be sent
privateley UNLESS" or - as someone named Reg loudly prolaimed, "by
definition" it is not a respoons UNLESS it poste in the group.
(Where in the hell THAT idea came from, I don't know.)
I think the proper way to participate is not to automatic hit
"REPLY" to the exclusion of "REPLY TO GROUP" or vice versa. I
think the prudent participant should consider the question AND the
response and then determine which reply box to click on. I find
myself about 50-50 on this - although I am no longer replying to
munged addresses or, as you, anonymous posters so that percentage
is way down.
> It appears that you view a newsgroup as sort of a bulletin
> board where postings should ideally elicit only private
> responses.
That is not necessarily my view. However, it happens to be the
prevailing standasrd. As I have said a couple of times: I don't
set Usenet rules or conventions. I do, however, try to know what
they are and make a good-faith effort to adhere to them.
> My own view is that of a public discussion where many
> viewpoints and pieces of information are contributed for
> the benefit of all.
I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that ALL
message should be public. Some should, some shouldn't.
With regard to private responses, you asked:
> But *when* were they answered before? and how many
> people are new and never saw those? Private responses
> cheat the public by hiding that information from them.
That is why I suggest you stop and think before you hit either of
the reply buttons. It's a judgment call but most people don't even
consider that. How nice it would be if everyone thought out both
the need for the reply and where it should be sent. Ask yourself,
if each response is really so profound that every lurker
absolutely must have the benefit of it. <g>
> If you post to the newsgroup you don't have to worry
> about those [munged] addresses.
Ah, yes, always click on Reply to All.
> > Your statement that messages should be responded to in
> > the group unless there is a good reason not to is new Usenet
> > policy. Perhaps you will want to see to it that the FAQs get
> > altered to conform.
> I'm not the one who screwed that up, so why should *I*
> have to fix it?<vbg>
I know you aren';t sying this, but is soulds an awful lot like "If
I agree with the rules, I'll follow them. If I disagree, they a
screwed up and I'll ignore them." <g>
Frankly, it doesn't make all that much difference. My point was
the fact that the rules are in conflict with your concept of the
proper use of a Usenet newsgroup. Whether they are good rules is
another question.
Regards,
Richard
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B890F0D...@qwest.net...
> > "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> <snip>
> 2. It has been many years, but I think my contribution to the FAQ
> was solely some excerpts quoted with permission from an article I
> once wrote on effective on-line queries (but can't recall for
> sure).
But you allowed your name to be used on it which generally means that
you signed off on its contents. You can't have it both ways.<g>
> 3. However - As it was explained to me, the rationale was
> resources - both the resources of the entire system and those of
> the individual user.
Out-of-date thinking as you point out here later.
> The general feeling was that most - at least
> many - of the queries posted in newsgroups simply do not require a
> public response. As I understood it, it was not only a waste
> valuable system resources but it clutters up the newsgroup (and my
> incomings) each time a post that should be sent privately is sent
> publicly.
Do we want the newsgroup to be functional or uncluttered?
> Why send a message that says, "Thanks for that, Charles" to tens
> of thousands of people when only one person needs to see
> it?
Please don't trivialize that. I like to see thank yous (but not the lazy
ones that say "thanks everyone" without naming anyone although they're
better than nothing). I also stopped responding to posts like I used to
that would have taken some measureable amount of time to research
because of the small number of times I've had the courtesy of a simple
"thank you" for my efforts. One wonders if the people who respond
helpfully aren't considered to be just another computer that's
responding by an ungrateful public.
> <snip>
> Admitedly, these ground rules were established amidst an
> environment of scarcity of resources (archivial space begged off
> of a university computer, for example), but the old rules are
> still the ones in the book.
I referenced this above.
> I don't think that the real answer is "all messages should be sent
> privateley UNLESS" or - as someone named Reg loudly prolaimed, "by
> definition" it is not a respoons UNLESS it poste in the group.
> (Where in the hell THAT idea came from, I don't know.)
A good example of that is a lookup in the 1880 census. The public
response was that a private reply had been sent. In the absence of that,
several other people might not have been aware that things had been
taken care of and have also taken the time to do the lookup.
> I think the proper way to participate is not to automatic hit
> "REPLY" to the exclusion of "REPLY TO GROUP" or vice versa. I
> think the prudent participant should consider the question AND the
> response and then determine which reply box to click on. I find
> myself about 50-50 on this
If I reply it is always to the newsgroup without an email cc to the
poster.
> - although I am no longer replying to
> munged addresses or, as you, anonymous posters so that percentage
> is way down.
I also refuse to unmunge an email address. My address is not munged and
I've had no trouble dealing with what little spam I get including
attached Sircam & Hybris-B viruses.
> > It appears that you view a newsgroup as sort of a bulletin
> > board where postings should ideally elicit only private
> > responses.
>
> That is not necessarily my view. However, it happens to be the
> prevailing standasrd. As I have said a couple of times: I don't
> set Usenet rules or conventions. I do, however, try to know what
> they are and make a good-faith effort to adhere to them.
I try to do what makes good sense.
> > My own view is that of a public discussion where many
> > viewpoints and pieces of information are contributed for
> > the benefit of all.
>
> I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that ALL
> message should be public. Some should, some shouldn't.
But the criteria for that need to be established.
> <snip>. Ask yourself,
> if each response is really so profound that every lurker
> absolutely must have the benefit of it. <g>
That's not my decision to make for them. They may benefit or they may
skip over it. That's their/my choice which I exercise every day.
> > If you post to the newsgroup you don't have to worry
> > about those [munged] addresses.
>
> Ah, yes, always click on Reply to All.
I guess that means newsgroup-only in your reader? Yes.
> <snip>
> > I'm not the one who screwed that up, so why should *I*
> > have to fix it?<vbg>
>
> I know you aren';t sying this, but is soulds an awful lot like "If
> I agree with the rules, I'll follow them. If I disagree, they a
> screwed up and I'll ignore them." <g>
What I see is a situation where few rules are being followed. In an
environment like that I'll do what makes the best sense even though it
might violate some screwed-up outdated rules.
> Frankly, it doesn't make all that much difference. My point was
> the fact that the rules are in conflict with your concept of the
> proper use of a Usenet newsgroup. Whether they are good rules is
> another question.
Who cares? <rofl>
Bob
Charlene Charette
> Perhaps you have some official credentials which entitle you
> to make these authoritative-sounding claims. Do let me know
> if that is the case. If not, then maybe you will be kind
> enough to provide some documentation in support of your
> statements, because whenever I research this, I get the same
> answer: The Usenet FAQs, whether with regard to Usenet in
> general or most individual newsWgroups, clearly say that private
> messages are the expected mode of exchange among Usenet
> participants. Honest. Now that may be "stupid" in your eyes,
> but it is a fact.
And where would someone find these Usenet FAQs? Other groups I'm on
expect replies to be sent to the group unless they are of a strictly
personal nature (ie, someone's phone number or the like). I don't
recall ever seeing the FAQs posted to this group (though I may have
missed them on skimming). Are they on the web somewhere?
--Charlene
--
Is the kidney a bean-shaped organ, or is the bean a kidney-shaped
legume? -- George Carlin
=====
Free Book Searches (out-of-print, hard-to-find, foreign, used, new) -
mailto:find...@flash.net
Robert Heiling
> "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> And where would someone find these Usenet FAQs?
> Other groups I'm on
> expect replies to be sent to the group unless they are of a strictly
> personal nature (ie, someone's phone number or the like).
I totally agree.
> I don't
> recall ever seeing the FAQs posted to this group (though I may have
> missed them on skimming). Are they on the web somewhere?
http://www.woodgate.org/FAQs/netiquette.html
HTH Bob
Robert Heiling
> "Reg Blanc" <rbl...@com.co.ni> wrote in message
> news:137hoto6va0bmeb79...@4ax.com...
> > "Richard A. Pence" <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I have never munged my address in more than 8 years of
> active Usenet participation. I get a trickle of spam and
> that address is the same now as it was on day one. Even that
> trickle of spam is irritating - but the evidence indicates
> that most of what I do get comes not from using my real
> address in Usenet, but making the mistake of logging into
> certain web sites. Some of these companies seem to have a
> good aftermarket selling valid e-mail addresses. I wandered
> on to a financial news sute once three years ago. Ever since
> there has been a flood of spams trying to sell me stock or
> financial services. One came today. This one contact has
> resulted in far more spam than 8 years of active Usenet
> participation. <snip>
You do understand, I hope, that a website cannot get your email address
just because you visited it. You would have to give it to them. I assume
that's what you meant by "making the mistake of logging into". I
mention this only because some people might get the wrong idea from what
you said.
Bob
Mike Block - Tax Cut C.P.A. <>
wrote:
>"Richard A. Pence" wrote:
>
>You do understand, I hope, that a website cannot get your email address
>just because you visited it. You would have to give it to them. I assume
>that's what you meant by "making the mistake of logging into". I
>mention this only because some people might get the wrong idea from what
>you said.
>
Not entirely true, though many say this. A madferet.com
site used to have Java demo, where clicking on a button
gave them your email address. They got it by having your
email program email to them. I also started to register
for (I think) accountingweb.com recently and saw they
already had my email address in the registration form.
Steve Hayes
<richar...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>I really would like to know where it says that replies "by
>definition" are made in the group. You flatly state this, but to
>put it bluntly: I don't think you will be able to find any such
>definition, at least not in any official or even
>semi-official Usenet documentation.
Yes indeed. Replies, by definition, are NOT made to the group. A "reply" is,
by definition, e-mail to the poster. A response to the group is not a reply,
but a "follow-up" - by definition.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
For spammers:
tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com u...@ftc.gov
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@mindspring.net
abuse-n...@uu.net ab...@dialsprint.net ab...@earthlink.com
postm...@attglobal.net ab...@bellsouth.net ab...@sympatico.ca
Simmadahn
<snip>
> Many NNTP servers in the US don't even carry the soc.genealogy.*
> groups, because there is so little content in them. I guess the
> geniuses who *would* be using soc.genealogy.* are sending private
> emails to each other, instead of posting messages??
Umm..have you visited s.g.britain or s.g.computing lately?
And thank you, I quite enjoy being referred to as a genius <g>
I'd say there's a good deal of both public and private posting going on
there...and people generally are able to distinguish the appropriateness of
either method.
I, for one, enjoy reading answers to on-topic things that appear to have no
relevence to me. Because quite often they do wind up having significance
later on, or at the very least provide a history lesson or two.
I think this whole arguement is a bit silly, no offese. If one doesn't wish
to read something, one doesn't have to. There are no newsgroup gestapo
around forcing you to do anything...
Beth
Robert Heiling
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:59:17 -0400, "Richard A. Pence"
> <richar...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >I really would like to know where it says that replies "by
> >definition" are made in the group. You flatly state this, but to
> >put it bluntly: I don't think you will be able to find any such
> >definition, at least not in any official or even
> >semi-official Usenet documentation.
>
> Yes indeed. Replies, by definition, are NOT made to the group. A "reply" is,
> by definition, e-mail to the poster. A response to the group is not a reply,
> but a "follow-up" - by definition.
Please forgive us for not knowing any of that. There goes that US education
system again. What would you expect?<g>
Bob
Richard A. Pence
> "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> > "Robert Heiling" <rh...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B890F0D...@qwest.net...
> > > "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > 2. It has been many years, but I think my contribution to the
FAQ
> > was solely some excerpts quoted with permission from an
article I
> > once wrote on effective on-line queries (but can't recall for
> > sure).
>
> But you allowed your name to be used on it which
> generally means that you signed off on its contents.
> You can't have it both ways.<g>
I'm not tlrying to. I told you what my contribution was and passed
on what I know about the rest.
> Out-of-date thinking as you point out here later.
Out-of-date or not, the fact is that it's still there. I am not
arguing about what is right or what is wrong, only that the
current guidelines are in conflict with your beliefs. If you want
them updated, go to it.
> Do we want the newsgroup to be functional or uncluttered?
Trick question? The two are by no means mutually exclusive, now
are they, Bob?
> Please don't trivialize that.
Newsgroups are trivialized way beyond my power to add or detract.
> > I don't think that the real answer is "all messages
> > should be sent privateley UNLESS" or - as someone
> > named Reg loudly prolaimed, "by definition" it is not
> > a respoons UNLESS it poste in the group.
> > (Where in the hell THAT idea came from, I don't know.)
> > I think the proper way to participate is not to automatic
> > hit "REPLY" to the exclusion of "REPLY TO GROUP" or
> > vice versa. I think the prudent participant should
> > consider the question AND the response and then
> > determine which reply box to click on. I find myself
> > about 50-50 on this
> If I reply it is always to the newsgroup without an
> email cc to the poster.
I dunno, Bob. I think it may be incosiderate of the time of
thousands of participants if I don't evaluate whether my response
_really_ needs to be seen by everyone in the whole wide world.
Believe, me many of them don't (including, some will say, the ones
I _do_ post here <g>).
> I also refuse to unmunge an email address. My address is
> not munged and I've had no trouble dealing with what little
> spam I get including attached Sircam & Hybris-B viruses.
> > I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that ALL
> > message should be public. Some should, some shouldn't.
> But the criteria for that need to be established.
Well, aren't they? One post to the group only when he or she think
the response is of general interest to the entire group. There are
a helluva lot of messsages in this group that don't meet that test
(again, including this one).
The choice is always subjective. You, for example, deem all of
your replies to be of interest to everyone <that's a joke, Bob>,
while I at least have some compassion and think about it before I
decide everyone ought to see my gem. <g>
Regards,
Richard
Richard A. Pence
But it doesn't explain what you think it explains, Reg.
> Are you aware that this is alt.genealogy, not soc.genealogy.*??
Sure. All I have to do is look at the title of sthe group.
> Many NNTP servers in the US don't even carry the
> soc.genealogy.* groups, because there is so little
> content in them. I guess the geniuses who *would*
> be using soc.genealogy.* are sending private emails
> to each other, instead of posting messages??
Like your other foolish statements, Reg, I guess I would like for
you to furnish some documentation. Otherwise, I will have to
conclude that, like your other statements, you made up another
whopper.
> Why on Earth would you think that an FAQ posted to
> soc.genealogy.* would have any relevance to alt.genealogy?
Why on earth do you think I thought that?
> Especially considering that many people don't have
> access to the soc.genealogy.* groups, because many
> ISPs don't offer the seldom used groups!
Again, I don't know where in the hell you are getting your
information. My guess, however, is you confused about the facts.
For instasnce, the soc.genealogy.* groups are sanctioned Usenet
newsgroupsm having gone through the necessary procedures. I
believe that, perhaps with some exceptions, there is some
requirement that servers must make these groups available.
OTOH, .alt groups have not gone through the sanctioning process.
Because they haven't, there is no general Usenet requirement
concerning making them available on servers.
> The rules you've made up for soc.genealogy.* don't apply to
> alt.genealogy. Because the other newsgroups don't have
> enough traffic showing here, then by default this is the
> newsgroup most often used by posters within the U.S.
Reg, I "made up" nothing. I believe I suggested to you in another
message to review ***Usenet FAQs*** concerning newsgroup
participation. Once you do, I believe you will then know that the
information contained in the FAQ pertaining to soc.genealogy.*
groups was based entirely on *general* Usenet guidelines.
Just because it is a part of the soc.genealogy.* FAQ doesn't mean
that it is exclusive to soc.gen groups. In fact, this particular
guideline is (or at least was) a part of the FAQs for most Usenet
hierarchies.
> Is that the real root of this culture clash?
I think the real root of it is your misunderstanding of both
Usenet in general and this group in particular.
Regards,
Richard
Richard A. Pence
news:pGai7.54387$l7.65...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
See, Robert, I told you...
Regards,
Richard
Richard A. Pence
> "Richard A. Pence" wrote:
> > but the evidence indicates that most of what I do get
> > comes not from using my real address in Usenet, but
> > making the mistake of logging into certain web sites.
<snip>
>
> You do understand, I hope, that a website cannot get
> your email address just because you visited it.
Maybe it's not clear enough, but I did write "logging in" instead
of "visiting" for that very reason. Even so, I am not at all sure
but what some sites can't get into your cookie jar without you
necessarily signing in. Consequently, I try to know a bit about a
site before visiting it.
Regards,
Richard
James Alexander Starritt
charge .... its a dangerous game you are playing!
--
James Starritt
"dti" <d...@nycNOSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:S3Ue7.17133$l7.34...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> Oh, yes, fake numbers do work for CC#s, but you have to play with a
number
> of combinations. The CC#s are not generated at random, there sets of
> numbers that have certain significance (ie. if the # starts with 3 = Amex,
4
> = Visa, 5 = MC, 6 = Discover, etc.). If you give a fake CC#, though, give
a
> fake name, too.
> --
>
>
> Diane I.
> Life is good.
>
> Email is dti (at) nyc.rr.com
>
>
> "TwoSides22" <twosi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010816074651...@mb-mk.aol.com...
> > << When Ancestry com give you a free 14 days trial - but - for taking
the
> offer
> > you must tell about your credit card and number. Is that normal
procedure
> in
> > USA ? >>
> >
> >
> > Hi Poul....I'm usually just a listener on this board, but I've just
closed
> the
> > Ancestry.com window and given up the free trial for the same reason. I
> was
> > also annoyed that they wanted my phone number, which I pay to have
> unlisted. A
> > phony one worked there, maybe that will work for the credit card number
> too.
> >
> > Jeanne
>
>
dti
zeros for a CC#. Besides, I don't think any charges will go through that
don't have the authorized cardholder's name on them. If you sign up for a
free trial at ancestry under the name, "Looney Bird," for example, with some
made-up number, at least you get the trial for two weeks without seeing the
charges go on your card afterwards. It's not the same as trying to use
someone's number to actually buy something, is it? To be frank, I don't
think the free trial at ancestry.com offers much more over what you get
regularly for free, so it is not something I'm interested in.
--
Diane I.
Life is good.
Send email to dti (at) nyc.rr.com
"James Alexander Starritt" <ja...@jamesstarritt.com> wrote in message
news:9mdo6j$1jbga$1...@ID-68406.news.dfncis.de...
TwoSides22
> If you sign up for a free trial at ancestry under the name, "Looney Bird,"
for example, with some made-up number, at least you get the trial for two weeks
without seeing the charges go on your card afterwards
That isn't true. I tried to sign up using my real name and the number of an
old card that had expired. I wasn't trying to pull anything over on anyone, I
just didn't want to be charged for a "free" trail somewhere down the road. They
are able, in a few seconds, to verify the card number. After a few complaints
they sent me a user name and password....no more questions asked. No numbers
given.
Jeqanne
Mike Maxfield
>
>For instasnce, the soc.genealogy.* groups are sanctioned Usenet
>newsgroupsm having gone through the necessary procedures. I
>believe that, perhaps with some exceptions, there is some
>requirement that servers must make these groups available.
Bzzzt! Wrongo. Thanks for playing. There is absolutely no requirement
that a Usenet news server must carry any group. There may be peering
arrangements made between various entities contracting with each other to
share their newsfeeds, but the is absolutely no law, rule or otherwise
which demands that any server carrying a portion of the big seven be
required to carry all of the big seven. Just like your other posts, what
you don't know, you BS in the hopes that no one will point out your
mistakes.
--
tw...@io.com
Margaret Olson
carrying the soc.* groups. Usenet is an anarchy and I doubt anyone
sets down rules for what ISPs should carry. However, if an ISP carries
the soc.* hierarchy, they probably carry all of it and most likely do
carry all of the other Big-8 hierarchies. If they carry alt.* groups,
they may or may not carry alt.genealogy or any specific group. For
instance, the news server at the University of Illinois has never
carried alt.genealogy because there are groups in the Big-8 which cover
the same topic. They have the Big 8, but they are selective about
alt.*.
Historically the "Big-8" (soc, sci, talk, news, rec, misc, comp and
humanities), which does have rules and a system for creating new groups,
has been carried by servers in its entirety, while the alt.* groups were
much less widely or uniformly carried.
When government and the educational institutions were the only game in
town, that pretty effectively meant that there were rules for (almost)
all. New groups voted in by a Big-8 process (actually is was the Big-7
then before humanities.* was started) were automatically added by all
news servers, and any which someone tried to start without a vote were
not carried.
Alt groups can be started willy nilly by anyone who knows how to do it,
but the news managers at those Govt and Edu institutions generally would
not add, and would not pass on through to their news feeds, any group
added to the Big-7 without the proper discussion and vote, and in
addition they would individually decide which of the alt groups to
provide on their servers.
Because of the way it worked then, it was possible to remove soc.roots
and add seven soc.genealogy.* groups to replace it, and to replace
soc.genealogy.uk+ireland with soc.genealogy.britain and
soc.genealogy.ireland. Those of you whose servers still have a
"soc.roots" or a "soc.genealogy.uk+ireland" have news managers who did
not remove old groups, but if there are any messages in those groups at
all, they are not being propagated at all well to most of the rest of
the net. And those servers probably did add the new groups.
With the advent of Prodigy and Compuserve and AOL and many many ISPs
providing net access, things changed a lot. The news servers there
would carry everything - or everything except binaries - or everything
people requested or ..... (who knows). If there were ever "rules" -
even just by agreement of news managers, they became a lot less obvious.
People wanted ALL the newsgroups. While educational institutions could
say "no binaries and no sex", ISPs in the business of serving up as many
messages as possible accommodate their subscribers.
Anyhow - in spite of the message which started this all and told us that
servers do not carry soc.genealogy and everyone carries alt.genealogy
(which may be true on his server), it is the soc.genealogy.* groups
which have the most messages in them. Alt.genealogy is healthy and
active, but it has fewer or about the same number of posts each day as
at least 5 of the soc.genealogy groups (s.g.britain, s.g.medieval and
s.g.australia+nz, s.g.benelux, s.g.computing). And if
soc.genealogy.surnames.global and the other 6 s.g.surnames.* lists which
are subsets of s.g.s.g) ever returns, and if it builds up again to
previous traffic levels, it, also, will have more messages than
alt.genealogy.
I have a web site which is in need of an update -
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~socgen/ which tells more than you ever
wanted to know about how the soc.genealogy groups came into existence.
Margaret
dti
soc.genealogy* groups and am glad I have a better understanding of their
history. I will check out your webpage as well. Thanks again!
--
Diane I.
Life is good.
Remove the NOSPAM and send email to dti (at) nyc.rr.com
"Margaret Olson" <ol...@duracef.shout.net> wrote in message
news:9mjb11$k6b$1...@roundup.shout.net...
Margaret Olson
>Thank you! Your post was quite educational and fun to read! I frequent two
>soc.genealogy* groups and am glad I have a better understanding of their
>history. I will check out your webpage as well. Thanks again!
If you do visit the site, be sure to check out the "Some Ancient History"
link by Brian Leverich.
I came into newsgroups on a government/educational site where we were
encouraged to think about how the net could benefit our work, which is why
we looked at newsgroups and other things back then. One of my co-workers
who was interested in genealogy as well as in computers had a FidoNet BBS,
and he also knew about soc.roots. He also told me about Personal Ancestral
File, which I got. It was version 1.0 or 1.1 as I recall.
The FidoNet Genealogy Echos were amazing to me with a LOT of messages - but
at 300 baud on my modern up-to-date IBM-XT home computer with a 10 meg hard
drive, and with a full time job, and a family, I didn't have time to make
use of them. It took a call to a telephone at his house, and it tied up my
telephone. He did automatic transfers in the middle of the night - and he
was an absolute dictator over what went on on his machine, and he was the
only one there allowed to use email. It was a completely different world.
Is there anyone who reads this newsgroup who had a FidoNet BBS? I know
Richard Pence could tell us fascinating stories (Richard?). He was a real
pioneer in online genealogy.
Does anyone still have or use a FidoNet system? Steven Hayes? How busy
are the genealogy echos? Or are there any any more?
Has anyone got any stories to tell about their local genealogy societies
and libraries and how they reacted to the internet and to people with
computers? I look at what the New England Historic Genealogical Society
does and has now and remember the turned up noses and disbelief I met when
I mentioned computers to 3 members of their reference staff. A couple
sitting in the reading room had a notebook computer (Cliff Watts and his
wife?) and Cliff demonstrated it to me. It may have been a 286. He gave
me a diskette with some utilities on it, and we agreed that "someday,
maybe" the NEHGS might find something useful about computers.
Is there anyone here who dates back to the net.roots days? I came on the
scene shortly after the great renaming when soc.roots was started.
I'm sure there are some here who date back to the reorganization of
soc.roots into the soc.genealogy hierarchy of groups. I was one of the
instigators there. It was a noisy time.
I remember the days when the entire RootsWeb Surname List (then called the
Roots Surname List)was sent out weekly and when it was put together
manually. Nowadays we get alphabetical parts of the UPDATES daily.
OK - this thread ought to last for awhile. Go at it.
Margaret
rob.rushton
As I pointed out before, I pay for my on-line time by the minute and I'm
beginning to resent the fact that I'm paying to download other people's
arguments. I'm all in favour of reasoned discussion from well-informed
people, but when it degenerates into a series of insults, well if people
want to have arguments, whether they consider they are childish or not, why
not do it in private, or is "showing off" all part of it?
Rob
Heather Figueroa
charges incurred when downloading messages......could you tell me how
much more it costs to do so? As my computer downloads a news group in a
few seconds, I cannot understand why this should add significantly to
your bill.
Thanks......Heather
"rob.rushton" <rob.r...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:000401c130eb$778f1c80$71e286d4@RobRushton...
Richard A. Pence
some authoritative information on how this works both before I
wrote the message you quote from and again today. I seem to be
having no luck. My recollection is that for some reason the "big
seven" hierarchies (comp, humanities, news, misc, soc, sci, rec
and talk) get much wider distribution than any of the other
hierarchies, such as alt. A note I found at the Usenet site says
that a message in a group in one of these hierarchies will
"probably go the sites on every continent with an estimated
audience of more than 2 million potential readers."
Because of this and other similar statements, there must be
something in the distribution system that sets them apart. I
believed that it was some sort of requirement that the NNTP
servers make the groups in these hierarchies available, but you
say not. I do know there is a fairly elaborate process for
"qualifying" a group into one of these hierarchies, so there must
be some kind of an advantage in doing so.
Perhaps you can point me to the source of your information or some
other site where I can learn more about this.
The statement was made by the person I was replying to that this
group was much more widely available than the soc.genealogy.*
groups and I don't believe that to be the case. I asked him for
some documentation for that claim, but I haven't heard back.
Perhaps you can help on that question, too.
Regards,
Richard
"Mike Maxfield" <tw...@bermuda.io.com> wrote in message
news:i38j7.29276$4b5.7...@news6.giganews.com...
Richard A. Pence
This probably can come under the heading of more than you really
wanted to know, but ...
My recollection is that FidoNet reached its zenith about the
beginning of 1996 and then steadily went down almost to oblivion.
The NGS BBS, which started out life in my basement in 1986, closed
up shop about 2 years ago. It once had three or four phone lines
which were almost always busy from early morning until late at
night). Some users planned their day around the best time to get a
connection! It was also in 1986 that the Genealogy Conference
was started, with a hook-up between Howard Nurse's BBS at CommSoft
in California (purveyors of the Roots genealogy program that died
under the name Ultimate Family Tree not too long ago) and a fellow
named David James in New Hampshire. Message flow was running at
least 300-400 a day and often 700 a day before everyone bailed out
to have the obvious advantages of the "Big Net." I can't recall
right now, but I think there may have been as many as 1,800
bulletin board systems world-wide participating in the Genealogy
Conference or "echo." These were the FidoNet equivalent of
newsgroups and were called echoes because in the beginning that
described how they made their way around the world - "echoed" by
short-haul transfers from one BBS to the next. For instance, the
NGS, located in Northern Virginia, could send messages at no toll
charge to a BBS in a Maryland suburb north of DC and this BBS
could send it on to Baltimore at no charge. If we had called
Baltimore directly, there would have been a long-distance charge.
Later FidoNet was much more sophisticated, with huge "star" BBSs
which sent hundreds of thousands of messages in hundreds of topic
areas all over the world, even by satellite. Sometimes this was
done on someone's corporate nickel in the wee hours when the
facilities were not otherwise in use. Each BBS also had to pay a
modest assessment in order to get the echo messages and these
assessments were used to "haul the freight." The software that ran
this was quite modest but all of the message transfers were
automatic and could even be applied down to an individual user.
The world was divided into zones, then local nets and each BBS
within a net had its own "node" number. As you suggested,
individuals could be "points" off of a node and get his or her
mail automatically - your node would call you in the nighttime and
leave your messages. An address would look like this:
6:204/439.12 - zone 6, net 204, node 439 and point 12.
Yes, Margaret, I recall the "noise" when soc.roots was "torn
apart" to create the soc.genealogy.* groups. I was "agin" it
because at the time I felt this splintering would only make it
harder for you to make that one big connection with a like
researcher. I also felt that it probably wouldn't accomplish part
of its purpose, that of controlling bandwidth use, because people
would do like they had been doing as more and more echoes were
created on FidoNet - they would post in all the groups just to
make sure they didn't miss someone (and I think there is till a
lot of this). My most outlandish predicted was that once you had
8 different, you soon would have 16 and then more - and "the
process won't stop until every surname and every county has its
own newsgroup" - which in essence has come to pass in the form of
mailing lists. It has worked much better than I ever thought it
could and I think the reason is the enormous number of people
"into genealogy" today. It used to be that those of us who had
modems were a tiny subset of those who had computers and they in
turn were a tiny subset of those who did genealogy. And there
weren't all that many of them! With ever-decreasing numbers as you
went up the technology ladder it was pure blind luck if you scored
a hit! (Today I am always flabbergasted when someone posts a
query - even in an unlikely group - saying as little as "does
anyone know anything about Charles Johnson of Buffalo" and seems
to get positive responses!)
I got a computer and began doing genealogy with it in July of 1978
, but I date the birth of "Computer Genealogy" as 1982 because of
several events. First, Paul Andereck, a neighbor of mine, started
his journal _Genealogical Computing_. At the same time, a major
article appeared in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly,
suggesting that these gadgets might some day prove handy. And the
very first exhibitors showing genealogy-related products appeared
at the NGS Conference in the States. Later that same year, some of
us met in Washington and formed the Computer Interest Group of the
NGS.
To briefly touch on Paul Andereck, not many people realize it
today, but it was his vision that led to so much of what we today
take for granted while using our computers to do genealogy. I
think the first time "the world" (a few hundred genealogy
computerists) heard about GEDCOM was when Paul told us what a
marvelous thing this would be - and why. And back then there were
dozens of different platforms to contend with. I had the pleasure
of working with Paul in 1984 when we authored the book _Computer
Genealogy_. I will hasten to say that it was Paul who was able to
visualize and understand the great future of computers in
genealogy. My main job was to try and put his lofty ideas into a
form that the rest of the world might be able to understand. It
was also Paul who had the very first genealogy BBS - a TRS-80 with
a 300-baud modem. You could only call after Paul went to bed,
because otherwise he was using his computer for other things. In
those days, there were so few BBSs that once word spread that
someone had discovered another, all of the kids in the area would
call in and try and trash everything. So Paul gave it up after a
few futile months. Besides me, I think maybe three other
genealogists had modems in this area and visited Paul's BBS! Paul
is retired to Missouri and occasionally he pops up in an Internet
newsgroup, sometimes expressing another visionary thought to an
audience which doesn't know him and wonders what this guy is
spouting off for.
As for the reaction of "the genealogy establishment" to computers,
it was mostly mild, amused tolerance, but always a lack of
awareness of the potential value of computers. A few years ago, I
was recognized at an NGS meeting and a friend asked me what the
award was for. "It was for dragging the Society kicking and
screaming into the Computer Age," and while I was hardly the only
dragger, there was a lot of truth to the joke.
About 1986, as a consequence of the success of _Computer
Genealogy_, I spoke at one of NGS's national conferences.
Afterward, this very serious lady came up to me and asked me if I
had a moment. I took one and as she pulled me aside, this is what
she said, in an almost horrified tone: "You aren't _really_ going
to use a computer to do genealogy, are you?" I am happy to say
this lady is up to her eyeballs in "computer genealogy today.
My favorite "society story" comes from the time I was the editor
of the NGS Computer Interest Group newsletter (called the Digest)
about 1984 or 1985. There were only a few hundred people receiving
the newsletter, but they were an active and vocal bunch. One day I
received a letter from a lady in Maryland, who pointed out that
she was the long-time president of her county genealogical
society, had been doing genealogy for 30 years and understood
that very well, thank you. However, she had a complaint: "Why did
you have to use so many technical computer terms in the
newsletter?" I took this part of my job seriously because I, too,
was trying to learn the terminology. So I wrote back, expressing
my regrets that I wrote too much jargon and asked her just which
computer terms she was having difficulty with. Her response
floored me: "Ahnentafel." (For those of you who might not know,
ahnentafel is strictly a genealogical term - one that has been in
use for 300 years! <g>)
Margaret, I didn't mean to go so long. I started out to tell you
that during the GenTech conference in Texas earlier this year
(where you and I met face-to-face for the first time), I was
interview about "the old days" by a writer from _Genealogical
Computing_ (now published by Ancestry). For those who might be
interested, I understand that the resulting article will be
published in the upcoming issue. (Mike can use it to line the
bottom of his birdcage.)
Regards,
Richard
----- Original Message -----
Margaret Olson <ol...@shout.net> wrote in message
news:5.1.0.14.2.200108...@pop.shout.net...
Mike Maxfield
>published in the upcoming issue. (Mike can use it to line the
>bottom of his birdcage.)
unprovoked.
--
tw...@io.com
Richard A. Pence
> unprovoked.
Obviously, Mike, that was a joke at my expense, now wasn't it? I
thought it was provoked. I was much too long winded.
Regards,
Richard