ComparisonOnlineGenealogyEditing

As the page name implies, this is an attempt to provide a comparison of the online Genealogy database solutions. Specifically, ones that are your only tool for editing, storing and displaying your data. We do not attempt to talk about bidirectional transfer with desktop based solutions or the one-way, desktop-to-HTML mechanism that seems common. We mean online only.

But we are actually looking for more than just the traditional Genealogy Database solution. Often desired is a robust, online, editable genealogy database tool that is integrated with a larger Content Management System (or CMS) so family share sites can be created and maintained. Features being looked for in addition to the Genealogy Database are larger, more robust Flikr-like photo galleries for family albums, Wikipedia-like pages for histories and more, Yahoo Group like email lists and archives for discussions, and possibly other features found in CMS's like Joomla, Drupal or TikiWiki?. But alas, this is not to be and really not available. But where one tool is more easily integrated into all these features than another, we will mention it. For now, heavy customization and careful practice is required.

Disclaimer

While this document will be maintained as new information is discovered and provided, it is not representative of a complete, detailed and robust comparison and use by experts on a continual basis. Some information is gleaned from documentation and online comments. While we attempt to separate fact from fiction and verify comments, this is not always possible. We are more than happy to correct any errors or misconceptions we agree with.

There are two main categories to understand here. Sites that simply provide the service using custom, purpose-built application software. And sites that you can create yourself by obtaining, installing and maintaining the software on your own server. There is a cross-over category of sites providing the publicly available software as a service but we do not focus on these here for various reasons.

1. Service Sites

So lets just throw the list out there. We will try to roughly prioritize the list to have the more relevant and judged useful solutions nearer the top. We give more credence to Wiki-solutions as, in the long run, we feel that provides the best opportunity for capturing family history. But we also look for social features to engage cousins to keep in touch and support distant cousins doing common research.

MyFamily.com

MyFamily.com has Facebook-like features for family communication with limited space to upload photos, videos, and such. A nicer look and feel than vanilla Yahoo Groups, Google Groups, or similar. But does require a separate "family" be setup with separate invites for each family member into each group. Would like to make this transparent by linking logins to a family tree that stores that info. Does not have any family tree, simply an import from Ancestry.com with the ancestry.com interface embedded inside it (possibly just a frame to Ancestry). Is now owned by Ancestry? Jun 2009

SharedTree.com

SharedTree.com is a one person shop. Really nice, clean interface like TNG. Claims to avoid duplications by comparing your upload to another users uploads and doing a merge. Then everyone has communal merge / edit on a single, large database it seems. But still seems to have separate trees only visible to common users somehow. Best feature is complete roll back of edits / changes based on time (not version it appears) like in TNG. This would be really nice in PHPGedView as is available in Wiki's.

So would not use for more extensive family stories and photos, but good as an online Genealogy only. Clean interface. Seems to have started with a splash but then not had much participation. Forums are not active. Postings are far and few between to the site help area (6 in the last 12 months) with just 30 overall and most back in 2007. But put the code on SourceForge? Never added adoption handling. Site has blog (wordpress, broken), wiki (mediawiki but not integrated) and Forums (phpbb, not integrated). Was started in 1998 and so guess died on the vine.

WeRelate.org

WeRelate.org has come a long way in a short time. Starts with MediaWiki and then builds in menus and subitems for the genealogy database needed to support a collection of pages on individuals and families. Heavily links back into Wikipedia for places to avoid duplicating effort. A project of the Allen County library with a non-profit foundation partner as well. Some known names from the Internet and Genealogy community on their advisory board. Really takes the best from Wikipedia styles and customs to use for capturing Family and Individual stories that appear right there with the genealogical information with wiki links to sources and references.

Initially and still in 2009 had a poor interface with most of the utility not in the Wiki but in the Java tool written to run in a frame window. Now in 2010 has really developed into a nice mixed story and data interface on each page. Has since added the concept of "trees" which essentially allow you to upload, download and delete many pages at a time so you really own your data.

Discourages all living-person data though but then shows names of living including possibly minors. Also prevents full resolution image upload and has strict copyright labeling — expected from a library sponsor. As it is really near pure MediaWiki? software, awkward handling of tree navigation and showing charts / diagrams (javascript items like Family Tree Explorer). But got to love using the Wikipedia Reference convention and mechanism for all sources and source references — nice! Limits the amount of uploads for a free account and then gets into pretty steep pricing to get incremental storage after that. Could not support the Gallery-level storage (10 GB per family) that we now use.

Familypedia.com

A Wikia site using Sematic Forms to get formatted pages and database-like search capabilities across the pages. Offers an interesting repository and presentation of family history using the MediaWiki? base software. But reliant solely on what can be done in the Semantic MediaWiki; which are constantly evolving. Not as strict to using Wikipedia conventions.

WikiTree.com

Similar to WeRelate? in that it is based on MediaWiki? software, this site is cleaner an better integrated to be a Genealogy site. But it seems to lose the Wiki features in the process. Too early to tell what it will become and how the communal collaboration will work.

MyHeritage.com

An Israeli startup (probably the first non-LDS firm?) that has a slick, but slow, interface. Simpler than Ancestry.com's complex pages but still a little more clumsey and cluttered than some of the other clean sites. Free until you get to a certain size, then charges. Neatest feature is face recognition on photos and even attempts to identify those in photos.

TribalPages.com

Interesting site that seems to really cater to ease of use and allowing media and genealogy interaction. Almost appears to be a customized theme of PHPGEDView.net but much simpler interface. Appears to have large number of users and databases.

Geni.com

A recent, local startup in the space.

FamilyLink.com

By the founder of Ancestry.com and MyFamily?.com.

GenealogyWise.com

Roz Edson's new home. Going after the Facebook approach and appeal it appears that may appeal to amateur genealogists. But then misses out on the capturing genealogy database well it appears.

GeneaNet.org

High ranking on Alexa so include them here. French origin it appears.

OneGreatFamily.com

Genealogy.net

German site

RootsWeb.com

Now part of the ancestry family, still a large supporter of bulletin board exchange on many topics. And large repositories of large databases uploaded by individual users.

MyTrees.com

A real mom-and-pop shop that tries to make a destination website.

FindMyPast.com

UK site for family history search and upload

Arcalife.com

Interesting site that offers lifetime storage and unlimited upload of all media (as well as conversion services to make it digital). Even has the conference calling and recording available. Vancouver based.

Ages-online.com

Kansas based mom-and-pop shop.

Ancestry.com

FamilySearch.org

2. Self - Install Software

There are two main players that have thousands of installed databases available and are widely used. Other smaller players exist and will be mentioned as possible. The primary players are PHPGedView (or PGV for short) and The Next Generation of Genealogy Software (or TNG for short). Smaller players are xxx, yyy, and zzz. Considered here from the main players are versions PGV 4.2 and TNG 7.0. TNG is a one person operation.

Note: As of Feb 2010, PHPGedView has forked into WebTrees.net due likely to many issues but the main one being the source code host SourceForge starting to block enemies of the USA from accessing software — Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. As WebTrees diverges further from the original project, we will add it as another column.

Here is a summary report card that is subjective. See the detailed reviews for reasons behind the grades.

#Feature	TNG	PGV	Notes
Ease of Use	A-	B-	TNG has a much cleaner, stylistic interface that is consistent throughout all screens
Configurable Look
CMS Integration
Multiple Names	F	A	TNG does not support custom, multiple names for people (Married versus Maiden; adoption; surname change on Males). PGV supports not only adding them with sources, but listing and search by varied aliases.
Family Member	D	B	PGV supports adoption, birth, foster and LDS sealing methods of being in a family. TNG supports only birth and sealing. Need support where artificial insemination is used in same sex couples (only one parent is biological). TNG does support annotating an individual with an association to another individual. But this is not shown regularly and thus visible.
Family Parents	C	C	Neither tool supports non-traditional family structures well; that are needed even back into 1800's and before as census records indicate. For example, two same-sex parents.
Licensing	B	A	PGV is GPL and so can pretty much do anything; TNG is privately owned but they appear liberal with licensing
Privacy	C-	B+	PGV has a per object privacy setting but it is limited to turning off editing or viewing except to admin and/or owner — owner being the last one to change it. PGV also has global rule based privacy capability to put specific rules on specific types of info (e.g. if you added Social Security #'s for living individuals and want to limit access to anyone except yourself). Both support limiting access to non-registered users from viewing living records; although TNG does give you some info like last name and existence in this regard.
Versioning	A	D	If you like the history tab in a Wiki you will love the versioning built into TNG. You can see all changes over time including by who and when. In PGV, you at best can see unaccepted edits or more likely simply a stamp of when and who made the last change (but not what the change was).

The lack of multiple naming or family member inclusion options may be show stoppers for some. It is for me where many parents died during the flu epidemic and so surviving spouses remarried with under age children still in the home. The confusing interface and menus may be just too much for others. You have to decide after more careful consideration. We simply try and point out the things we and others who contributed here noticed. Maybe over time these moving targets will start to converge better.

3. Common features of the Online, Editable Genealogy Database offerings

To make things easier, lets talk about the many common features. This mostly for those trying to understand the difference between this marketplace and the traditional desktop tool. Those familiar can skip or skim this material.

3.1. Reasons to consider an Online, Editable Genealogy Database

This is a newer market with few players. But the offerings are actually quite good and robust. So what may be your reasons for considering (or switching to) this solution?

Reasons given for online, editable genealogy database

• Availability to multiple researchers simultaneously
• Living archive of latest information available to other family members all the time
• Robust software maintenance and backup
• Possibility for community building around current, living family groups and closer relatives (cousins) as well as researchers looking into the more distant past of deceased ancestors

Reasons given against online tools:

• Security and privacy (potential for lack of)

Lets talk about each a little more. If you have relations (distant or near) that are helping develop the information; either by sharing in the research or simply reviewing and offering comments. Then nothing can beat the immediacy of having the database online all the time for easy perusal. Also, these systems use database locking techniques to keep changes isolated so simultaneity is not an issue. Both software tools have web pages generated such that web search tools will discover all they can and make your pages indexed and found via Internet searches. We cannot tell you how many times unknown second or third cousins have found us and become part of our team as a result of the online database. Sure, you could keep it offline and simply upload it to a static site. But how often do you remember to do this? And what if the user has something to offer right now? TNG allows an unregistered user feedback mechanism tied to a record ID, for example. Having the database online allows you to give access to known, registered users of the living relatives as well as contribute to the research results. And all have staging capability so you can give certain users contribution rights that are not committed until a more senior administrator reviews the suggested changes.

Security in any online application is always a concern. These vendors have worked to keep it tight by default. So living relatives are not viewable by those without an account, by default. PGV simply does not allow visibility to living relatives. TNG allows you to limit how first names are viewable of living relatives (initial, not at all, full). Documents such as birth certificates that are entered into media can be blocked to outside, unregistered users just as the individual record can. Otherwise, maybe practices are the best preventive medicine. Like not entering minors into the family and individual database at all until they come of age.

3.2. PHP and MySQL with smatterings of Java and HTML CSS

These applications come as a source code package. That means, you have full access to all the source code and can modify it to your hearts content. For 95+% of the installers, they could care less of this. But for those interested in tweaking or making a feature available, you can do this and amazingly with little knowledge sometimes. Being source code as well, updates are easier (especially if you made custom changes). The packages are smaller

The predominant method of doing quick, dirty but still robust online applications is with PHP scripting intermixed with HTML, CSS and Javascript. PHP has been designed as a language for dynamicly created web page construction. An HTML file, the main method of providing information to a browser over the HTTP protocol, can be intermixed with PHP code that generates more of the content, possibly including further HTML code. Unlike JavaScript? or ActiveX, the PHP is processed by the server you are talking too. So the PHP causes output in the form of HTML or similar. You should never generally see the PHP code in the resultant HTML page sent to the server. Without going into the many details and plusses and minuses, lets just leave it at the fact that this makes the code universal to most platforms and servers as most servers support PHP pre-processing of the HTML code.

MySQL is the second half of this paring. While not a source language per say, it is a common feature of many PHP-based applications. My more cynical, traditional computer science side views MySQL use in PHP applications as a cheap data structure storage and retrieval mechanism. Cheap in that it is easy to use for the programmer and bypasses traditional needs to understand anything about linked lists or other data structure setup and traversal mechanisms. In most cases, this is a substitution for good, efficient programming methods. But in reality, for a well designed SQL table structure, this marriage can actually be quite effective. While the system breaks down for large tables with hundreds of thousands of entries, there are few applications that grow to those sizes and needs and thus this works for a majority of the market. And using SQL queries hides the need to do lots of control and looping in the code to traverse and process data. You simply do it through SQL data manipulation commands with maybe some PHP scripting thrown in as well.

But the last 5 to 10 years has seen the rise and dominance of another addition. Custom Javascript in conjunction with customizable CSS files. There are a number of competing packages to support this further dynamic web interaction with JQuery being one of the more popular. A key difference is the CSS and Javascript is sent over to the client browser and the processing is done there. Offloads processing from the server a bit, allows local interaction and feedback without requiring a new query and rebuild of the page from the server, and allows much finer customization. CSS can be used not just for styles or presentation but to help trigger code based on ID's within the HTML tags. A downside of client-side processing is you no longer have control over what really occurs and care has to be taken to avoid rogue programs from getting in the middle.

---