Search for content in message boards

Footnote vs. World Vital Records

Footnote vs. World Vital Records

Posted: 27 Feb 2011 12:20AM GMT
Classification: Query
Which one is better / more useful?
That is, which adds the most information that is not replicated at ancestry.com?
Footnote is $80 per year vs. World Vital Records at $60 per year. I'd rather not pay for both, especially if there is minimal add.

Re: Footnote vs. World Vital Records

Posted: 27 Feb 2011 9:35PM GMT
Classification: Query
World Vital Records did not have anything that I could not find at ancestry or free on my own. In fact, it does list items found at popular free sites such as find-a-grave and google books. I do receive emails offering a bundle for membership with genealogy bank (newspapers) and that may be a better deal. I find newspapers are a great source for info if you are searching in the 1800s and 1900s.

Other people may have different experiences with WVR.
per page

Find a board about a specific topic