Message Boards
You are here:
Message Boards
>
Topics
>
Research Resources
>
Genealogy Products
>
Footnote vs. World Vital Records
Names or keywords
Advanced Search
All Boards  
Genealogy Products - Family History & Genealogy Message Board
Subject
Author
Posted Within
Anytime
1 Day
3 Days
1 Week
1 Month
6 Months
1 Year
Surnames
Use Soundex
Message Type
All
Bible
Biography
Birth
Cemetery
Census
Death
Deed
Immigration
Lookup
Marriage
Military
Obituary
Pension
Query
Will
Hide Advanced Search
Begin New Thread
<< Prev Thread
|
Next Thread >>
Footnote vs. World Vital Records
Change to Thread View
Sort
Oldest First
Newest First
Footnote vs. World Vital Records
macoverton
(
View posts
)
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 12:20AM GMT
Classification:
Query
Surnames:
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.
Reply
Report Abuse
Print
Re: Footnote vs. World Vital Records
gratop
(
View posts
)
Posted: 27 Feb 2011 9:35PM GMT
Classification:
Query
Surnames:
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.
Reply
Report Abuse
Print
Change to Thread View
Find a board about a specific topic
Surnames or topics
Page Tools
Board Information