Ancestry sold?

[JBee]

According to Lost Cousins newsletter.

[Janet]

Wow. It seems to be true, Julie. It's all over the financial news.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ancestry+sold&df=d&iar=news&ia=news

[Phoenix]

Does this explain why they have been headlining their privacy policy?

[maggie_4_7]

It is probably why they are knocking the lowest cM off the DNA matches.

[Phoenix]

It is probably why they are knocking the lowest cM off the DNA matches.

As those who haven't tagged their smaller matches will lose probably 70% or more of their matches, I reckon you are right.

Now, I'd never put you down as cynical, Maggie :D


Mind you, those with Jewish ancestors have HUGE numbers of unhelpful matches. I manage one tree with 181k distant matches.

[maggie_4_7]

As those who haven't tagged their smaller matches will lose probably 70% or more of their matches, I reckon you are right.

Now, I'd never put you down as cynical, Maggie :D


Mind you, those with Jewish ancestors have HUGE numbers of unhelpful matches. I manage one tree with 181k distant matches.

I am a natural cynic but I tend to not dwell on my cynicism for fear of passing it on to other people :D

There is a view that they are going to split off the health side of it which is a worry, I haven't gone anywhere near that side of Ancestry and do not intend to, my only interest is genealogy.

As every sensible person involved in the FH business would advise is always backup information, keep sources independently on own computers and have an exit strategy.

I don't tend to upload any photos or documents on my online FH, everything on there can be easily found online.

Plenty of rumours around where the equity company that is buying Ancestry political and financial allegiances lay which should be kept a close eye on.

[Phoenix]

Only one of the trees I manage is under the spit-donor's real name. None of my family trees show any names closer than great grandparents. And no, none of my unique research, and certainly none of my images are on Ancestry.

[Olde Crone]

*Stands next to Maggie*

I'm not just a cynic, I'm a pessimist too. I can't see how things could improve in a company owned by those whose primary interest is not genealogy.

OC

[maggie_4_7]

*Stands next to Maggie*

I'm not just a cynic, I'm a pessimist too. I can't see how things could improve in a company owned by those whose primary interest is not genealogy.

OC

Well it could be good because their primary interest is making money so one of their aims must be to attract more subscribers and retain them, to do that, because they have competitors on the horizon that are coming up behind them quickly, is to have records and tools that others haven't got or that performs better.

However the health side could be lucrative for reasons that I would not like but I think before they do anything with that they would separate it out.

Rumour is that Ancestry was in some financial trouble don't know if that is true. They are having problems on their site with error messages which probably means their servers can't cope so that should be the first thing tackled.

[kiterunner]

I thought its previous owners were also not interested in genealogy?

[maggie_4_7]

I thought its previous owners were also not interested in genealogy?

The sale also includes Find A Grave, Fold3, Newspapers.com, ProGenealogists, Archives, RootsWeb.

Well there were a number of companies that owned it but Silver Lake and GIC were the majority shareholders. GIC still own 25% and Blackstone 75%.

[Olde Crone]

Kate

The fact that the previous owners had no interest in genealogy is one of the reasons I haven't subscribed to Ancestry for years. I just feel uneasy about it.

OC

[maggie_4_7]

..and right on cue an email from Ancestry Health to upgrade for $79 to make the most of my DNA and one from Newspapers.com to subscribe for VJ Day with $10 discount.