Some genealogy hosting sites have upload limits. That obviously effects the maximum size and thus the average size of the databases on the site.
In practice, the average size will be considerably below the maximum size. Some owners will mistakenly conclude that the limit is no big deal; surely, most genealogy databases are smaller…
Some sites that are capable of handling large database still have a small limit; a pay limit; the site is free to use for owners of small databases, but users will have to pay for the hosting when their database grows beyond the set limit.
It is easy to understand why the vendor does that. It is hard to set a
hosting price for small databases, the cost per record might be ridiculously
high and by offering free hosting for small databases, the vendor attracts a lot
users.
Besides, the vendor is glad to have the user’s data. There is a network effect;
the more data they have, the more attractive their site is to other users.
The vendor hopes that its free users will grow some accustomed to the site and like it so much that they will be willing to pay to keep using it. They may maintain a brave public face about it, perhaps claim a better than average retention, but fact is that many users who took the vendor’s free offer will move on to another site that offers free hosting regardless of database size.
When a user moves on, the vendor will hold on to the already uploaded small database, but the users will upload their larger database elsewhere.
Database upload limits do not only reduce site quantity, they hurt the quality too.
The vendors strategy has several undesirable effects.
First of all, the free offer does attract users, but these users are mostly new researchers whose databases are still small. It is arguable smart to attract budding researchers as early as possible, and also a good thing to attract all the data they already collected.
The free offer will mostly attract relatively inexperienced researchers whose research is unlikely to be of publication quality yet. Over time, the users become more experienced while their database grows. When they reach the vendor’s low limit, they are likely to be familiar with various other web sites and decide to upload their database elsewhere.
As a user’s research continues and experience grows, their database does not just grow in size, but in quality too. The vendor that loses users by setting a limit is not just missing out on all the additional data but also missing out on all corrections. The vendor is left with a small database full of old errors, while a competitor gets a larger database that includes all corrections. Database upload limits do not only reduce site quantity, they hurt the quality too.
By continuing to offer the small erroneous database, while the new and improved edition is just a google search away, the vendor is giving itself a reputation for both small quantity and low quality.
And oh, by missing out on the extra data, the vendor also misses out on the network effect of that data. Worse, some other site is enjoying it the network effect of the larger, higher quality database.
The obvious conclusion of this train of thought is that such limits are a bad thing. These limits annoy the user and ultimately hurt the vendor.
There are some interesting corollaries to the basic thought that sites with limits will have lower quality data than sites without limits.
One is that it is better to search for matches on sites that do not limit database size, as these sites will yield higher quality results.
Another one is that you may not want to host your database there, whatever its size is, because of the site’s reputation for low quality.
As huge online database collections become more commonplace, the quality of these collections becomes increasingly important. A vendor with relatively low quality may experience a positive feedback loop; experienced users with better quality than the site’s average will leave for elsewhere because of the site’s low reputation, thus lowering the site’s quality and reputation even further…
Vendors that maintain a limit can reduce the negative effect of the limit somewhat by having their search engine show recently updated databases first, and long abandoned databases last.
Avoiding the negative effect of a limit is easy; do without that limit. Do not charge users for hosting basic data. Charge them for additional services instead. Limiting genealogy limits the site.
Copyright © Tamura Jones. All Rights reserved.