RootsChat.Com
General => Technical Help => Topic started by: Abiam2 on Sunday 20 January 08 18:27 GMT (UK)
-
It was more convenient to go into Ancestry and look up a couple of censuses for James Harding. His file was not easily available so I entered his details for the 1851 and 1861 and was told twice on each entry that there were no results!! I know he is there I have the Ancestry census printed out.
Having retrieved my printouts I checked and everything I put in was correct and if I put the citation there he is!
Has anyone else had this problem?
Abiam
-
Had trouble searching for something there this afternoon also. Contact told me a person had information on Ancestry but when I put in name - no result. Then put in surname - no result. Finally went to database and put in name - no result. 4th time I put just surname into database and the entry finally came up! Point is that if I didn't believe other person's hint I would have given up on the search.
-
Someone gave me a lead on my tree yesterday, and I still can't get to the census record on Ancestry. Very frustrating.
meles
-
I'm having no problems at all ::)
Gadget
-
Still a problem with Ancestry. I kept putting in names and was told there was no matching record, so I put in a name that I know is on the census and like Abiam I know she is there because I have a print out, also she shows up on Findmypast, but again a message on Ancestry that says no results. Guess who won't be renewing their sub when it's due. Ancestry is more trouble than it's worth.
Lizzie
-
Tried searching for someone again yesterday (who may or may not have records on Ancestry) but when I put in first and last name and South Africa (with exact match box ticked) what came up but several people with same surname and different first names in Scotland!
-
Still not working for me.
Lizzie
-
Hi, I didn't realise anyone had answered! My sub is due at the end of Feb and now I have got used to FindMyPast I think I shall stick with it. If you start to add up the odd cert. here and there plus paying for some info it all becomes a bit expensive. Which reminds me I sent ten pounds off to Southampton Archives way before Christmas must give them a ring! More expense!
What would we do without RC?
Abiam
-
Strangely if I go to Ancestry.com and log on using my UK e-mail address and password, I can then access all the info that is on Ancestry.co.uk, e.g census, BMDs etc and it works. Having tested that, I then logged out and went onto Ancestry.co.uk - searches failed! I've now cancelled my subscription, but can still use it until renewal is due (next October) but they won't renew it. If they do, they are in trouble. ::) ::)
Hope Findmypast doesn't change, unless it is to get even better, when it amalgamates with Scotlandspeople.
Lizzie
-
I'm not sure what you're doing Lizzy - or is it your connection - but I've had no problems at all with Ancestry ???
Gadget
-
I wouldn't think it was my connection as it works via Ancestry.com, it's just Ancestry.co.uk that I get messages that the search hasn't found anything - very odd. Abiam had the same problem on Sunday and others have had problems, seems you are the only one who hasn't any problems with Ancestry. I very rarely use Ancestry nowadays, as I like Findmypast much more, so it doesn't really matter and it's silly to pay 2 subs.
Lizzie
-
Tell me what you're searching for and I'll try to work out what's wrong.
Gadget
-
Gadget
Originally, I was going to search for a person at the request of a Rootschatter, when I got no results at all I thought it was odd, so thought I'd search for my g.grandfather & family who I know are definitely on the 1901 census. Again I got the no results message, but when I search on Ancestry.com and click on UK census the results appear - that is what is odd.
However, if you want to have a look try searching for George Wright in Hull, wife Maria, living at 295 Hessle Road on 1891 or 1901 census.
Lizzie
-
Can't see him immediately . I tried Hull and Kingston upon Hull
-
1891 Admin County, Kingston upon Hull, Civil Parish, Newington,
RG12 Piece 3919, Folio 29, Page 11 (sorry not at Hessle Road on that census, but first family on the page.
1901 Admin County, Kingston upon Hull, Civil Parish, Sculcoates, City, Kingston upon Hull
RG13; Piece: 4479; Folio: 46; Page: 41.
If you click to see the original census for 1901, Ancestry doesn't bring up the correct page and if you look for page 41, it doesn't show the correct page either! However, I did download the census entry from another website, can't remember which one but it wasn't Findmypast, as they don't have 1901 yet.
Lizzie
ps. I accessed these just now via Ancestry.com, still can't get any results from Ancestry.co.uk
-
ah
I saw a Sculcoates one on the 1901 but not the correct wife :-\
-
Gadget
I just tried again to search for Maria on Ancestry.co.uk and got the following message:
'Your Search for Maria Wright returned no matches'
Lizzie
-
Their search engine has some strange quirks, and it works best with as few criteria entered as possible. Most of my problems have been due to transcription errors or wrong spellings.
Having said that, I still wouldn't be without my subscription at the moment. I'd have bankrupted myself searching all those censuses on pay-per-view!
Mike.
-
Hi Mike
I'm searching on Ancestry.com and Ancestry.co.uk with exactly the same criteria, i.e. either just name, or name and county where the person is living and in particular I used the spelling that I know is on the census that I know are on Ancestry.
With Ancestry.com, the searches show up, but on Ancestry.co.uk, just the message about no search results.
I'm giving up on this now, because until my sub expires, if I want to use Ancestry, I'll go via the American site. Most times I only use Findmypast as I like that site much more.
Lizzie
-
Have you got 'Exact Matches Only' ticked on each site ?
It makes quite a difference it seems ....
I use .co.uk all the time, very extensively - no problems.
-
1901 - RG13/4479; Folio: 46; Page: 41 - Hull, Sculcoates
George W Wright 43
Maria Wright 52
William H Wright 14
Ada Wright 16
Ernest Wright 7
Edith A Alder 15
-
Just tried a known census and it worked. Also found out, doing some further clicking, on the accounts page that my sub doesn't expire 'til August. On one part I looked at it said Feb!
So all's fine with me at present!
Abiam
-
1901 - RG13/4479; Folio: 46; Page: 41 - Hull, Sculcoates
George W Wright 43
Maria Wright 52
William H Wright 14
Ada Wright 16
Ernest Wright 7
Edith A Alder 15
Now that's interesting
It still doesn't show on the index if I search on George Wright, etc. but if I put the ref in it, of course, comes up ::)
No exact matches searched and it did show some George W Wrights in Sculcoates
::) ::) ::)
Gadget
-
Gadget
I think that's what I'm saying. If I log on to Ancestry.com and then click onto UK census, I can just put a name into the search engine and I get lots of results, including my ancestors. If I do the same thing on Ancestry.co.uk the message about no results comes up, even though the people are obviously listed on the census.
The name of the 15 year old has been transcribed wrongly too. She is the granddaughter of Maria from a daughter of her first marriage. Interestingly the ages of George and Maria are wrong too, but that is down to the couple not the enumerators. ;D ;D
As I said, I'll just ignore Ancestry from now on.
Lizzie
-
Have you got 'Exact Matches Only' ticked on each site ?
-
I didn't - not sure about Lizzie :-\
Gadget
-
No I didn't have exact matches ticked, I never do. As I said I'm not bothering with Ancestry any more. My sub doesn't run out until October and if I really need to check something which isn't on Findmypast, I will go via Ancestry.com which still works for me.
Lizzie
-
sorry to have tried to help ;D
-
Cross your heart and all that, Newf :)
Did you honestly just search on George Wright, Hull/Kingston upon Hull/Sculcoates, etc. or did you put in the reference ???
Gadget
-
what a strange question ! ???
I always keep 'Exact Searches' ticked - was curious if it would include the man in the hitlist.
why would I try and fudge a search ?
For goodness sake !
As Lizzy is adamant about things, why not just leave it ?
-
Not really strange - I was wondering how you managed to get it and we didn't - I did it as you say you did it ???
The only way I could get the ref up was by putting in the full reference - so I'm puzzled by it.
No offence meant.
Gadget
-
Newf - No offence meant by me either.
Lizzie
-
No worries ;)
-
Gadget - to satisy your 'satiable curiousity'* ....
Exact Matches ticked - which on a previous response you said you hadnt ... gives this hitlist.
Admittedly, one has to know that Sculcoates is Hull..
George Wright Maria abt 1852 St Faith, Norfolk, England Head Heckmondwike, Yorkshire
George Wright Maria J abt 1851 Hackney, London, England Head Scarborough, Yorkshire
George Wright Ellen Maria abt 1856 Suffolk, England Head Wakefield, Yorkshire
George W Wright Maria abt 1871 Rawmarsh, Yorkshire, England Head Rawmarsh, Yorkshire
George W Wright Maria abt 1858 London, England Head Sculcoates, Yorkshire
Viewing 1-5 of 5
* With acknowledgements to Rudyard Kipling
-
Thank you, Newf :)
I'll go tick exact. Don't like using it but I'm a game old stick ;D
Gadget
-
but I'm a game old stick ;D
not The Elephants Child then ;D ;D
-
So , as w/o Exact Matches ticked, no hitlist is produced .... it seems clear that the Ancestry Search Engine uses other logic when Exact Matches is requested ....
Case rests.
Long Live Ancestry (.co.uk) :P
-
I've just had a go :)
I first put in George Wright
Yorkshire and Sculcoates
Came back with no matches found.
Then I took out Sculcoates and added Maria as wife and it came up with the ones you listed.
Right - I'm happy now!
Gadget ;D
-
and all w/o using the RG Refn ::)
-
No ref used.
I usually have no probs with Ancestry census stuff. OK, their indexing can be a bit out but their mistranscriptions are funny (most of the time).
FindMyPast for post-1910 BMDs though :)
Gadget
-
Hi Everyone
I read this thread with GREAT interest because I have been having extensive discussions (by phone and email) with Ancestry staff for some weeks now about the 'silliness' of the search engines. These discussions escalated to the level of Product Manager but when I invited him to join with me in a structured search under my guidance he seems to have backed off. I am an experienced researcher in general terms (being a retired university lecturer) and can see all sorts of problems with the manner in which Ancestry have developed their databases. For those in the know they do not use hierarchical searching and so results are very random indeed. Tney also use one American tradition which is not in universal use and that is adding the woman's married name to the maiden name when you use the link next to your person in the tree "Search For Historical Records" (if when searching you scroll right down to the bottom of the page you will see the system has added the married name in so the original might be Mary Jones but becomes Mary Jones Smith [names concocted]). You will now readily see why when looking for example for a birth record in Ancestry lots of Smiths come up when you are only expecting Joneses! They say they do this so that it becomes possible to get a match for a death which would only be recorded under a married name. Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut!. My brother and I have run many tests in this way using known data (our mother) and it is possible to go through 2000 results (all completely irrelevant) without finding her. Interestingly a hit is produced in Findmypast instantly. I have asked and better asked if am going about searching the wrong way and all staff have said I have it right and they cannot understand why so many false results are produced. I have even challenged individuals to find themselves using these methods and they have to confess they cannot.
I really don't know where all this will end. All I do know is that now I am retired I find it difficult to justify an Ancestry subscription, Findmypast credits, credits for other specialised sites and then the cost of certificates on top of all that so something will have to be done and Ancestry don't seem to have the answer.
Whilst having a little rant have you not noticed in the UK how Ancestry slows down to a standstill in the afternoons (presumably when our friends across the pond get out of bed and get going on their PCs)? Yesterday (high powered PC, fast broadband and 4GB memory!) it actually timed out about 10 times! We need more dedicated bandwidth (UK servers) but will they listen????
And then there is the matter of the GRO and sending for certificates. £7 each and they retain £4 if it isn't right. But usually the errors are in the actual Index in the first place - ie THEIR error. That seems most unfair. On this subject there are two books (A Comedy of Errors Acts I and II by Michael Whitfield Foster available through FFHS at GenFair) which is phenomenal research indicating that at least 30% of GRO records are in an error state. Add to that transcribers' errors and suddenly all is explained!.
I'm not knocking Ancestry for the sake of it. If I say I was originally with Genes Reunited and got hopelessly fed up with the clunkiness and inadequacy there (since ITV took them over) and I haven't found anything better than Ancestry yet - but you know - fitness for purpose, 'doing what it says on the tin' - it isn't cheap and we should expect what we expect.
I just wanted to share these thoughts with you in view of the fact that some of you have experienced search problems. Actually I don't know many people who haven't!
David
-
I totally agree with David. Ancestry has become too clever for it's own sake.
They have started to fiddle about with the last column,so you now get town
and county in that box.
Half the time the search doesn't recognise the county,cos it now says Hull Yorkshire(for example) and not just Yorkshire.
And after two years of me reguarly emailing them ,they still insist that Harrow is in Berkshire.I think that is the case in both 1861 and 51....can't recall of hand now.
By the way I've not had any trouble searching today.But you do wonder if it is bringing up ALL the results sometimes.
Regards
Carol
-
I would just love to see their specs for their searches :)
I think there's been a bit too much fiddling around the edges and, probably, no thorough documentation of the original logic and their changes ::)
Maybe they're using fuzzy logic but, let's face it, go back 6 years and see how we'd all be without them :-\
Gadget
One million Hows, two million Wheres,
And seven million Whys!
:D
-
Gadget, thanks for replying and I'm so glad to see you are in some agreement (I have a lot of respect for you!). I was really scared I might have ranted a bit too much and was waiting for a 'flame war' to start.
My bro and I have just had an hour together on Skype and together we have been searching for some of our 'brick walls'. And because of some of the stuff in this thread I tried logging in to Ancestry.com instead of .co.uk. Very strange happenings there! It logged me in automatically but I have to log in on .co.uk and then.....and then.....I see the Americans have a different menu system on the right hand side of the people view. One is a beta test for printing a book (very very interesting and possibly shows a lot of promise) and then another which I forget now. But we were looking for an ancestor of ours called Charles Lawson and true to form, it brought up Andrew Charles Lawson, Archibald Charles Lawson etc right through the alphabet until finally, after 350 results it reverted to just Charles Lawson. Excuse me - that's what I asked it to do. There simply is no rhyme or reason for this idiocy.
David
-
Hi David :D
I think if you tick the 'exact match' box, you might get him :-\
Newf - any ideas ::)
Gadget
PS - David - what you have to do is not just have your USS penson but an OH with one as well and who then goes back :D