RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: andrewalston on Thursday 06 March 14 18:48 GMT (UK)
-
Despite me (and others I'm sure) pointing out the flaws in their "new" search, Ancestry have done the dirty on us and killed off the search which worked.
I provided examples where the old search produced the correct person as top of the list, while the new version completely ignored the place of birth, and paid scant attention to the year of birth and the name.
Thus, a search in the 1871 England census for "Mary Jane", surname unknown, born at Hale in 1854 no longer suggests Mary Jane Forshaw, born 1854 at Hale, Lancashire and living in Liverpool, but, for no apparent reason, Mary M Giddings, born 1855 in Collingwood Austria and staying in Melksham, Wiltshire.
When I pointed this out (complete with screenshots), believe it or not, their "help" representative suggested that I read their web page about using their database catalog!
So, I'm afraid that many of us will no longer be able to locate our missing relatives.
Unless of course you are looking for a Mary Giddings who was actually born in Victoria.
-
I dont like this new format at all. I seem to be all over the place but where I want to be, and these pop ups just get in the way of what I want to read. This will be my last subscription to Ancestry. I have used the old search system for years, and now I feel like a complete new novice , Thumbs down for me ! Dolly
-
Hi just tried it, yesterday perfect, tonight a baptism I located in London mysteriously does not show, loads of similar?
So unless someone can convince me my yearly sub is worth it, bye bye Ancestry, World Wide sub FindMyPast!
Keyboard86
-
Oh no, I thought it was me but now I realise I am not alone
ANCESTRY, I DON'T LIKE IT
Louisa Maud
-
Sadly after many years I m going to cancel my subscription, it s a nightmare :(
Cathy
-
I have to say, I was unaware they had altered the search facility, but this now makes much sense as to why I have been unable to locate records that were previously the first to appear, and provides an answer to my frustration regarding the ridiculous matches it has been suggesting since I renewed my subscription recently.
I have been switching between that and FindMyPast for comparisons, with FindMyPast becoming evermore the preferred.
Not impressed. In the slightest.
Rant over! :)
-
I don't like the new look BUT it's not as bad as I expected and the searches that I've put in to test it have all come up so far. I shall give it a chance.
FindMyPast are going to make major changes too so ...............................
Gadget
-
Hmmm...change.....bah.
Perhaps that's what I like so much about this hobby/obsession....
You can't change the past! :)
-
Like Gadget I will give it a chance.
Cheers
KHP
-
I haven't found it that bad, but then I have been using the new search for a few months. I also have a subscription to FindMyPast and am waiting to see what their new changes will be. Someone on here has already said they are removing the address search from the censuses, or at least making it much harder to use.
I presume there is a reason for the changes and I expect we will soon get used to it or find a way round it.
-
HI again all, to help others when I have found a mistranscribed family on FindMyPast I have used the census ref on Ancestry to see how they have been shown, how do you do that now?
Keyboard86
-
HI again all, to help others when I have found a mistranscribed family on FindMyPast I have used the census ref on Ancestry to see how they have been shown, how do you do that now?
Keyboard86
If you select country and year and advanced, you get this, amongst other selections:
-
I've just been reading about the changes and some of the reasons behind it. Apparently, according to all their data, only 2% of members were still using the old search.
-
I prefer FindMyPast but have my tree on Ancestry - though am getting more annoyed by the stupid suggestions they offer - so not sure I want to give it up yet :-\
Annoyingly I've been getting emails offering me the chance to try the new FindMyPast but when I log in I get the same old site ???
-
Oh gawd it`s finally happened. I have kept trying to get used to the new search, but always reverted to the old one as it was so much easier to find someone and the results were so much easier to scroll through. I think I will just keep my FindMyPast sub when it comes to renewal.
Mo
-
I've just been reading about the changes and some of the reasons behind it. Apparently, according to all their data, only 2% of members were still using the old search.
Yes they've been quoting that stat for the last few years. Trouble is, they don't seem to be prepared to answer whether that is 2% of all IDs, of which many will be redundant, or 2% of paid up subscriptions or whether it includes those who use at their library who I gather haven't been able to use Old Search for some time.
As they say - lies, d*mn lies and statistics - can be fiddled to prove any point of view. ::)
And there are quite a few complaints about it appearing on their Facebook page too.
-
Yes it seems its going to be very much an "acquired" taste!I would suggest when doing a random Census search for an individual you ignore the search route and enter the details in the UK Census Collection search box.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
I've just spent half an hour on to their support line, and they refuse to admit there is anything wrong. The best they could suggest is using the "Keyword" field instead of the place of birth.
The chap believed that someone searching for "Mary Jane" would be really pleased that their search offered "Mary M" as top of the list and "Jane Ann" at number 3, with the first "Mary Jane" at number 6.
So, it's official. Ancestry's search no longer uses what you put on the form to find records, because IT KNOWS BETTER.
-
I have recently wondered how much they paid the person that dreamed up the new, and virtually useless search boxes ::)
Mo
-
One feature that is annoying is that in the case of England & Wales Marriages post 1916 they are still not putting the Marriages in terms of earliest first.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
I have dreaded this day having seen Ancestry's previous "new search" disaster and I was right - it's another disaster. Very cumbersome and not at all user friendly.
You also now appear to have to search random census entries on a page by page basis whereas previously - you could skip several pages (eg)
Because of possible mis-transcription of a surname beginning with M - I have just been searching the 1871 Scottish census for John b 1858 plus or minus 2yrs with a birthplace of Ireland living in Lanarkshire. It threw up 429 possibles
Previously - that would have been presented as 9 pages - 50 entries per full page plus remainder
I would have then just selected page 4 or thereabouts to get to the M entries
Not now - you get shown page 1 and 2 and then "next" at the bottom of the search so have to scroll on a page by page basis.
I just do not believe that only 2% of members were using old search. How many posts have we had from members who were having problems with the previous "new search" and were directed to "old search" and found it so much easier.
I don't know whether it's just me but I am also finding it very slow and images are not loading properly. They apear "fuzzy" and then clear a bit at a time
-
I don't know whether it's just me but I am also finding it very slow and images are not loading properly. They apear "fuzzy" and then clear a bit at a time
It had been doing that for me for weeks. It then told me to go to the enhanced search, which I did but that was no better. I then got a pop up saying something like, "Whoops we seem to have hit a problem, please try basic search." However today, it appears to have sorted itself out.
-
;D Hi again all, has anyone yet found any new found benefits using this "New Search" as some will know I am a FindMyPast fan and the comments & concerns depicted so far would suggest I am correct in my thoughts of cancelling sub to Ancestry, although I await the doom laden E mail that I am on the "New site" for FindMyPast!
Keyboard86
-
I don't know whether it's just me but I am also finding it very slow and images are not loading properly. They apear "fuzzy" and then clear a bit at a time
It had been doing that for me for weeks. It then told me to go to the enhanced search, which I did but that was no better. I then got a pop up saying something like, "Whoops we seem to have hit a problem, please try basic search." However today, it appears to have sorted itself out.
It hadn't for me about 5 mins ago ::)
Frank.
-
Annoyingly I've been getting emails offering me the chance to try the new FindMyPast but when I log in I get the same old site ???
After signing in, right up the top there is wording "The new findmypast is coming" and you are given the chance to experience what it is offering by joining the queue when you click on more.
Cheers
KHP
-
Annoyingly I've been getting emails offering me the chance to try the new FindMyPast but when I log in I get the same old site ???
After signing in, right up the top there is wording "The new findmypast is coming" and you are given the chance to experience what it is offering by joining the queue when you click on more.
Cheers
KHP
I did that a few weeks ago but nothing happened. The e-mail takes you to a new looking page (with 'new' in the web address) but as soon as you log in you get the old home page ::).
-
I think the recently added British India Office collection shows you what to expect from the new site. There is a keyword box so you can add a spouse's name or parent's names, which is definitely an improvement over the old site. That said, though, they've "tweaked" the new viewer since the collection was first released, and it takes a while for the images to appear. While on the old site, you'd get the "clock" appearing to show how much it had loaded, on the "new" site, it just stays black until the image appears. ::) Having said that, if the search form has been amended so you can add parents/spouse details for baptisms, marriages, etc (not the GRO indexes, but for parish records), then that is a considerable improvement and I'll live with the delay with the viewer. ;) It seems to me a complete waste of time volunteering to be one of the first as they appear to just be ignoring the requests.
I "signed up" for the new site at the end of January when the first emails were sent, yet I am still on the old site. There doesn't really seem to be any rhyme or reason about whose moved when and FindMyPast have ignored my comment, and another person's, about this on their Facebook page. ::)
-
Sorry to hear about all the New Search problems on Ancestry. This is why I didn't renew my sub when it expired in January. It is such a disappointment after so many of us submitted really careful and detailed responses to their consultation on the subject.
On the weaselly 2% figure, I thought I had read that it was 2% of searches rather than of users. Since Old Search was so much more efficient there were fewer failed searches for any given inquiry. Also since the system defaulted to New Search in recent years many newer members would have used it by default rather than choice. They did I think admit that Old Search was favoured by what they called "power users", by which they presumably meant people who know the ropes!
Oh well. I shall miss Ancestry as they have fantastic records.
I am horrified to hear the suggestion that FindMyPast are thinking of abandoning the address search. Why oh why, when it is such a strength of theirs? I too signed up for access to the Beta site but have not seen anything of it yet.
-
Hi Andrewalston
I just tried your example without a problem.
Firstly I went to the 1871 England census and then entered Mary Jane (left surname blank) born 1854, Hale, Lancashire. The first result is your Mary Jane Forshaw. You do need to enter the full birthplace. In many cases the dropdown menu includes the place but if it doesn't list the place then start entering the county (don't forget the comma between place and county) In the case of Hale it appears once you enter Hale, L.
Like most people that used the Old Search I haven't bothered looking at the instructions relating to the new search but probably most answers would be there.
One of the first things you should do when using something new is to forget about the old, read the instructions or help guides etc, and experiment. Generally it is a waste of time contacting Ancestry (or whoever) as, unless you detail what steps you took, and exactly what you entered (including punctuation etc) they won't be able to replicate your problem.
Andy
-
One of the first things you should do when using something new is to forget about the old,
Very true - look how many moaned when Rootschat changed a few months ago, but we soon got used to it. ;)
-
But I didn't know it was Lancashire. It could easily have been Cheshire, or even Hale Barns along the road from there.
Accordingly, I entered "Hale". Up pops a list of the places which Ancestry thinks are ideal. One in Syria, 14 in the USA. You get the same stupid list for Abode, too, even though this is the England census.
Knowing there is more than one Hale, I also tried "Hale*", which should match ANY Hale, even the place in Syria. It gave the same bad search results.
In the old search, the right person popped up as top of the list without having to tweak things with tick boxes all the time.
-
Hi Andrewalston
I just tried your example without a problem.
Firstly I went to the 1871 England census and then entered Mary Jane (left surname blank) born 1854, Hale, Lancashire. The first result is your Mary Jane Forshaw. You do need to enter the full birthplace. In many cases the dropdown menu includes the place but if it doesn't list the place then start entering the county (don't forget the comma between place and county) In the case of Hale it appears once you enter Hale, L.
Hi so now we have to enter a comma between our hopefully correctly transcribed birth place and county, do they allow Margaret P* b 1861 Manchester as FindMyPast at present, or an alternative?
Keyboard86
Like most people that used the Old Search I haven't bothered looking at the instructions relating to the new search but probably most answers would be there.
One of the first things you should do when using something new is to forget about the old, read the instructions or help guides etc, and experiment. Generally it is a waste of time contacting Ancestry (or whoever) as, unless you detail what steps you took, and exactly what you entered (including punctuation etc) they won't be able to replicate your problem.
Andy
-
If I might be so bold as to offer a hint on this New Search on Ancestry.The first thing to do is to tick "Match all terms exactly.Enter first and last name,enter Location and underneath make sure it shows "Restrict to exact".Ignore everything else and go to the bottom box,make sure this shows "All collections".Tick "Historical records" then press Search.With the greatest of respect you shouldn't have to be Einstein to access the records that show up!
I would suggest that if you are searching for a particular person with a rough idea of birthplace and year,you should do this search via the UK Census Collection in the right hand column of the main search page.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
One thing I forgot to add was that underneath the box for a first name is a box that you should change to show "Any event".
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
They are at it again! I really do prefer the old search, keep Ancestry in my favourites so I can just click on it. Now all of a sudden I can only get the new search. Piffle!!
Pam
-
Mine changed last night too :'(
It wouldn't be so bad but the site slowed down to a trickle... Why spend all that money on bringing in new databases then make it harder for subscribers to find them >:(
Piffle ! 'Fraid my word was a bit stronger than that!
-
;D
-
I want my money back >:(
Di
-
Piffle ! 'Fraid my word was a bit stronger than that!
So was mine Red ;D
I've had to endure their totally ridiculous search method for over a week now.
It doesn't remember anything you tell it,so you end up having to tick UK and Ireland every single time.It is so American biased,and not one of my ancestors ever lived there GRrrrrrrrrr.
-
Not very popular this
upgrade; http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=679963.0
Topics merged.
-
The "Match all terms exactly" option is useless unless you already know what is in the index. We all know that our ancestors were economical with the truth, even if they knew it.
The "Restrict to exact place" option is useless in this case, because I am uncertain whether she is from Hale in Cheshire, Hale Barns in Cheshire, Hale in Lancashire or another Hale. "HALE*" ought to match all these; Ancestry can't match any of them any more. "Your Search for Mary Jane returned zero good matches".
Even worse is the sequence of the records it does come back with in my original search. Remember that the search was for "MARY JANE". Why would a search decide that "MARY M" and "ANN JANE" were better matches than any "MARY JANE" ?
-
I have just tried searching for Mary Jane with no results :-\
I do hope we can get used to this but as you say, the old search enabled a much better general search. It looks as though 'Hale' is not acceptable whereas it would have been previously - without a comma and county.
Using the sliders for 'exact' Mary Jane Forshaw born 1854 Hale, living in Liverpool shows no results. Removing Hale, shows her.
-
Don't think too literally when entering location,just enter a County,e.g Cheshire England.
Whilst I agree its a bit daunting to start with but on the other hand I'd be the last one to call myself a genius.I've no great academic qualifications,I've just been educated at the less glamorous "University of life"!
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Don't think too literally when entering location,just enter a County,e.g Cheshire England.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
Entering a county,for eg Cheshire will only work if the census has Cheshire on it and not just Hale.
-
I said in an earlier message,when searching for an individual where you have a rough birthyear and birthplace,don't use the main search page,use the UK Census Collection in the right hand column of the main search page.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Having never used the "old" search, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about? ;D
True, Ancestry is heavily biased towards USA - I did try asking why, when I am logged onto .co.uk?!
Also true, the number of "hits" can be a bit of a nightmare at times, but a bit of lateral thinking should eradicate a lot of those?!
Just stick with it - it's has rarely stopped me being able to offer advice and help?
-
Andrew
Just leave out her place of birth and she's the 5th entry on the list. If you put in Hale, Lancashire, she's top
I'm tending to agree with Kevin - and I have previously only used the old search.
Gadget
-
Also leave out the J or Jane.Its not often middle names show on Census entries.
I'll tell you what I'll do with you Andrew,I'll swap your Forshaw for all my Jones'.lol
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
He can have all mine too, WR ;D (but she is there as Mary Jane)
I remember there was a fuss about Family Search when they changed it - who complains now? it's just getting used to a new system, that's all.
-
It reminds me of the time we changed to decimal coinage.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
I remember there was a fuss about Family Search when they changed it - who complains now? it's just getting used to a new system, that's all.
Just as there was about RootsChat and as there will be about Find My Past when that changes in the next few weeks. There must be a reason behind the changes, I'm sure that companies such as Ancestry and FindMyPast wouldn't do it otherwise - they have too much to lose financially. Things have to change as technology moves on and more and more records become available.
-
Has anybody got any solution to the point I made in reply 20?
-
Hi Carole :)
It only took a few seconds to flip through to the page where the M's were.
However, it seems that there were a lot of John Ms b. Ireland 1858 +/- 2 in Lanarkshire that you'd have to choose from though, Old or New search.
Gadget
-
Has anybody got any solution to the point I made in reply 20?
One way would be to enter the first 3 letters of surname and a wildcard ie mca*, another way is to enter the surname as you think it is and then underneath the surname box change the instructions from Restrict to Exact to Restrict to Exact Matches and Soundex matches.
Andy
-
Also, we know that Ancestry is not all that good with the Scottish censuses and they are transcriptions only so you can't do any checking . In such cases I'd usually use the SP index to be sure.
Gadget
-
Hello,
I hope this is the right forum.
I am not averse to change, but I felt in this case Ancestry have ignored the golden rule "Don't mend things if they ain't broke" as the new configurations are a navigational disaster. However, I suppose their technicians have to justify their existence.
Consequently please help. My Ancestry subscription is due for renewal (£104) at the beginning of April and I am wondering if anyone has comparative experience of Ancestry with other similar sites that may be prepared to offer an objective suggestion for an alternative provider. My main areas of PhD research interest that I use with Ancestry are the Criminal Registers, Census and Family History and these need replicating with an alternative provider........in most cases having put these three areas together results in a message to RootsChat for further help!!!
For the moment,
Tony Cocks
-
I emailed Ancestry last night and have had a long reply this morning. I will go through it later to see if it addresses any of the queries I had, one being as CaroleW pointed out, how you can't 'jump' to the part of the a-z listing of names you want and have to scroll page by page.
If I have anything positive to come back with I will post on here.
Change is a fact of life - if it was for the better we would all embrace it but it rarely seems to happen like that. Familyrelatives changed - still a pain to use. Familysearch changed and initially I found it difficult but now used to it and the changes have been for the better. Ancestry - watch this space. Now fearfully awaiting the FindMyPast one.
However, I am another who simply doesn't believe that only 2% used the 'old search'. Depends on the criteria they used - if it was taken from new subscribers during a certain period they would have automatically have been using the new search not even knowing that an 'old search' was available.
Annette
-
Spent the best part of an hour praising Old Search in their consultation last year, fat lot of good that did! I was transferred to New Search last night, it is awful, absolutely awful.
-
Oh dear, It's bad enough that I now have to lose the old Ancestry format, but now Bt Yahoo mail is changing over to BT .com and I dont understand the jargon that is coming in on how to change over. for instance what is a disposable email address, have asked several friends and family and no one knows! ??? Think I may now have to pack up computing for good, it's going over my old head now! Why change if it still works???
Grrrrr, Dolly.
-
Andrew
Just leave out her place of birth and she's the 5th entry on the list. If you put in Hale, Lancashire, she's top
No, she isn't. She's not even in the first 500. At least if you omit a place of birth it produces a list of "MARY JANE"s, in alphabetical order of surname.
The whole point is that I did not know which county she was born in. Hale is not the only place with two identities. Warrington was n the border between Lancashire and Cheshire. Many families will correctly give the place of birth of some children as "Warrington, Cheshire" and others as "Warrington, Lancashire". Ancestry now demands that we only search for "Warrington, Lancashire, England" before returning any results. People born south of the Mersey are now non-persons.
-
Andrew
Just leave out her place of birth and she's the 5th entry on the list. If you put in Hale, Lancashire, she's top
No, she isn't. She's not even in the first 500. At least if you omit a place of birth it produces a list of "MARY JANE"s, in alphabetical order of surname.
I'm tempted to say 'oh yes she is' ;D
I think it must be the way you're searching - those of us who've mentioned it have all found her.
Could you perhaps explain how you are searching? Are you selecting the 1871 UK census and then England?
Gadget
-
I hope this doesn't breach anything but this is what I did after selecting UK census collection, 1871 and then England. (Mary Jane-1) and I got this back (Mary Jane-2)
See attached images. i didn't use Hale in this e.g.
Gadget
-
Could you perhaps explain how you are searching? Are you selecting the 1871 UK census and then England?
Gadget
1. Open the search page for the 1871 England census.
2. Enter MARY JANE in the First & Middle Name(s) box.
3. Enter 1854 in the Birth Year box.
4. Enter HALE* in the Birth Location box.
5. Click Search.
I would not mind if it came up with half a dozen girls called Mary Jane born in Halesowen or even the place in Syria. It produces GARBAGE instead
In your test, you have specified that Liverpool has to be involved. I did not know where in the country she was.
-
Have duly studied my reply from Ancestry - one item was how to simply give feedback which they answered. Another was re. searching/results using their new Search. I learnt that you can simulate old search using category exact mode. Hover over your user name and select Site Preferences. Scroll to the bottom of the screen and select the checkbox to 'Use category exact mode', then click Update Preferences.
How successful this is I don't know but thought I'd pass it on in case it does help someone.
They did not answer that you can no longer 'jump' pages in an A-Z listing as you could before (sorry CaroleW).
They did not answer that items that used to come up in strict date order (Family Trees and BMD's from 1916) no longer do so and especially with Family Trees which are now absolute worst with no semblance of order at all.
I tried.......
Annette
-
Perhaps if everybody who has an issue with the new search sent emails to them - they would appreciate the problem more as they would probably be swamped.
I am just about to send one re: the page by page search and will word it so that they are in no doubt as to what I mean!!
-
Here's another VERY backward step on the New search
Using Ancestry's 1837-1915 marriages you can no longer show a possible spouse surname to narrow your search. You can from 1916 marriages (eg)
You know Joseph Smith married Emily Roberts pre-1915 - you just don't know exactly where or when
Old Search allowed you to put spouse surname Roberts to narrow any search
New search has no such facility but what it does have is "Keyword" - the example for use is Teacher or Tower of London. Very useful indeed when looking for a spouse surname ::)
Freebmd is often very slow so I tend to use Ancestry - I think I'll hang around for freebmd in future
-
will word it so that they are in no doubt as to what I mean!!
They carefully ignored my step by step explanation of what was going wrong and asked me to read the help about the Database Catalog (US spelling).
-
Andrew
I think some of us thought you knew where she was living. So, I tried to find your e.g with some other sites that I have access to, using the very limited info that you had/gave.
Using the limited criteria of Mary Jane, b. 1854, Hale on the English 1871 census, I tried FindMyPast*, Old simulated search and new search on Ancestry (restricting to exact), Genes Reunited (had to use Hale as a keyword) and Family Search
The only way she showed quickly was on Family search ~
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VBF8-QBK
When I put in Hale, England on Ancestry, it suggested 6 Hale, <county>, England. If you used this, you would find her using Hale, Lancashire but not with Hale,Kent,Somerset,Surrey,Westmorland or Cheshire
I'll have a play to see if I can get her up in any other way. It's all an exploration of a new search engine that might help others :)
Gadget
* to be fair, FindMyPast indexed the 1871 by birth county only
-
Further to reply 65 above - the 1916 marriages onwards are also haywire
I have just been looking for a re-marriage between a male Hall and a female Green and found a possible in 1977 under the male name
Clicked on "Find Spouse" to check the christian name and guess what - there were 194,124 people called Green on the same page - WOW ???
Message said Note: To get better results, add more information such as First Name, Birth Info, Death Info or Location—even a guess will help. Edit your search or learn more.
Now - when you input search details here
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspxdbid=8753 - it will not allow you to input spouse christian name (it didn't using old search either) and if anybody can tell me how birth or death info can find a marriage - I really would be interested ???
-
Carole, I tried your pre-1916 BMD eg on Family search with one of my ancestors' marriages. It came up straight away using the spouse's surname ... and it's free :)
-
"The only way she showed quickly was on Family search ~"
And it's worth every penny. Furthermore, you can contact an online assistant to discuss any problems. I did so not long ago when I found a mis-linked file among the California death certificates. She was friendly, helpful, saw the problem and said she'd bring the matter up with the technical staff. She followed up with an email thanking me for pointing out the error and said it would probably take a couple of weeks before they fixed it, which it did but they eventually got around to it.
-
i struggle with change and this is rubbish i do this as a hobby love helping people wanting nothing in return like most of us on here but cant cope with new system old system put in name country county all pops up great ,this is some suit in ancestry changing things round to prove hes worth whatever hes earning when he finishes work today i suggest he visits a doctor hes not well
-
I am with Andrew and wondered how people seemed to find it so easy. I had just tried first name and place of birth as Hale though.
I am still finding it difficult now I have come back to it and can only admire those of you who have adapted so easily.
It is fine when you have lots of details but it does seem to lack some of the easier ways to find folks when you have to try your luck.
I'm not convinced yet :-\
-
Carole, I tried your pre-1916 BMD eg on Family search with one of my ancestors' marriages. It came up straight away using the spouse's surname ... and it's free
Try searching for a marriage for Joseph Jones between 1876 +-5yrs and you get 134 matches on Ancestry
How do I narrow the search to only those who married a Mary Roberts in Liverpool without having to open and view the entries to see all possible spouse names?
Am I perhaps missing some facility to do that as I can't see anywhere to put a spouse surname of Roberts on the initial search?
-
ANCESTRY NO we dont like these changes are they are not making it easier if fact quite the reverse
-
Carole, I tried your pre-1916 BMD eg on Family search with one of my ancestors' marriages. It came up straight away using the spouse's surname ... and it's free
Try searching for a marriage for Joseph Jones between 1876 +-5yrs and you get 134 matches on Ancestry
How do I narrow the search to only those who married a Mary Roberts in Liverpool without having to open and view the entries to see all possible spouse names?
Am I perhaps missing some facility to do that as I can't see anywhere to put a spouse surname of Roberts on the initial search?
Stick Liverpool in the Keyword box, it then brings up 34. To check which is yours, hang your mouse over the View Record button (don't click) and it will bring up a window showing the spouses. Ancestry introduced this feature a few months back.
You've never been able to enter a spouse's surname on pre-1911 BMD marriages, this only works on FindMyPast. This is because the pre 1911 marriage indexes don't include the spouses name.
As for finding post 1916 marriage spouses, I suspect they've got a problem because the "filters" don't work and I expect you'd need to set to "exact" to get what you want. It needs flagging up to ancestry as they'll need to fix it. ::)
-
I'm fed up :'( :-\ and I'm going to have a tantrum . I don't like it >:( >:(
-
iive had my tantrum on the phone when we are paying for something we expect value for money which this new service isnt :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
the only thing that might ease the pain is a few john smiths but along with a hangover this rubbish new search will still be there in the morning
-
iive had my tantrum on the phone when we are paying for something we expect value for money which this new service isnt :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
I don't suppose you got any where with them?
-
OK, I was as p****d as anyone yesterday when they turned off old search, I've been a subscriber since 2004 and always used Old Search because of the lack of accuracy on the new search. My mother, who is in her 70s as are I would imagine many RCers, has also always used old search and she is definitely not very computer literate. That said, when I asked her earlier this evening how she was getting on, she said it wasn't as bad as she'd expected and she was still finding things.
Now before anyone shouts me down, it is a matter of playing around with the search boxes, filters and using "exact matches".
Additionally, if anyone isn't already using the Quick Links facility on the homepage to set shortcuts to various data sets, eg. UK Census, London Baptisms, to name a couple, it's worth setting these up because you then restrict your search to these data sets only. Hopefully ancestry won't try and remove this facility, they removed it as an option on all pages a few years back but have left it on the homepage. OK it may only remove a few clicks from a search, but it's better than nothing.
As has already been mentioned, the keyword box is useful to avoid having to enter a full location with county and country in the location box.
It's definitely not perfect, I'd like an "exact matches" tickbox on the homepage so it functions the same as the Advance Search without having to click on that page, and it would be nice if all datasets produced results in either date order or name order, some do, most don't. Similarly, as CaroleW has mentioned, the loss of the facility to skip pages is annoying. I also find it now annoying that I am getting prompted to add names from the trees I have access to on ancestry, which never happened in the past. I have absolutely no trees on ancestry but have access to all of my Aunt's (to help her out) and a couple of others, it's now trying to be helpful in thinking that I want to research these and I have to click away to get rid of them. This, though, is more irritating than anything.
While I'd jump at having old search back if given the option, and I don't think there is a chance in hell that will happen, it is possible to work around the peculiarities of the system, albeit in the hope that a few of the major hickups get fixed (like the post 1916 marriage index). ;) It's unfortunately a matter of time and patience and having to change the way you entered search terms from Old Search.
Nicola
-
he said they cant run 2 search engines he give me tips which wasnt helpfull at all he didnt have an answer for the question about putting name country and county he didnt agree the person who came up with the idea should see a doctor
-
i wonder by some comments of those who think its not too bad do u have shares in ancestry ??? :o ;D :'(
-
i wonder by some comments of those who think its not too bad do u have shares in ancestry ??? :o ;D :'(
LOL ;D
-
The only answer of course is for the UK to become an ANCESTRY-FREE zone, hit them in the pocket and minds will certainly change. No matter how much grumbling or complaining will never affect their attitude.
You now know what it is like to be part of the American Land of the Free.......it is certainly free of democracy because no matter how many times subscribers write and tell them the new system is not user-friendly they will continue to ignore you, especially as they virtually have a genealogical monopoly.
Withdraw financial support.....become a non-subscriber!!!!
BAC3
-
i wonder by some comments of those who think its not too bad do u have shares in ancestry ??? :o ;D :'(
No, and I don't work for them either before somebody suggests that.
It is, I'm afraid, a matter of changing how you enter data in the search forms. It is not perfect and not as good as Old Search (whatever anybody else says) but it is useable.
Lets face it if my 71 year old mother can work out how to use it, anyone can. I used to have fun trying to work out why she didn't get the same search results as me in Old Search in spite of telling her what to enter .... so she was never that advanced a user on the Old Search, she just worked out a way to use it that worked for her and I'm afraid that's what we all have to do.
And no I'm not a fan of US either, ask anyone that knows me. ;D But unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot by cancelling it, it is a matter of working out the best way to use the new search.
-
I don't think age of the user is an issue.
-
I don't think age of the user is an issue.
Possibly not, but its easier for younger people to often absorb something new. ;D
-
i disagree your age has nothing to do with it we dont have to put up with it ive been on the phone to them ive been on ancestry since 2006 will not renew my subscription its freedom of choice i choose not to use the new search the fun has been taken out of it
-
whether your 75 or 25 the new search is rubbish lets not forget we pay for using it its not like its free apart from 1881 the old search was easier to spot mistakes
-
I'm neither young nor have shares in anything. I have always enjoyed experimenting with different ways of exploring things.
I always used the Old Search until last night - I'm still experimenting. Most of the searches come up as they always did.
;D
-
Another suggestion for the OP about how to find Mary Jane born 1854 Hale on 1871 Census is attached. This was entered on the UK Census Search form not the general one - which can be found here - http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/group/ukicen. If you enter as below and click search, it provides all UK Census results and I selected 1871 which brings up Mary Jane Forshaw as required but with only four results..
-
From Smudwhisk's reply 75
You've never been able to enter a spouse's surname on pre-1911 BMD marriages, this only works on FindMyPast. This is because the pre 1911 marriage indexes don't include the spouses name.
I beg to differ - you can do it on freebmd which also allows the christian name as well as the surname and you were always able to do it on Ancestry pre-1915 (including pre 1911) marriages although only using surname.
I frequently used Ancestry instead of freebmd as you could use the wildcard facility for "strange surnames" which isn't available on freebmd
I have been using Ancestry for a lot of years and know for a fact that you could search pre-1911 marriages using a spouse surname
I frequently opted for Ancestry pre-1915 as I could use the wildcard facility to search for possible mis-spellings which isn't available on freebmd
-
I frequently used Ancestry instead of freebmd as you could use the wildcard facility for "strange surnames" which isn't available on freebmd
I have been using Ancestry for a lot of years and know for a fact that you could search pre-1911 marriages using a spouse surname
I frequently opted for Ancestry pre-1915 as I could use the wildcard facility to search for possible mis-spellings which isn't available on freebmd
Well I shall have to beg to differ with you on pre1911 marriages, because in almost 10 years as a subscriber, it's never worked for me when it was introduced and obviously it can't be tested now. That said, should ancestry introduce the facility for pre-1911 marriages now, I'd be very pleased as saves me having to use FindMyPast every time. ;)
I've not used FreeBMD for years because it has been so slow.
My points, though on how to find the spouses on pre-1911 marriages still stand, use a keyword to narrow down the search and the preview on the results button stops the need to open every entry. ;)
I think the wildcard facility on ancestry will probably get used more and more now, with exact matches, and it helps limit the number of results.
-
For the past 12months I have rarely used freebmd for marriages 1837 onwards because my screen used to freeze so I never knew whether it was searching or not.
For over 90% of the time I have used Ancestry and have (where known) always used the very last box in the bottom left hand corner to put in spouse surname either in full or using the wildcard ** if it was a possible mistranscribed surname
I am sure there are many other members who can confirm this was the case
-
Carol, all I was saying is that I have never found that to work. It may be it was introduced after I last tried it and never realised that this has changed. Obviously, as I mentioned, I can't confirm it because the old search is no longer there. I would suggest you raise it with ancestry, because if they have lost the functionality with the move to the new search, they need to address it.
I sympathise with anyone having problems adjusting to the new search, but ridiculing those of us who have managed to work out how to use it isn't really fair and many are trying to help with pointers on how to get around the problems. And no Carol I'm not pointing my finger at you as there have been quite a few other comments earlier in this thread from other RCers. The same can be said for some comments from others wondering why people are unable to work out how to use it, those aren't helpful either.
Whether we like it or not, it is highly unlikely that ancestry will re-instate Old Search and therefore the choice remains cancelling your subscription which only spites yourself or trying to work out how to use it.
There are obviously problems with the changeover, such as the issue with the spouses for post1916 marriages, and these need highlighting to ancestry to get them fixed. As for anything else, I'm sure there are quite a few people on RC who would be happy to try and work out the best way to use the search functionality in specific examples, if anyone would like to post a problem where they know the record used to appear in on Old Search.
-
I sympathise with anyone having problems adjusting to the new search, but ridiculing those of us who have managed to work out how to use it isn't really fair and many are trying to help with pointers on how to get around the problems. And no Carol I'm not pointing my finger at you as there have been quite a few other comments earlier in this thread from other RCers.
Nicola has a point here. Some of us (who stuck with the old search) have been trying to help with various ways that we have found to use the new search. We're here to help each other aren't we?
There are quite a few things about Ancestry that I don't like - even before the change over. I never used their BMDs and rarely use their Eng & Wales census collection. I use it for the collections that other sites don't have. It's expensive to have to do this but none of the sites are perfect and, if you're like me and have ancestors here there and everywhere, you have to get around them all! A few years ago, we had to search unindexed census CDs for our ancestors if we were away from archives or FSH centres. Now, they're all there.
However, I'm finding that I use FamilySearch more and more these days as it has so much on it.
Gadget
-
never mind a 'fitness trainer' I need a Techno trainer ::) ::) ::) ::)
xin
-
I have just sent an email to Ancestry raising the issues in my replies 20, 65 and 68 brief descriptions as follows:
20 = You now appear to have to search random census entries on a page by page basis whereas previously - you could skip several pages
65 = Using Ancestry's 1837-1915 marriages you can no longer show a possible spouse surname to narrow your search.
68 1916-2005 marriages - Clicked on "Find Spouse" to check the christian name and there were 194,124 people called Green on the same page
Just as another example of number 68 - I tried this marriage on Ancestry 1916-2005 marriages
Alice G Williams Spouse Surname Russell June qtr 1925 Birmingham South 6d 465
Click on Find Spouse and you get 72,570 "matches"
-
Just as another example of number 68 - I tried this marriage on Ancestry 1916-2005 marriages
Alice G Williams Spouse Surname Russell June qtr 1925 Birmingham South 6d 465
Click on Find Spouse and you get 72,570 "matches"
True, Carole, but there's only one that matches June q, q 1925 Birmingham South 6d 465 - and that comes up first on the list - Ernest W Russell.
I'm not defending them, far from it ..............................
-
I know it presents the first match at the beginning - but why 72,569 others?
It's the same when you use the London births and similar. I have just searched in London births/baptisms for Joseph Williams 1875 +-5yrs. I asked for Exact matches only for the name and was presented with 141 "matches" which included a lot of females and other males not called Joseph but whose fathers were. I can accept the entries where Joseph was a second name but not entries for Ellen, Sarah, Horace etc etc
This is not a new issue connected to the new search changes - it's one that I have raised before with Ancestry and have never had a satisfactory reply to
-
Hi CaroleW
Looking at your Alice G Williams example
If you enter Alice G Williams, leave all other boxes blank, and tick Match All Terms Exactly you get 59 results.
If you add spouse surname Russell you get 1 match.
Depending upon the particular database there are search options for the various boxes, just look underneath the relevant box.
It is probably pointless complaining or querying things at the moment as any genuine query is likely to get lost amongst all the negative and in some cases vitriolic correspondence they would be receiving, and if you think that it will make a difference, forget it.
In my experience of over 40 years using computers in the workplace there was always resistance to change but when people were told adapt or leave people adapted. I can't recall anyone leaving their job because of the change.
In the case of Ancestry the best option is to let the fuss die down then contact them politely with a suggestion for improvement particularly if it is something you could do on the old search. I've picked up a couple of things that either aren't available now or perhaps the change is still in the pipeline. If necessary I'll ask them at some stage in the future.
Andy
-
i cant agree ive paid for a service which they have withdrawn
-
But they haven't withdrawn anything? ???
They have offered a different way to do things.
If you can't cope with that, or are unwilling to accept changes, maybe you should go back to microfiche and microfilm (the way I started).
It's your choice if you decide to leave Ancestry. ;D
Have you given any thought as to what you will use instead?
-
Carol, all I was saying is that I have never found that to work. It may be it was introduced after I last tried it and never realised that this has changed. Obviously, as I mentioned, I can't confirm it because the old search is no longer there. I would suggest you raise it with ancestry, because if they have lost the functionality with the move to the new search, they need to address it.
I sympathise with anyone having problems adjusting to the new search, but ridiculing those of us who have managed to work out how to use it isn't really fair and many are trying to help with pointers on how to get around the problems. And no Carol I'm not pointing my finger at you as there have been quite a few other comments earlier in this thread from other RCers. The same can be said for some comments from others wondering why people are unable to work out how to use it, those aren't helpful either.
Whether we like it or not, it is highly unlikely that ancestry will re-instate Old Search and therefore the choice remains cancelling your subscription which only spites yourself or trying to work out how to use it.g
There are obviously problems with the changeover, such as the issue with the spouses for post1916 marriages, and these need highlighting to ancestry to get them fixed. As for anything else, I'm sure there are quite a few people on RC who would be happy to try and work out the best way to use the search functionality in specific examples, if anyone would like to post a problem where they know the record used to appear in on Old Search.
I'm not sure i have seen any ridicule for others. I think there is frustration and admiration. Even you praised your 71 year old relative and implied it was an age difficulty. Hopefully that wasn't ridicule. ;) Thanks for the help with the search tips. I found it very useful.
It does seem though that the new search takes longer and involves more ticking of boxes than the old search, so to me that isn't an improvement. However, I am sure I'll get there! There are many kind people here to help.
-
There are many kind people here to help.
There sure are, and no matter what the age, we will learn new tricks :D
Cheers
KHP
-
I have been watching this discussion with interest as I too have been a regular user of the Old Search.
When I was first told about the withdrawal of the facility I tried out the New Search for a while and managed to tailor it to get roughly what I wanted. I then reverted to the Old Search!
My main problem at the moment is that the locations do not recognise a "St Ives" in Cornwall. I can get round the problem to some extent by using St Ives a keyword or specifying a registration district on census searches. Think I need to notify this to Ancestry unless anyone can help?
Barbara
-
Hi Barbara
My main problem at the moment is that the locations do not recognise a "St Ives" in Cornwall.
If you put in St Ives, Cornwall and then select 'Restrict to this place only' or Restrict to Exact on the filter under the box, it will work. I''ve just tried it:
-
All that I can say is don't be too literal with the location when doing a general search.If you are searching for maybe an individual about whom you do have a specific location and perhaps birthyear,it is easier to do such a search via the UK Census Collection.
Though it seems I'm having to repeat myself over and over again in offering this!
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Hi WR :)
Barbara was asking specifically about St Ives in Cornwall. The only way to get Ancestry to recognise it at the moment is to type it in as I've said in my previous post.
Gadget
-
Wow, that's a great tip gadget :) I also tried testing it for Barbara but got nowhere.
I wasn't looking forward to this change and didn't even dip my toes into new search until I had no choice. I used it when I first started researching but soon changed back to old search.
However, it's not going to bad for me and I have tested it out with a few obscure searches for which I already knew the answers.
I do think we've got to get used to it, forget our old methods and persevere with a new way of searching. Gadgets tip is very useful.
Ancestry's wide range of records are brilliant, although I still use the other two sites. They are each good in their own ways.
This is an informative thread. Thank you everyone :)
-
you stand corrected k garrad i phoned ancestry on 28th the informed me that the old search would still be available up to 28 th march and beyond i do most of my research on fiche in plymouth records office i wouldnt have paid for another month if i realised the person on the other end of phone was mistaken im really struggling with new search i paid to use old search which has been withdrawn so cant agree with your comments
-
Whilst entering a specific location will work all things being equal,you have to take into account the fact that people were prone not to enter the same birthplace from one Census year to the next.
If I may personalize this location business for one moment;If I am searching for a given person born in Cefn Mawr Denbighshire in Census entries from lets say 1861 to 1901,the person will only show as born in Cefn Mawr perhaps two or three times out of the five possible years.The remainder of the years the person will show as born in Ruabon Denbighshire!
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
I don't stand corrected at all! ;D
Ancestry still offers a search facility - the fact that the one you like was called "old" should have triggered a thought process that it might not last forever?
If you're not willing to give the new search facility a go, by all means take your business somewhere else. That is your prerogative! ;D
Things aren't going to change, so you may as well stop moaning about it! ;D
P.S.
I own no shares in Ancestry.
None of my family or friends (as far as I know) own shares in Ancestry.
I do not work for Ancestry.
None of my family or friends (as far as I know) work for Ancestry.
I am just a reasonably satisfied customer of Ancestry, and will happily renew my annual subscription in April, and continue to use the search facility as I have for a number of years. ;D
-
I agree, there is no point moaning as Ancestry certainly wont bring back the Old Search - they have been warning for months that they were going to withdraw it. If you were informed otherwise, Raa, the best thing would be to take that point up with Ancestry and ask if they will refund your month's subscription as you were sold it under false information.
Like everything else, people will get used to it gradually. If they really cant get on with it, there are other sites, although at least one of them is about to update.
-
the point i was making that i paid foir months subs ion 28th i phoned on the 28th they assured me that old search would be there for another month anyhoot ancestry will be so pleased your staying with them i am going to look at some of the tips given on here c how i get on
-
i am going to look at some of the tips given on here c how i get on
Good on you, raa.
It would be nice if we could use the rest of the thread to deal with questions and answers about how to use the new Ancestry.
Lets all be constructive and share :)
Gadget
-
thank you gadget sorry if i gone over the top i really struggle with changes
-
raa - just ask if you have a problem, I'm sure at least one of us will be able to help :)
-
Thanks, Gadget - didn't know you could manually type in place and county. Because of the list that comes up it 'suggests' that you can only search under places in that list.
We're all having to make the best of it - have no choice - but certainly at the end of the day what one could normally do in a couple of manouvres now takes umpteen.
Annette
-
They changed me over to new search about 2 weeks ago.I'm still very confused,but learning slowly...very slowly ::)
What's the difference between 'Restrict to this place only' or Restrict to Exact" ?
Or do they mean the same thing?
Carol
-
What's the difference between 'Restrict to this place only' or Restrict to Exact" ?
Or do they mean the same thing?
Carol
I think it's the same thing, Carol!
When you type in the place <comma> and county, you then can select 'Restrict to this place' but it then shows up as 'Restrict to Exact' ;D ;D ;D
Added - a bit more about place selection -
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Search/Help/SearchForm.aspx?topic=places
For most of us:
What if I choose a county in England? What filters will I see?
Filters are based upon the location you have chosen. If you choose a county in England, we will allow you to filter at the county, country or the UK level. Filters are adjusted to match the country you are in.
-
Sorry about going on :-X
This might help generally. Each of the drop down menu lists has a help/further info attached to it - 'About these settings'. If you have a look at each of them as you need, it will give you much more info about which selection to make:
-
Did Ancestry ever organise a "test launch"?
If not then the Marketing Division of Ancestry displays a remarkable level of incompetence. Not only would a "test launch" probably avoided most of the "aggro" towards the new search by resolving issues before a full launch but, and more worryingly, avoided some of the noticeable intolerance that is beginning to colour some of the listings.
The new search is a fait accompli..........sit back, relax, take some deep breaths and I am sure in several weeks most, if not all of you, will enjoy the experience and reflect on what the hell the fuss was about. Besides which Ancestry still offers, in my opinon, the most coherent, comprehensive research facility AND I AM NOT A SHAREHOLDER, NOR AN EMPLOYEE, MERELY SOMEONE WHO HAS TO RENEW THEIR SUBSCRIPTION ON 04/04/2014!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Sorry about going on :-X
This might help generally. Each of the drop down menu lists has a help/further info attached to it - 'About these settings'. If you have a look at each of them as you need, it will give you much more info about which selection to make:
Thanks for the link to the explanation Gadget- will be spending longer reading this than looking up family tree ;D
-
Sorry about going on :-X
This might help generally. Each of the drop down menu lists has a help/further info attached to it - 'About these settings'. If you have a look at each of them as you need, it will give you much more info about which selection to make:
Don't worry about "going on" Gadget!
Trying to be a little subtle,I think its a bit of a savage irony when the less adaptable come forward with "brickwalls" in their Tree.lol
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Did Ancestry ever organise a "test launch"?
Does the fact that the "new" search has been available for years not amount to a test launch?
I've used it ever since it come on-stream - I don't remember ever using the "old" defunct search! ;D ;D
Launched in 2008 I think?
-
Did Ancestry ever organise a "test launch"?
Does the fact that the "new" search has been available for years not amount to a test launch?
I've used it ever since it come on-stream - I don't remember ever using the "old" defunct search! ;D ;D
So Kevin will give us all the answers to any queries ;D ;D ;D
It would be nice (yeah -even altruistic) if you could give some pointers, Kevin. some of us are trying to help the others.
-
Thank you for that suggestion Gadget which I shall try.
The reason that I want to use St Ives as a specific search criterion is that I often want to do work on groups of St Ives families.
I think it is really useful to share suggestions on this thread for getting the best out of the new search.
Barbara
-
Brilliant :)
Barbara
-
At my age, (and I am not going to tell you how old I am), I don't like change, but as always I have decided to give it a go, my subs aren't due to be renewed for a few months, so I have time to decide, will be a shame not to renew as I have been happy so far using the old system
Louisa Maud
-
One thing I've just found....maybe everyone already knows this?
If you click on search all records, then scroll down, then click on the map,( say England ) then scroll down and on the right hand side is the option of county......this then leads to specific records relating to that county.
A fairly quick way to get to the "nitty gritty" I thought. :)
-
I don't remember ever using the "old" defunct search!
The old search only became defunct this week - hence the furore. I think it's very clear from the large number of adverse comments that the vast majority of RC members were using the old search without problem.
Since the introduction of the previous ?? 2008 "new search" there have been "help me" posts from a variety of members who have inadvertantly found themselves using that search and getting in a real tizz. Members have guided them on how to switch to the old search and have received grateful thanks and sighs of relief - which in my opinion speaks volumes.
I am NOT averse to change and accept some of the comments re: adapting to other changes that have occurred (RC re-vamp etc etc). Quite often - the introduction of new methodology can save time and effort and generally make life easier.
However - purely from my own personal usage, I can honestly say I can see absolutely no advantages at all in the introduction of this new search - it's actually cumbersome and time consuming and in some areas - plain doolally.
One, albeit minor example of a backward step, would be that we no longer have a drop down menu of counties to select from - now having to type it in on every search instead. Before you say it - yes I know - that's always been the case on some of the Scottish censuses but all the English and Welsh censuses had it as did the BMD searches. It saved a wee bit of time and also guarded against spelling errors. Why did they need to take it away?
Again - speaking only from my own usage of it, I see this new search as a retrograde step - not an advancement - and one that in my opinion is well worthy of the old saying "If it ain't broke - don't fix it"
-
Carole, I think we all probably have our own preferred ways of searching and I'm not sure of what you meant by the drop down list of countries but does my "tip" on the previous post to yours help you at all in that respect?
I think we have to explore the site to familiarise ourselves with what is where.
I also think it would seem that the 2% of "old searchers" were made up of 99% of RC members :)
-
OK - so I want to search the 1891 census - I have all available census links stored in My Quick Links on Ancestry
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?htx=List&dbid=6598&offerid=0%3a7858%3a0
Can you guide me through the procedure you suggest above using direct access to the relevant census? I have used direct access for several years without problem. If you can find a way in which I don't have to manually put in the county using direct access - I am more than happy to learn from it
-
As a MOF - and you can look at my profile to see how old I am - I'm still here, still causing chaos, and quite frankly I don't give a d**n - I've actually found things using the new search that I hadn't found using the old search :o :o
I decided, knowing that the inevitable was happening, to switch early, and I'm beginning to like it - once I get rid of "USA" records 8) by limiting the range. I've even found photographs of relatives on trees to add to my own collection (after asking permission), so I'm getting used to it. You have to move with the times ;)
-
OK - so I want to search the 1891 census - I have all available census links stored in My Quick Links on Ancestry
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/db.aspx?htx=List&dbid=6598&offerid=0%3a7858%3a0
Can you guide me through the procedure you suggest above using direct access to the relevant census? I have used direct access for several years without problem. If you can find a way in which I don't have to manually put in the county using direct access - I am more than happy to learn from it
Doubtless me being thick here Carole :) but does the link you gave not lead you to a drop down list on the right hand side?
Or do you mean how do you get quickly to that choice from the home page?
-
but does the link you gave not lead you to a drop down list on the right hand side?
The so and so's have moved it to the other side of the screen!!!!!!!!!!
As I said - I'm happy to learn :-[
ps - I have just wiped all the egg off my face so will start again
-
That's good Carole.......makes a change for me to be able to help you :)
-
I have this page bookmarked for the census
http://search.ancestry.co.uk/search/group/ukicen
It doesn't seem to look any different on new search.
-
Hampshire Lass ~
That map tip is good. I'd previously used it for US; Canada and Australia but not for UK.
I think we're best when we help each other :)
Gadget
-
Hampshire Lass ~
That map tip is good. I'd previously used it for US; Canada and Australia but not for UK.
I think we're best when we help each other :)
Gadget
I think that's the way we're going to cope with this as we all use different methods and find different short cuts. We certainly won't change things and the best we can do is to help each other.
-
Is anyone having problems?
Please don't tell me it's just me :o My trees have disappeared :o
-
Think it is Ancestry - I cant get mine either, just Start a New Tree or Upload a Gedcom.
-
Hampshire Lass so have all my family trees disappeared
Mo
-
Mine is stuck on the one page,I can't navigate?
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
My cousins's trees that I have access to aren't there so maybe they're doing something!
I keep my own trees very local to me.
Gadget
-
Is anyone having problems?
Please don't tell me it's just me :o My trees have disappeared :o
No, it's not just you, I've been on about an hour with nothing but trouble, "Whoops! we've encountered a problem", REALLY ?????!!!!!!!!!.
I'm getting sick and tired of it.
Everytime I try to add a record that's the message I get.....................................................
Rant over. :-[
Frank.
-
Just checked on the Ancestry page on FB and it seems to be a general thing at the moment - no one can get into trees.
-
the trouble I seem to be having which is very odd is when ever I come off ancestry to look at something else I have to keep signing back in ::)
-
Thanks for the replies everyone. :)
I'm greatly relieved because everything was going fine and then suddenly.....nothing there....and I panicked.
I'm giving up for today. :)
-
They have emptied my Shoebox.......... aaargh........... they better fill it again!!!!!
xin
-
well I don't now what's going on if I try to look at my tree it keeps telling me to check back later >:( ::) :-\
-
Apparently they are doing maintenance on the family tree part of the site ::)
Frank.
Nice to know they are not wasting our money, (He said sarcastically).
-
They have emptied my Shoebox.......... aaargh........... they better fill it again!!!!!
xin
They've emptied mine too!
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
What a strange time to pick to do maintenance - this is the one time of day when the UK, America and Australia and NZ are all around.
-
for goodness sake arghhhhhhhhhhhh
-
Ha-Haa!! Mine are all back. ;D
Frank.
-
No they're not they've %&*()$£ gone again. >:(
If it wasn't so maddening it would be funny.
Frank.
-
Mine are back.
-
Mine are back.
Keep checking them ;D
Frank.
-
Must be the gremlins .... people I could find easily are no longer, they are playing hide and seek ;D
Cheers
KHP
-
Its holding me up no end!Grrrrrrr.
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
Okey dokey, I was reading this thread and agreeing with some comments and disagreeing with others when I went off to check on Ancestry which I had left open.
My tree was there so I thought I'd try one of the suggestions I'd seen, lo and behold when the page changed my trees had didappeared, shoebox empty too, then I saw the temp unavailable page.
came back here and saw 12 new messages all mentioning the same, trotted off to FB to see what was transpiring so now I'm here again.
One thing I want to ask: the new search has been around for quite a while, with the option of going back to the old if necessary, but this verson that took over yesterday is different - a new, new version isn't it?
-
I daren't look.......I've given up for today and don't want to see that my shoebox is empty ::)
Think we must trust that all will be fine tomorrow and not panic. (Says she who was certainly panicking a little while ago.)
All will be fine.
All will be fine.
All will be fine.
-
I'm just curious. Why would anyone store stuff in an Ancestry 'shoe box' instead of in folders on their own computer?
-
mine seem's to be ok now :-X
-
I'm just curious. Why would anyone store stuff in an Ancestry 'shoe box' instead of in folders on their own computer?
Easy facility to use when you've found a record which may/may not be relevant to your research. I've got quite a few records in mine and really should ditch a lot of them.
-
I'm just curious. Why would anyone store stuff in an Ancestry 'shoe box' instead of in folders on their own computer?
These are records that we have downloaded or printed which are automatically (if I am correct) kept in the shoebox.
Cheers
KHP
-
My shoebox is basically full of maybes, that I dont want to clutter up my definates folder with.
cos its big and fat as it is.
If I find a maybe -- pop it in the shoebox, I check the box before I search again to make sure that I havent previously downloaded this file, its actually like a post it note to me. Its the way I do things and it helps me ..... sad I know.... ;) ;D
ps not looking at Anc again this week ???
xin
-
I'm just curious. Why would anyone store stuff in an Ancestry 'shoe box' instead of in folders on their own computer?
It's a case of Yes; No; Maybe. Maybe goes into the shoebox, easy to get at when working on Ancestry (at least they were, who knows about now). No point clogging up a folder on the computer, but each to his own method I suppose.
-
I'm just curious. Why would anyone store stuff in an Ancestry 'shoe box' instead of in folders on their own computer?
I use it as a type of "Holding Pen" until I can prove they are who I hope they are.
Frank.
-
My trees and shoebox are back :D
Mo
-
Everythings back for me too!
Regards
William Russell Jones.
-
NO NEED TO SHOUT ive already sent i went over the top moved on
-
Nobody's shouting raa and you didn't go over the top :)
We were whispering last night because all our trees and shoeboxes disappeared, so panic set in.
Well, I panicked anyway ;D
Serious stuff now........please can someone advice how to search marriages as I think Carole has a point and it's not easy to find who you want. Main problem is that the results aren't in year order.
Have you sussed it yet Carole?
-
im responding to bac 3 on page six should have made it clear
-
Ok ;D
We've rabbited so much page 6 is ancient history. Hope you're getting along better now :)
-
no i havnt moved on i cant figure any of it out i cant see why we cant put in a county on search button at the end of the day is the new search an improvement no
-
When I am searching, I use different sites for different things!
So, for marriages, I would always use FreeBMD first - so much easier to search there ;D
Sometimes I use FindMyPast to search for events - I no longer have a subscription, but it's free to look at the indexes.
If I am unsure about places, I use GenUKI.
On Ancestry, I always start with "Search All Records".
I key in the name of the person I am searching for - ignoring Ancestry's kind suggestions from my tree!
If I know birth, marriage or death dates and/or places (or even a rough idea) I will enter these details. With place-names, Ancestry usually suggests places via a drop-down list.
This isn't perfect! Heavily biased towards USA, and there are anomalies with places "not known" to Ancestry (Like St Ives!).
Because I link to the internet via a 3G dongle, it's usually quicker for me to enter the place, county, and country (Don't forget to add England!!) than wait for the drop-down list. ::)
Once I have a list of search results, I can filter the results by using the categories on the left-hand side.
No - Ancestry isn't perfect!
Yes - it frustrates the hell out of me at times!
As I said, I never used the old search, and have been using the "new" search for 6 years now.
A lot of lateral thinking is required, but I usually get there in the end ;D
-
no i havnt moved on i cant figure any of it out i cant see why we cant put in a county on search button at the end of the day is the new search an improvement no
Some suggestions on these posts, raa:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=679963.msg5247027#msg5247027
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=679963.msg5246826#msg5246826
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=679963.msg5246927#msg5246927
Gadget
PS - for HL - Like KGarrad, I don't use ancestry for BMDs.
-
thanks gadget
-
Of course you can use "County" in the Search. Even the basic Search shown on the Home page. Just enter the county in the "may have lived" box - drop down then allows you to click on the correct one. OK the answer will have "England" or another country, but they are all listed, just choose the right one. "Yorkshire" has England at the top of the list (as it should be :-X) "Norfolk" has England as the third entry.
-
Just remember that Ancestry is not the only online source - it's good for some things. In the main, it's of little use for Wales or Scotland (apart from having censuses and bmds ).
Last night, I looked at the listings of what it had for my main countries/counties . This was the result:
1. Wales: http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Places/UK/Wales/Default.aspx
2. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Places/UK/Wales/Denbighshire/Default.aspx
and Scotland:
1. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Places/UK/Scotland/Default.aspx
2. http://search.ancestry.co.uk/Places/UK/Scotland/Kirkcudbrightshire/Default.aspx
( I use it for some of the other counties and countries that some of my ancestors strayed into and for specifics like probate, etc.)
;D :-X ;D
-
PS - for HL - Like KGarrad, I don't use ancestry for BMDs.
Thanks Gadget and KGarrad I thought that may be the answer. I do use other sites and so agree that is probably the way forward. So long as we get there in the end eh? :)
-
I use a variety of sites as well, depending on what I am looking for, Ancestry is great for the London records and has saved me having to send for a lot of marriage certificates as they are on line. I think it is a case of looking around to see what is available and mixing and matching. No one site offers everything, all have their strengths and weaknesses.
-
Gadget,
You have to read between the lines!
What it says is, under some categories, there are no records unique to Wales and/or Denbighshire!
That's because they are all tied up in the England & Wales records, with no easy (or cost-effective) way to separate out just the Wales/Denbighshire records ::)
-
I agree groom, they all have their strengths.
FindMyPast is great for Welsh Parish Records Gadget.
-
Gadget,
You have to read between the lines!
What it says is, under some categories, there are no records unique to Wales and/or Denbighshire!
That's because they are all tied up in the England & Wales records, with no easy (or cost-effective) way to separate out just the Wales/Denbighshire records ::)
I think I said that there is very little for the counties I mentioned apart from the general databases - e,g, censuses and BMDs - I don't use Ancestry for either of those so:
( I use it for some of the other counties and countries that some of my ancestors strayed into and for specifics like probate, etc.)
-
no i havnt moved on i cant figure any of it out i cant see why we cant put in a county on search button at the end of the day is the new search an improvement no
I think I have worked out some of what is happening.
Because Ancestry are US-based, they have no concept of records mentioning place names other than State. That's all that their censuses mention, so they assume the rest of the world must be the same. Thus "Hale, Lancashire" has to fit in one field in their database to match the schema they use for "California".
Previously, these were two separate fields, so we could search on either or both.
So any records which don't exactly match their gazetteer, which they use as a translation table for that single field, can not be found by the search. Wildcards are not allowed in their translation table. If you don't provide an exact match, the place name is ignored.
If the place name on the original was incorrectly written (dittoing the wrong county for example), you can never find it by using the place name fields in Ancestry's search. Your only chance is to use the "keywords" field, which searches through the actual text.
Neither Cambridgeshire or Cornwall St. Ives are in their gazetteer, so Ancestry can't find their records. Maybe they are hoping to keep it secret so they can go there on their holidays?
The gazetteer is very US-centric, though. They really ought to suggest UK place names for a UK database.
I have not looked at how they deal with places with more than one official spelling, such as "Oxfordshire" and "Oxon". They use "CA" for "California", so we might be OK.
-
St. Ives isn't in their gazetteer, so Ancestry can't find its records. Maybe they are hoping to keep it secret so they can go there on their holidays?
I think I gave the way that this is entered last evening. Will put up the link in a mo as it's over the page!
-
Here it is:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=679963.msg5246826#msg5246826
Also:
When I put in Hale, England on Ancestry, it suggested 6 Hale, <county>, England. If you used this, you would find her using Hale, Lancashire but not with Hale,Kent,Somerset,Surrey,Westmorland or Cheshire
I quote from ~ http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=679963.msg5246147#msg5246147
Gadget
-
Yes the method is on Page 13 and it does work :)
A bit more of a nuisance to do but I can live with it.
Please don't let Ancestry descend on St Ives! ;D
Barbara
-
"If you don't provide an exact match, the place name is ignored."
It seems, not quite. What it translates to is the set of records which don't match any of its gazetteer place names.
So in my original search, the first 8 records returned were those with places of birth that Ancestry couldn't cope with. "Collingwood, Austria", "West", and including, surprisingly, at no. 7, "United States".
-
I have not looked at how they deal with places with more than one official spelling, such as "Oxfordshire" and "Oxon". They use "CA" for "California", so we might be OK.
In that respect, Ancestry is more flexible than FindMyPast?
Searching on FindMyPast, census returns, for somebody born in Somerset returns different results than Somersetshire?!
And, of course, their 1871 indexes never include place - only county! ;D
Every search engine has it's idiosyncracies - it's a matter of learning what they are, and working around them! ;D ;D ::)
-
Family Search is still the best value for money ;D - it even links you to other sites :)
-
Family Search is still the best value for money ;D - it even links you to other sites :)
That's as maybe - it is free. However, it is only an index, unless, as in very few cases, original entries are available to view. I've come across so many people who have taken this website as "gospel" and then found they were on the wrong track because they hadn't bothered to verify the entries from parish records, etc.
-
Family Search is still the best value for money ;D - it even links you to other sites :)
It's just a shame there is no button to mark that says "check all submitted Entries"!! ;D
-
How very true. I remember, many years ago now, when I was visiting one of their Family History Centres to do my own research from parish records, that a lady there was uploading her family records. I heard her say to the lady supervising the uploading "I'm not very sure whether this is the correct wife or not". "Don't worry about that, it doesn't matter" was the response :o
-
If you've used FS as long as I have, you'll get to know about sifting out the submitteds.
Re the images - as I said there are often links to sites that do have the images - FindMyPast, for eg. I think also the American censuses are linked to Ancestry.com and some of the non-c records are linked to the non-c site, etc., etc.
Generally, you need to belong to/use a whole lot of sites or go to archives, etc. and look there.
I did most of my own trees before all this info became available online. If I couldn't get to places, family/friends would get the info or I'd pay.
Let's be constructive, please, and stop running down these sites- use them for our hobby and accept that nothing is perfect - including us ;D
Gadget
-
Because Ancestry are US-based, they have no concept of records mentioning place names other than State. That's all that their censuses mention, so they assume the rest of the world must be the same. Thus "Hale, Lancashire" has to fit in one field in their database to match the schema they use for "California".
Previously, these were two separate fields, so we could search on either or both.
So any records which don't exactly match their gazetteer, which they use as a translation table for that single field, can not be found by the search. Wildcards are not allowed in their translation table. If you don't provide an exact match, the place name is ignored.
If the place name on the original was incorrectly written (dittoing the wrong county for example), you can never find it by using the place name fields in Ancestry's search. Your only chance is to use the "keywords" field, which searches through the actual text.
Neither Cambridgeshire or Cornwall St. Ives are in their gazetteer, so Ancestry can't find their records. Maybe they are hoping to keep it secret so they can go there on their holidays?
So why not just use the keyword box instead of the location fields? Then, as you have said, it will search through the text in the indexes and excludes the possibility that ancestry have missed off the county name or indexed it under the wrong county, which has happened. It's then no different to entering in the town/parish box under Old Search without a county name. ;) You can use wildcards if there is the possibility that ancestry have indexed it incorrectly. I know you'll get people resident in the place as well as born there, but it eliminates some of the problems.
-
So why not just use the keyword box instead of the location fields?
Because we expect a location box on the form to be useful when searching. Ancestry have removed that usefulness from us.
If they had told us this in the first place, nobody would be moaning.
-
"search" .....mary Jane......1854.......hale,Lancashire......
surely she pops up as number one?
-
What a fascinating thread this is. I was previously unaware that so many people demand push-button searching, drop-down lists with their country at the top damn it, and feel cheated if they have to use some ingenuity and the search is really a search. Yikes.
-
So why not just use the keyword box instead of the location fields?
Because we expect a location box on the form to be useful when searching. Ancestry have removed that usefulness from us.
If they had told us this in the first place, nobody would be moaning.
Possibly, but as you are aware that it doesn't work the same way it used to, why not try and find a way to get it to work on the new search form rather than just moan about it.
-
What a fascinating thread this is. I was previously unaware that so many people demand push-button searching, drop-down lists with their country at the top damn it, and feel cheated if they have to use some ingenuity and the search is really a search. Yikes.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What a fascinating thread this is. I was previously unaware that so many people demand push-button searching, drop-down lists with their country at the top damn it, and feel cheated if they have to use some ingenuity and the search is really a search. Yikes.
We don't all expect that
-
What a fascinating thread this is. I was previously unaware that so many people demand push-button searching, drop-down lists with their country at the top damn it, and feel cheated if they have to use some ingenuity and the search is really a search. Yikes.
Love it !
;D ;D ;D ;D
Frank.
-
I wonder how they deal with patronymics :-X
(only joking ;D )
(PS - I have all the old unindexed census images on CD for most of the North Wales counties and for Shropshire and Wiltshire. Also some of the London 1841, ones. I lived in the Highlands then so had to go that way. They cost me ££££s)
-
or even matronymics :)
-
Yep, I've got an Ellis ap Robert marrying a Margaret verch Hugh* from Merionethshire ;D
* but that's a patronymic too - sadly, the Welsh weren't feminists :-X
-
What a fascinating thread this is. I was previously unaware that so many people demand push-button searching, drop-down lists with their country at the top damn it, and feel cheated if they have to use some ingenuity and the search is really a search. Yikes.
I'm sorry but, referring to the comment above, unlike jess5athome and smudwhisk I neither 'love it' or find it amusing.
Patronising, sarcastic and mean-spirited seem more to the point, and certainly not helpful to anyone who is currently experiencing problems.
I'm sorry if my opinion is contrary to the majority but I am, like everyone else, entitled to my opinion. At least one would hope so.
-
(PS - I have all the old unindexed census images on CD for most of the North Wales counties and for Shropshire and Wiltshire. Also some of the London 1841, ones. I lived in the Highlands then so had to go that way. The cost me ££££s)
Ditto (although not living in the Highlands), have 1841-1901 for London, Essex, Suffolk and a few others because it still worked out cheaper than having to go down to the Family Records Centre in London for a day and look at the microfilm copies. ;)
-
Sorry but unlike jess5athome and smudwhisk I neither 'love it' or find it amusing.
Patronising, sarcastic and mean-spirited seem more to the point, and certainly not helpful to anyone who is currently experiencing problems.
I'm sorry if my opinion is contrary to the majority but I am, like everyone else, entitled to my opinion. At least one would hope so.
msr you are entitled to your opinion but, as both Gadget and I have said previously (and I suspect others), if you are having problems, post some examples of things you now can't find and we can have a look and see the best way of finding them.
There is nothing mean spirited about it, we're all trying to help, it's just some people don't seem to want to take up the offer to find a way of coping with the new search. It's not likely to go away, so the best way of dealing with frustration is to try and find a way around it. There have already been some good comments and tips on this thread.
My amusement was with the sarcasm in Erato's comment, not at anyone's misfortune in having problems with the new search.
If I was given the option, I too would go back to Old Search as quickly as they reinstated it.
-
My "Love it" comment was not meant to offend, as you rightly point out msr we are all entitled to our opinions, I have always had a liking for the way Erato replies to certain threads, Sarcasm being the lowest form of whit or the highest form of intelligence? depending on opinion, and the only problems I tend to find amusing are usually my own.
Best regards always.
Frank :)
-
smudwhisk, I fully realise that there have been helpful comments and tips on here, and would certainly ask for help if and when needed.
I was commenting purely on the post from Erato which I thought neither helpful or friendly in nature.
As for the new search - I have been using it since it was it was introduced quite some time ago, reverting to the old facility from time to time, but now it does seem to have morphed into something completely different, so the 'new' that many people have become used to is now 'new improved'.
When shopping, if I see a brand that I buy is now 'new improved' or has a 'great new taste' I eye it with some suspicion as it is not always better - sometimes far from it.
I am sure anyone requiring the help offered by yourself, Gadget and others will be most grateful for it, but everyone should be allowed to vent frustration once in a while without put-down remarks thrown their way.
I shall now take myself off to Ancestry to see what I can find today.
-
Doubt that it will make me popular but I've welcomed the change. ::)
As one of the "old uns" anything that makes the little grey cells work a bit harder is welcome.
I'm treating it as a Mental Health test and I'll not be happy with less than 100%
Pat.
-
Please keep the topic friendly and "On Topic" please!
Part two continued here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=680241.0