RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: jettejjane on Wednesday 09 September 15 09:41 BST (UK)
-
I think the subject line says it all.
Just been into ancestry and its a nightmare. I dont like the new look. I am registered but only use pay as you go. It tells me I cannot access any of my stuff, to try again. Have been trying for 2 days.
I know I am a bit of a techno-phobe/dinosaur, is it just me ???. I had the option to leave a message and I did telling them much the same as I have here. After I submitted it said "sorry to see you go"! I didnt actually say I was going - so where does this leave me?
Jane
-
The "sorry to see you go" message appears each time you try out New Ancestry and then revert back to the old version. It doesn't mean that you been unsubscribed . I don't like the new format either and , for the time being at any rate, we don't have to use it , but sooner or later there will be no choice so I'm afraid we will have to get used to it.
-
As CB53 said, you still have the option of using the old site, I think there is a thread about it somewhere on here. I tried the new site, found some of my relatives had been moved to America, so I went back to the old site. When I contacted Ancestry via their FB page I received a reply telling me that they were aware of the problem and that they were working on it. I'll give it another go when it is sorted.
-
Thanks Guys,
I tried to get back to the old site but I couldnt. I am sure it is me but it is so frustrating. I will give it another go then if it doesnt work give up!
Its a shame they have to change it but I suppose eventually I will have to get used to the change - or go somewhere else.
Jane
-
Jane, if you log back onto Ancestry, on the home page hover the cursor over your username and a drop down menu will appear, click on "Old Ancestry?" and the old site will come back on for you.
Frank :)
-
I tried the new site, found some of my relatives had been moved to America, so I went back to the old site.
I think that changes like that now affect the old site too. Today I was rechecking a marriage - I had originally recorded the registration details as Bradfield registration district, Berkshire. Then I discovered that Ancestry said inferred county was West Riding of Yorkshire so it made me worry I had completely the wrong couple. Eventually I got the scan of the index to load (very slow internet connection) and it was indeed Bradfield and not Bradford - which was much more likely given known residence of the couple in the 1960's. I'm sure it didn't say West Riding and gave the correct county when I first looked it up a couple of years ago.
-
I've been with a subscriber with ancestry for years, and I haven't noticed a difference, but I'm still using the old. I have ignored "try the new improved ancestry" when I have logged in for the past weeks (just pressed the x button to get rid of the stupid pop up "improved ancestry" thing - I don't want their so-called improved)
My reckoning if I ignore their" improved pop up" enough, it will just go away, I will just carry on living in ignorant bliss with my not improved ancestry, thank you very much ;D
Kind regards
-
Jane, if you log back onto Ancestry, on the home page hover the cursor over your username and a drop down menu will appear, click on "Old Ancestry?" and the old site will come back on for you.
Frank :)
That didnt work went into site cant get no access to home page, cant see my name anywhere. Just a black strip across top of page with nothing on it. This is what came up nelow it:
Everything has been removed from your page.
To add items, please click the
“Customise your homepage” button. You can find this button
near the upper-right corner of your page.
We’re sorry, your home page is temporarily unavailable
Please try back in a few minutes.
Jane
-
You have to login first? Are you logged in?
-
I must admit I've completely ignored all urging to try the New Ancestry. From what I hear on here it'd annoy me greatly - in fact, should it become compulsory, I'll probably weigh up if I still want Ancestry! Could save me some money.....
-
I dont like the new Ancestry, the search engine is like gobbledygook. I like the old feature and stick to it. Sometimes the new search engine comes up when I do a new search. I am still awaiting more county records to come onto the site, make research easier, especially if you live hundreds of miles from the counties your ancestors lived and the record office, and even then you have to provide 10 items of proof to view records. Ancestry is the future, do research from the comfort of your laptop but they should not keep trying to change the search engine, it just creates problems. It is like buying a great new TV that works and then taking a screwdriver to it to try and make it even better. If it aint broke, dont fix it.
-
You have to login first? Are you logged in?
Yes am permanently logged in her at work. For the briefest of time my name appeared in the black bar right hand side, however, it is not the correct user name jettejjane is not the name I use on ancestry, but it is me! I clicked on my name there was no option to go to old site i went into home on the left again and once again my details dissappeared and I got the page saying "Everything has been removed from your page.... " etc. So I would assume I am still logged in as I did not have anywhere to log out.
Before I did all that I actually tried a search once again the everythings has been removed page.
I wish one of you could come and see what is happening.
-
sorry for the appalling typing. am rushing coz I am angry!!
Jane
-
There are 2 things you can try:
1. Try logging in again- there should be a "Sign In/Register" tab at the top right of the Home screen.
2. Try logging in at home - it may be that your employer is blocking access?! :o ::)
-
You need to be sure you are not logged in at home and work at the same time or ancestry may block your account. They don't allow you to use more than one computer at a time , in case you are sharing access with other people.
I would have suggested deleting all your cookies and closing your browser , then re-opening it and logging in to ancestry again , but I guess you can't do that on a work computer.
-
Hi. Put up with the New for two days and threw a wobbly. 'Your sister was born when your mother was 28 and your father was 30 and ....... Re "Sorry to see you go". Please tell us why - Gross verbiage. If I can not find all of the subject's siblings and parents by looking at my tree, well..... ... How much extra download??
The final straw was to find that Glasgow is now in Illinois.
I do get the impression that, shortly, we will have no choice but to accept or leave Ancestry, which I shall be doing - once I find a suitable alternative!!!
It is now worse than useless. Reiterating - If it aint broke...
Alternatives?? Is that a new thread?
-
The final straw was to find that Glasgow is now in Illinois.
Well the SNP did have a very strong campaign. :P
(Sorry, I've slapped myself for that comment) :-X
-
There are 2 things you can try:
1. Try logging in again- there should be a "Sign In/Register" tab at the top right of the Home screen.
2. Try logging in at home - it may be that your employer is blocking access?! :o ::)
No employer is not blocking anything. My hubby is I.T. Manager here everyone is quite aware of my ancestry. One guy jokes that my title should read Sales Executive/Genealogist .
I only access ancestry at home on my kindle at the moment and maybe leave that open but I have been doing it for years as well as accessing from work P.C. Will have to get hubby in when he has time he can do the cookie browser thingy!
I will keep trying. Will keep you posted if you can stand it ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
As I have said many times on other, similar, threads:
All Ancestry have changed is the format of the screens you look at, and the way that they interpret the data they have.
The underlying data hasn't changed!
True, they have a problem with that interpretation - as I have told them myself!
But from what I can make out, if you have omitted the country on any of the place names in your data, then Ancestry assumes you mean USA?!
E.G. if you put a place of birth as simply "Glasgow", rather than "Glasgow, Scotland" then it will make that erroneous assumption.
As an IT Professional, I wouldn't think it would be hard to assume that if you logon to the .co.uk site, then UK names should take precedence?
But, Ancestry is an American company, catering manly to US subscribers.
-
You need to be sure you are not logged in at home and work at the same time or ancestry may block your account. They don't allow you to use more than one computer at a time , in case you are sharing access with other people.
It doesn't matter if you stay logged in, the issue would be if you were using the account on two different PCs at the same time. I leave my laptop and my netbook logged in all the time and have not had any issues because they aren't both used at the same time. Its only a cookie stored on the PC which leaves you logged in, there isn't a permanent connection to the website.
-
You need to be sure you are not logged in at home and work at the same time or ancestry may block your account. They don't allow you to use more than one computer at a time , in case you are sharing access with other people.
It doesn't matter if you stay logged in, the issue would be if you were using the account on two different PCs at the same time. I leave my laptop and my netbook logged in all the time and have not had any issues because they aren't both used at the same time. Its only a cookie stored on the PC which leaves you logged in, there isn't a permanent connection to the website.
That's what I thought, as I said have been doing it for few years with no problem.
Hubby has told me I can delete cookies and browser history. It could be a corrupted cookie. Luckily I can do what I want with PC. Will do tomorrow.
Like KG he is a computer proffessional but doesn't always have time for my non work related probs. He is a busy guy. Also as he doesn't share my love of research he cant always see the urgency. I suppose I am at work to work.
Jane
-
I suppose I am at work to work.
Not for much longer though! ;D ;D
-
Jan,
15 working days to go!!!! I am so excited. Got my new laptop yesterday. Been busy getting stationery from work :o for all my research needs.
The end is in sight, as one of my customers said I am ready to start a new chapter. Too right!!!!
Jane ;)
-
Well, how strange is this? Just opened ancestry on kindle. It the site I know and love can access shoebox. Looks a teeny bit different but so far so good.
I really dont understand why it's different on work PC..
Have not signed out, never do will leave well alone.
Jane
-
I know Ancestry is an American site but hey ho, many, many Americans have British and Irish blood. In 1900 there was 800'000 Brits in the US. Depending on the part of America can depend greatly on how far back your ancestors emigrated there. So I can understand Ancestry opening a UK and Irish section.
-
I've tried working on the new Ancestry, I really did and I have given up. It's just awful so thanks whoever posted here about being able to go back to the old Ancestry. It worked. I am happy to be back to the old format. I didn't need all that extra crap they added and they took away features I really found useful.
Vivien
-
I've tried working on the new Ancestry, I really did and I have given up. It's just awful so thanks whoever posted here about being able to go back to the old Ancestry. It worked. I am happy to be back to the old format. I didn't need all that extra crap they added and they took away features I really found useful.
Vivien
I agree. Happy to say am ok with old site it's working on PC. Suppose we will eventually have to bite the bullet and use new site
P.s I am a dinosaur, don't like change lol!
Jane
-
Does anyone know when Ancestry are going to switch permanently to the new format? Surely the fact that so many are switching back to the old one must tell them that people are not happy?
-
I thing when you are paying subscriptions you should have the right to chose which format you prefer. I have given my feedback when asked why I had switched back.
Carol
-
Perhaps if we ALL moan ... there's a faint hope.... no, I'm fooling myself .... no chance ...
-
Perhaps if we ALL moan ... there's a faint hope.... no, I'm fooling myself .... no chance ...
The same thing happened last year with FindMyPast. The format was completely changed.
The chorus of moans reached a terrific crescendo (including several threads on Rootschat).
What happened - precisely nothing. They knew that if they waited long enough the moans would subside and people would accept the 'improved' website. They tinkered a bit around the edges, but that was all.
-
As I have said many times on other, similar, threads:
All Ancestry have changed is the format of the screens you look at, and the way that they interpret the data they have.
The underlying data hasn't changed!
True, they have a problem with that interpretation - as I have told them myself!
But from what I can make out, if you have omitted the country on any of the place names in your data, then Ancestry assumes you mean USA?!
E.G. if you put a place of birth as simply "Glasgow", rather than "Glasgow, Scotland" then it will make that erroneous assumption.
As an IT Professional, I wouldn't think it would be hard to assume that if you logon to the .co.uk site, then UK names should take precedence?
But, Ancestry is an American company, catering manly to US subscribers.
Yes, I think that's right. I discovered many years ago that not putting England/Scotland/Wales after town,county transposed several people over to the USA.
I'm hanging on to old Ancestry as long as I can, as like most (all?) here, I really don't like the new version. Some aspects of the new version, I can see why they've done it - to make it more accessible to new users and newcomers to genealogy. Many websites do this (not just genealogy) as they feel obliged to keep developing "new looks" and "refreshes." They're all out to bring in new users and make it all look at easy and "fluffy" as possible. It'd be interesting to know (but they'd never say, I'm sure!) how much of their revenue comes from new subscriptions/PAYG and how much from subscriptions from long time, hardcore genealogy nuts like us. ;) Must be harder getting new subscriptions now WDYTYA is also using sites other than just ancestry.
-
I have been using Ancestry.com for a few years and am using the new one now-would prefer the old one as I like the trees in it better. It is just one of my go to sites among Family Search, Roots Ireland and Scotland's People.
-
Having just been moved onto the new site I can live with it because it has kept basically the same look as the old one. I don't have a tree on the site so cannot comment on that as it is irrelevant to me.
I do think that by keeping a similar look to their search page they have avoided many of the complaints that their rival Find My Past received when the whole look and way to search was changed completely and things that had been their disappeared or where moved somewhere so obscure that no one could find them. It still takes me ages to find things and their search criteria system is very user unfriendly at least to me. The one that got me at the time was that Cheshire Church of England Parish Registers were suddenly stored as Diocese of Chester Parish Registers! At least they saw sense and did put Cheshire in front of Diocese after a number of complaints.
What really annoys me is all these special free days and £1 for a month or really cheap subscription offers but those of us who have a yearly subscription get no benefit at all except the odd one day upgrade on the special weekends when you can't get on anyway because of all the freebies! Personally I think both sites should give us long standing subscription holders a far greater discount when we renew perhaps on a sliding scale depending on years of subscribing and acknowledge that without us they couldn't offer all the other special offers we can't benefit from!
-
just got am e-mail from them saying it will change over in November.
Cheers
Anne
-
just got am e-mail from them saying it will change over in November.
Cheers
Anne
Oh dear, better make the most of the next few days then!
-
I agree groom. going to do some research today.
Cheers
Anne
-
just got am e-mail from them saying it will change over in November.
Cheers
Anne
Oh dear, better make the most of the next few days then!
I am not sure what I am using now, old or new. Just treated myself to subs. Is different ish but ok for me. I dont have a tree but noticed others look different.
Just have to go with whatever happens.
-
True, they have a problem with that interpretation - as I have told them myself!
But from what I can make out, if you have omitted the country on any of the place names in your data, then Ancestry assumes you mean USA?!
E.G. if you put a place of birth as simply "Glasgow", rather than "Glasgow, Scotland" then it will make that erroneous assumption.
Yes, I think that's right. I discovered many years ago that not putting England/Scotland/Wales after town,county transposed several people over to the USA.
What they need is a * [/b] option whereby your choice of country must be added...........a simple step to save all the confusion of "autofill" which I really don't think is needed as members can contact others to ask which country if details are similar which is better than discovering someone you know to have been born Perth, Scotland turns up in Perth, Canada or Australia (used as an example) so asking us for a country would be a big step forward to all concerned.
The thing is, people are unaware of names of places in e.g England being the same as elsewhere so a "drop down menu" would be good with country name attached?
Annie
-
You need a degree to work out the new layout. I am happy staying with the straight forward old layout.
-
Agree this new site is not as good - at least on Ancestry you have had a chance to see it and comment - that did not happen when FindMyPast changed - and as someone in this thread said it caused a great many complaints which have died down recently BUT I believe that is because most disgruntled people left them (myself included) AND looking at how FindMyPast's turnover and net worth has plummeted since (particularly this year) it is not surprising they are offering many £1 month deals (hoping to get people back). I might say that they appear to have caused almost as many complaints (on their facebook page) today after announcing how much it will cost to access the 1939 register they are releasing (not included in the subscription) - me thinks this time next year they will be taken over my someone like Ancestry..... so maybe don't move there yet!!
-
I have looked at the New Ancestry set up and I prefer the old site's layout. The new set up seems to assume various relationships that are not correct, this shows up particularly on what I would call 'A Storyline'.
Some benefits exist on the new site, so I am hopping between sites and then reverting back to the old site.
I have notified Ancestry of some of my concerns and have been advised that it is still work in progress and will look at any suggestions that are put forward. So it is up to the user to notify Ancestry when leaving the new site as to why they choose to revert to the old site.
-
Been following this with interest. Do the problems just arise from the family trees? How do the general searches compare. I said earlier didn't know which site I am using but it must be the old one. Although there is a slight difference in the census search screen.
But I clicked into another members tree and that was different and as Georgina said was like a storyline. Was dismayed yet again to see so many trees with copied incorrect facts on my family, this format made it much more obvious. B is the brother of A and so on.
Jane
-
If you can see the trees like a story line, you are using the new site, Jane.
-
If you can see the trees like a story line, you are using the new site, Jane.
Yes I must be. Do you know what the numbers under the dob in first column mean?
I know this was on another thread but I am incensed to see so many trees with wrong death for gt x2 grandfather, but I won't say anything, they have obviously been copied without proof. I have death cert. I have moved on!
-
If you can see the trees like a story line, you are using the new site, Jane.
Yes I must be. Do you know what the numbers under the dob in first column mean?
I know this was on another thread but I am incensed to see so many trees with wrong death for gt x2 grandfather, but I won't say anything, they have obviously been copied without proof. I have death cert. I have moved on!
No idea, as I'm not using it until I have to.
No point fretting about other's trees. If you can get the death certificate to verify facts, so can they, if they can't be bothered, that's up to them. All it does is annoy you, so I've given up worrying, after all I doubt if our long dead ancestors care!
-
No point fretting about other's trees. If you can get the death certificate to verify facts, so can they, if they can't be bothered, that's up to them. All it does is annoy you, so I've given up worrying, after all I doubt if our long dead ancestors care!
Yes I agree. I have the proof was willing to share to correct errors. Anyway enough said I will not let it bother me, best thing is not to look at the offending trees! Easier said than done.
-
The new age range says "He or she was ? years old in" then select year. What is wrong with just putting the year of birth then the old 5 or 10 year age range?
-
That's not what I am seeing?
I get First & Middle name(s)
Last name
Place your ancestor might have lived
Birth year
And then more options when I click on "Show More options".
The other thing to look at is to click on your name (top right), then Site Preferences.
Scroll down to "Search Preferences" and tick the box for "Use category exact mode".
-
Near the age range thing there is a small calculator icon, if you click on it, it says "He or she was ?? in" then "year".
-
???
-
KG perhaps you can you answer my question in Reply #44, you seem to understand the site. Must say it's not as bad as I thought, I can work it! And if I can.....!!!
.
Jane
-
It's the age of the person!
E.G.-
-
It's the age of the person!
E.G.-
I see its the age of the first person at the time of birth or death of next person down and so on. Obviouse now you have told me, thanks.
This made me laugh on someone elses tee, can you spot the deliberate mistake?
Birth of Daughter
1920 • west sussex
William jupp redman
(1920–2007)
-
Birth of daughter lol.
Well on some trees I have come across someone who died then appeared on the next census then after that. One time I disproved that a cousin went to America. All it was, was someone with the same married name and age group.
I am happy using the old feature.
-
But, these are errors entered by Ancestry users, rather than Ancestry themselves?!
Or by people who refuse to enter ALL the data they should (like country names!).
The old IT adage still holds true - GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage Out). ;D
-
But, these are errors entered by Ancestry users, rather than Ancestry themselves?!
Or by people who refuse to enter ALL the data they should (like country names!).
The old IT adage still holds true - GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage Out). ;D
I am with you on that one. Hubby is I.T. Manager and he gets cross with people blaming the computer and his programmes, for their inadequacies. The cry is "I didn't do anything wrong it was the computer"! He is fond of saying "there is no need to type so fast, just go slowly and get it right or I wont fix the problem again!" Believe me I know I worked with him before I retired, you can see from all my typos I don't take his advice.
Jane
-
Many Ancestry users are name collectors, they think the James Bloggs baptised 40 miles away from his wedding place in 1820 is the right one due to the only entry on the IGI.
And the collectors add their great grandfathers second wife's fathers sisters sons wife's cousin.
-
Many Ancestry users are name collectors, they think the James Bloggs baptised 40 miles away from his wedding place in 1820 is the right one due to the only entry on the IGI.
And the collectors add their great grandfathers second wife's fathers sisters sons wife's cousin.
I am in agreement with that as well. But have finally learnt to walk away, safe in the knowledge I have all the proof to substantiate my findings. That's all that matters. "At last she's got it!" ;)
-
Many Ancestry users are name collectors, they think the James Bloggs baptised 40 miles away from his wedding place in 1820 is the right one due to the only entry on the IGI.
And the collectors add their great grandfathers second wife's fathers sisters sons wife's cousin.
I am in agreement with that as well. But have finally learnt to walk away, safe in the knowledge I have all the proof to substantiate my findings. That's all that matters. "At last she's got it!" ;)
As I said, I always like to corroborate evidence and make sure what I have is right. That way I can ensure my tree is as correct as possible.
-
As I said, I always like to corroborate evidence and make sure what I have is right. That way I can ensure my tree is as correct as possible.
We are singing from the same Hymn Sheet my friend.
Jane ;D
-
I've just noticed on the Old Ancestry that they seem to have removed the bit where you could click to find the person's relationship to you.
-
Re the comment "And the collectors add their great grandfathers second wife's fathers sisters sons wife 's cousin". I am not a name collector for the sake of it, but I use extended family links to prove/disprove a connection. It sometimes has taken many twists and turns but eventually I get to where I believe the records are correct and this applies when there has been multiple marriages. On the 'old ancestry site' I have been able to identify the children of each marriage (often their names changed too) and show this on the records correctly, but on the 'new ancestry site' the connections are incorrect and either link in to say the first marriage or the last one, and not the one(s) inbetween.
-
Not on Ancestry, but I've an ancestor with what appears to be an unusual name. Only once you get excited at that and then search, there are 000s of them, all in the same area.... and all calling sons by the same names and lots of them marrying women with the same first name.
Somebody has got it into their head that my ancestor married a particular woman in a particular church - because it "fits" .... only I really can't believe it. I think my ancestor actually comes from where he was living during his married life and didn't go 12 miles up the road to marry then drag his wifey back to his home town .... and I think that my ancestor is simply in a dataset that's not been transcribed/digitised yet. It's not helping in that he also "disappeared" in the 1851 and 1861 censuses, then appeared in the Workhouse in 1871 (with his wife having lived with one of their kids for years, but calling herself married and not a widow). There's something odd that went on with him, but I'm not sure what yet. But I am SURE he was born/married/lived in one town - and didn't go and fetch a wife from the next town. Or didn't marry THAT woman. Something's just not feeling right to me - and a lot of this stuff can be a gut feeling....
So, as much as I'd like to believe/take the simple route of believing the other tree holder's take on what happened, I can't. But now it's starting to propagate as I've found two other short online trees also putting this marriage down as a "fact".... and I figure it might take me 10 years, but one day I'll discover his entire background, in possibly a set of non-conformist records yet to be transcribed.
It is annoying .... they're presenting their "facts/findings" without substance except they're the only "fit" they could find ... and I am having to sit it out and wait/play the longer game until I can find the actual marriage in the correct town.
:(
-
I must admit, I wouldn't be too surprised to find an ancestor marrying in a town a few miles away and then returning to their home town to live and work. I discovered my great x3 grandmother working as a servant in the town where her future husband lived, but they married in her home town a few miles away, then returned to his town to live, obviously as that was where he had work. I think our ancestors moved around more than we give them credit for and would think nothing of walking a few miles to meet friends.
-
StanleysChesterton - that scenario is not unusual. Part of my family came from Tadcaster but invariably they married in Leeds - 15 miles away - rather than in Tadcaster. My ultimate is a couple, both from Tadcaster, who married in Leeds and the birth of their child was recorded as the same date (in Tadcaster) - 1861 :o :o
-
.... only I really can't believe it. I think my ancestor actually comes from where he was living during his married life and didn't go 12 miles up the road to marry then drag his wifey back to his home town
Not an unusual scenario. My g-g-grandfather and his siblings were living in the Consett area of County Durham in the 1840/50s and remained there for most of their lives. Yet their marriage certificates reveal that they all went to Newcastle upon Tyne, some 16 miles away, to get married.
Why? I have no idea ::)
Please don't dismiss the idea, it certainly did happen.
-
Going back even further - 3 marriages for the same person - 1723 marries in Tadcaster, wife buried in Tadcaster, 1743 marries in York, wife buried in Tadcaster, 1767 marries in Tadcaster, wife buried in Tadcaster.
-
I too have several marrying in unusual places which I have dismissed only to get certs and find I was wrong. My gt x2 grandfather and wife lived and died in Sussex but got married in London. If I hadn't had marriage doc in family papers I may have dismissed it.
Stanley's I agree with Groom's comments and Jen's look into everything even though you believe facts could be wrong.
-
in the correct town.
There is no such thing as a 'correct town' :)
I could say that the 'correct' town for my ancestors was Consett. Yet they all traipsed over to Newcastle to get married :-\
-
My 3xgreat gran lived in Warninglid, Sussex, it was an area which was quite mansion/estate heavy. She met my 3xgreat grandfather who lived 13 miles away in Brighton and he was a footman/servant. He must have had work connections to Warninglid and they met through work.
A distance of 20 miles or more between two courting couples was quite common back then.
-
Many Ancestry users are name collectors, they think the James Bloggs baptised 40 miles away from his wedding place in 1820 is the right one due to the only entry on the IGI.
And the collectors add their great grandfathers second wife's fathers sisters sons wife's cousin.
My grandfathers sisters first husbands grandfathers brother was the second husband of my wife's 3xgtgrandmother. Not a blood connection but interesting.
-
Many Ancestry users are name collectors, they think the James Bloggs baptised 40 miles away from his wedding place in 1820 is the right one due to the only entry on the IGI.
And the collectors add their great grandfathers second wife's fathers sisters sons wife's cousin.
My grandfathers sisters first husbands grandfathers brother was the second husband of my wife's 3xgtgrandmother. Not a blood connection but interesting.
Well whoopsie doo as Frank Butcher from EE would say. ;D
-
My 'beef' with this new arrangement is two-fold: firstly, all the extra 'stuff' put into the Profile (birth of sister, death of mother etc.) which carries on often past the death of the person concerned; and the inability to see "all persons in this tree" without having to go out of Profile into the tree itself. Why can't they leave well alone?
-
IF Ancestry does the same thing that Yahoo did then you may want to consider leaving.
Yahoo also changed its look and layout. I preferred and liked the old layout and chose to stay with the old look. When Yahoo did eventually foist the new look on to all of its users, there were a LOT of complaints. I quit using Yahoo and created a new email address elsewhere.
As for Genealogy, I use Family Search - I find that they are doing a great job and is totally FREE!!! :)
-
IF Ancestry does the same thing that Yahoo did then you may want to consider leaving.
Yahoo also changed its look and layout. I preferred and liked the old layout and chose to stay with the old look. When Yahoo did eventually foist the new look on to all of its users, there were a LOT of complaints. I quit using Yahoo and created a new email address elsewhere.
As for Genealogy, I use Family Search - I find that they are doing a great job and is totally FREE!!! :)
Good as Family Search may be - I do hope that you are also looking at the images of the entries. In my personal experience, FS transcriptions are often incomplete and in some instances totally incorrect. :'(
-
Does anyone know when Ancestry are going to switch permanently to the new format? Surely the fact that so many are switching back to the old one must tell them that people are not happy?
.
Notice on site today, 22nd Nov. that the switchover will take place on 14th December - nice Christmas present I don't think! Supposedly taken on the concerns raised about the new site but no evidence of any of 'my' comments being taken up. I shall probably not renew my membership and I have been with Ancestry for years in preference to other sites as I found it easy to use in spite of many errors on transcriptions.
-
Well if they start losing customers then they have really locked the door after the horse has bolted from the stables. Having no choice but to put up with the new switch over to the new Anc search may make me also use FamilySearch even more often and also cancel my membership with Anc. FindMyPast and FS all the way then.
-
This is somewhat off topic, but I have just been correcting some transcription errors in a 1911 census entry, mainly where servants in a household have been given the surname of the employer, but I just have to submit this transcription of an occupation for general perusal.
"Sugar L Fellow Of The Razal Irel Collye Of Singer"
Can anyone guess what that means?
And the entry is quite clear to my eyes!
Fran (see below)
Surgeon (Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons-Ireland)
-
I've switched!
It looks a lot better than when I first saw it.
None of my family seems to have been re-located to the US, the timeline doesn't have post-death results, it doesn't keep telling me when the 1st Australian cricket team arrived, the family tree screen looks fresher (but maybe more cramped, and seems to need an extra click to get anywhere from it)
Map leaves a little to be desired as it's put Chelsea as a suburb of Wolverhampton, but that's probably because their default descriptions just say St Saviour, Chelsea. I'll probably get fed up with "Frank faced difficulties on the Home Front during the Great War" but it's not the screen I'll be using very much (I'm glad they didn't have a similar sentence for WW2 - yes, his house was blown up). The mini tree on that page is a little awkward. Not sure whether the Gallery screen is a bit pointless or a godsend.
All in all, not the end of the world
-
Does anyone else think that their current TV advert is misleading and incorrect?
Particularly the line about Service Records?
-
My guess is, you'll be the only one
What does it say?
-
Stevie I am getting on ok with new Ancestry. When I started this thread I was being a total dinosaur -didn't like the change and didn't give it a chance.
Seen the ad but nothing struck me, in fact can't even remember it! Yes - it was that good lol!
Jane
-
Does anyone else think that their current TV advert is misleading and incorrect?
Particularly the line about Service Records?
If you really think that ad is "misleading and incorrect" then PLEASE complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.
If it really is "misleading and incorrect" then it will be pulled, and Ancestry will be fined!
Do you not think, though, that maybe you are reading something into the ad that isn't there, and hasn't been actually said?
-
Does anyone else think that their current TV advert is misleading and incorrect?
Particularly the line about Service Records?
If you really think that ad is "misleading and incorrect" then PLEASE complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.
If it really is "misleading and incorrect" then it will be pulled, and Ancestry will be fined!
Do you not think, though, that maybe you are reading something into the ad that isn't there, and hasn't been actually said?
It seems to say that Military Service Records are available on their web site.
-
It seems to say that Military Service Records are available on their web site.
And they are! ???
WW1 Service Records are available (where they exist).
WW2 Service Records are only available through the MOD.
So, where is the problem?
-
WW1 Service Records are available (where they exist).
WW2 Service Records are only available through the MOD.
So, where is the problem?
No problem that I can see! Just googled the ad. I have obtained many WW1 records from them, but not all exist as you rightly say KG.
Its the same with any records ;D you cant get what they don't have! But they do have some.
Jane
-
I got one of my grandfather's WW1 record from Ancestry, lots of pages. Filled in a lot of gaps, because it gave details of first wife who died in 1918 flu epidemic. He married her a couple of years after he joined up, was sent back to France days after the wedding and didn't see her again until he got special leave a few days before the war ended. He was just in time to be with her at her death. Very sad.
No sign of other grandfather's record although they have his medal card.
-
No sign of other grandfather's record although they have his medal card.
That's my problem as well Lizzie, got Grandad's medal card, records not found ??? Remember being told by someone in here they had been destroyed or lost. Have everything for other Grandad.
-
That's about correct!
Nearly 70% (over two-thirds) of the WW1 Service Records were lost in a WW2 bombing raid. :(
-
OK, used the site for nearly a week now
I seem to remember seeing on the Ancestry Message boards that nothing had been removed, just that they'll be in a different place somewhere, and I think that's right, though some things are easier to find than others.
My criticisms would be that some things need an extra click or more than they used to.
When you hovered over a person in the tree diagram, the menus used to come up; now, unless you click it, you look like a bit of a lemon.
When you click on the images in the facts "tab", it shows the facts it is the source for, I'd prefer it to go straight to the image or record details.
As far as I'm concerned, the Lifestory and Gallery tabs are unnecessary, but easily avoided
Minor matter is I'd prefer the timelines to be spaced so that facts that happened close together, were spaced like that - now everything is evenly spaced out, so you can't see if there's a massive gap between 1861 and 1901, for example.
Overall, still content
-
OK, used the site for nearly a week now.......
Overall, still content
I am happy with it too!!
-
Yes, I agree with the comments made. I have been using the new/old version for a bit.
Have just about got the hang of it but the thing that really makes me cringe are the "colours" - they are awful and I just about need my sunglasses on. :'( :'( and no I don't need an eye test had that done a couple of weeks ago ;D ;D.
Dorrie
-
Why is the font so HUGE? Is this because people are using tablets?
-
It may be an acquired taste to me, I have to get used to the new Ancestry format. It took me very little time to adapt to the new FreeReg site.
-
I follow ancestry on facebook. Someone else had contacted them about the issue with country locations, she got a reply saying "the programme is not intelligent". ::)
-
I follow ancestry on facebook. Someone else had contacted them about the issue with country locations, she got a reply saying "the programme is not intelligent". ::)
Case of a bad workman blaming his tools? Someone must have written the program in the first place. ;D ;D
-
I follow ancestry on facebook. Someone else had contacted them about the issue with country locations, she got a reply saying "the programme is not intelligent". ::)
Or was it a misprint and they meant the programmer is not intelligent ;D
-
I follow ancestry on facebook. Someone else had contacted them about the issue with country locations, she got a reply saying "the programme is not intelligent". ::)
Or was it a misprint and they meant the programmer is not intelligent ;D
Or "the programmer who programmed the non intelligent programme is also not intelligent." ;D
-
Well if you pay peanuts...you get monkeys ;D ;D ;D
Carol
-
I quite agree about the colour intensity. This was one of the items I highlighted to Ancestry when the New Ancestry was introduced. Regrettably the organisation hasn't taken this onboard! I personally don't like the dark grey background when looking at a family tree either.
-
Well I have 10 days left. No, correction, some of us have 10 days left.
I haven't even sneaked a look at the new format and am now starting to get a little worried.
I have stupidly never included England in any of my birth/marriage/death information on any of my trees. The total number of people researched must number in the thoasands......
Please can someone tell me gently....
this is going to be a problem, isn't it?
-
I've just noticed today that some of mine have "migrated" from England to other lands........ :-\
-
I'm really not looking forward to it since I had a taste of it and reverted back to the old format.
Shame that as a subscriber for several years I don't have a choice..other than to not renew my subs :-\
Not impressed with the changes.
Carol
-
I have changed, since I would soon have too anyway. Although I can't say I'm very fond of it, I'm getting used to it. I mostly stick to the 'Facts' view and rarely look at the time line. Fortunately I fairly habitually added England to mine so have very few that need to be changed as they slipped through the net.
-
I've spent the last couple of weeks going through my tree and added countries where I needed to. Long job!
-
This has been going strong for a while now. I am ok with new site now, so a complete about face ;D but as I don't have a tree the problems mentioned earlier don't apply to me. Although I do look at trees and don't like the new look.
Hope it all works out ok for everyone ;)
Love these little Santa's :D sorry for over use :o
Jane ;)
-
Well I have 10 days left. No, correction, some of us have 10 days left.
I haven't even sneaked a look at the new format and am now starting to get a little worried.
I have stupidly never included England in any of my birth/marriage/death information on any of my trees. The total number of people researched must number in the thoasands......
Please can someone tell me gently....
this is going to be a problem, isn't it?
It's like this . . . .
The underlying data will remain unchanged (click on a person's profile if you don't believe me!!).
BUT, the information displayed on the screen may show more US based people than you thought you had.
You've had years to ensure that country names were on every place name! :P
And you've had since August to get used to the new look.
-
KG. I have got used to it. It's fine by me.
Think my subject heading was rubbish! I didn't give it a chance.
Jane :P
-
I have tried the new look Ancestry, seems I may have to like it or lump it anyway soon. I always do check when I type in a place name to an ancestors birthplace, etc that it is "Essex, England" not "Essex, Massachusetts, USA"
-
I haven't tried it but do they not have a " drop down box" for names which are in different countries when typed in?
Maybe this should be something for them to create e.g........
Perth, Australia
Perth, Scotland
Perth, Ontario
Would save so many mistakes
Annie
-
I had to switch on Thursday as I wanted to view some US Wills and since their release, they've only been available to view on the new site. This time I decided to stay using it. To be honest I don't have any real issues with it, but then I don't have my main trees on there. I only have two, one is for a friend without a subscription and the other is a one name study I occasionally do some work on (both being private anyway). The major differences are obviously with the tree software, but if, like me, you only use the site for searching and viewing documents to use to update offline trees (I use Family Historian to store my data), then the changes are minimal, apart from the colour screen and taking a peak at some of the public trees looking for clues.
That said, if you are worried about the new storyline style view ( I forget what its called) appending incorrect countries to your location data, then just click the Facts view and don't switch back to the other as it will remember the preference now. As KG says, the Facts, or Profile view, uses the data as you entered it originally on the old site. They've changed the layout four sources and media ( and unfortunately not necessarily for the better) :-\. It is, as others have said, possible to get used to it and everyone will have to after the 14th.
-
Not sure if this has been asked anywhere, but if you have your tree on Ancestry synced to Family Tree Maker, does that stay exactly as it used to?
-
That said, if you are worried about the new storyline style view ( I forget what its called) appending incorrect countries to your location data, then just click the Facts view and don't switch back to the other as it will remember the preference now. As KG says, the Facts, or Profile view, uses the data as you entered it originally on the old site. They've changed the layout four sources and media ( and unfortunately not necessarily for the better) :-\. It is, as others have said, possible to get used to it and everyone will have to after the 14th.
Thanks smudwhisk. I'll bear that information in mind on the 14th. That is a comfort to know.
I'm sure I will get used to the changes when the time comes and yes KG I know your comments earlier were relevant but I've been very busy working on a friend's tree and didn't want the distraction/ annoyance of considerable changes to the format whilst I had the choice to leave things as they were for a little longer.
Groom, when I opened my FTM 2014 a few weeks ago it said updates were necessary because of the changes to ancestry. I accepted the update and can see no outward changes to FTM. Having said that I don't use it to its full potential really but it does seem to me to be ok since the update.
-
I haven't tried it but do they not have a " drop down box" for names which are in different countries when typed in?
Maybe this should be something for them to create e.g........
Perth, Australia
Perth, Scotland
Perth, Ontario
Would save so many mistakes
Annie
Yes they do, Annie!
If you enter "Perth" in a place name box, you should see:
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Perth Amboy, Middlesex, New Jersey, USA
Perthshire, Scotland
Perth, Ontario, Canada
Perth, Fulton, New York, USA
Perth, Perthshire, Scotland
Perth Burgh, Perthshire, Scotland
Perth Landward, Perthshire, Scotland
-
So you keep telling us...again and again and again..........Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn ::)
Carol
-
So you keep telling us...again and again and again..........Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn ::)
Carol
And people keep on moaning about having to put the country in again and again and again. Yawnnnn. :)
Simon
-
KG. I am fairly new to ancestry and appreciate your comments. As with everything, when starting out there are many things I don't know, so thanks.
I think the only option , if people really don't like New site and have voiced their criticism to no avail, is to go elsewhere.
I am sure there are many many people who are happy with it. The dissenters are only probably a drop in the ocean to ancestry, sad but true. That said it is nice to have a little rant/discussion here.
We can't change the world but we try ;D
-
I think the only option , if people really don't like New site and have voiced their criticism to no avail, is to go elsewhere.
Most people will soon get used to it - people moaned when FindMyPast, FamilySearch and even Rootschat updated, but I expect most can't remember what they were like before. It's just the idea of change and perhaps being outside of your comfort zone when something new comes along.
If we went along with the idea of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" all the time, we'd be using mobiles the size of bricks and computers that took up a whole room. ;D ;D
-
[quote author=groom link=topic=730353.msg5823648#msg582364
If we went along with the idea of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" all the time, we'd be using mobiles the size of bricks and computers that took up a whole room. ;D ;D
[/quote]
That just about sums it up. So I must not resist change and go with the flow. I feel silly for posting this now, I should have given site a chance first, because " it ain't that bad!" :-[
Jane ;)
-
Oh, your heading ain't that bad, Jane.
The new site seems to better than I remember it back in September so think of it as your little protest making a difference :)
-
I haven't tried it but do they not have a " drop down box" for names which are in different countries when typed in?
Maybe this should be something for them to create e.g........
Perth, Australia
Perth, Scotland
Perth, Ontario
Would save so many mistakes
Annie
Yes they do, Annie!
If you enter "Perth" in a place name box, you should see:
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Perth Amboy, Middlesex, New Jersey, USA
Perthshire, Scotland
Perth, Ontario, Canada
Perth, Fulton, New York, USA
Perth, Perthshire, Scotland
Perth Burgh, Perthshire, Scotland
Perth Landward, Perthshire, Scotland
Thanks KG,
I can't fathom how so many people are getting it wrong then........obviously the "Band Waggon" effect.....copying without checking ???
Annie
-
The new site isn't so bad, & you can get used to it quite quickly, but then I don't have a tree on Ancestry so the effect on me is limited.
But - it's still a "little bit broken" , at least in my experience. For example, recently I've been looking at some baptism and census records and when I click through to see the image, the heading says something like '1860 census for California, USA' , though when it comes onto my screen it is the correct English image. (Can't remember exactly the various searches I've done, or the exact wording, but you get the jist ).
So somewhere or other their own "sync" isn't syncing - or maybe it's just sinking ;D
-
I haven't tried it but do they not have a " drop down box" for names which are in different countries when typed in?
Maybe this should be something for them to create e.g........
Perth, Australia
Perth, Scotland
Perth, Ontario
Would save so many mistakes
Annie
Yes they do, Annie!
If you enter "Perth" in a place name box, you should see:
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Perth Amboy, Middlesex, New Jersey, USA
Perthshire, Scotland
Perth, Ontario, Canada
Perth, Fulton, New York, USA
Perth, Perthshire, Scotland
Perth Burgh, Perthshire, Scotland
Perth Landward, Perthshire, Scotland
Thanks KG,
I can't fathom how so many people are getting it wrong then........obviously the "Band Waggon" effect.....copying without checking ???
Annie
You haven't used the site or know how it works so "obviously" your theory is right.
Or just perhaps...
1 Firstly, people aren't " getting it wrong" - most information is not entered via a drop down box, but added automatically, with an option to edit.
2 It's only the recent introduction of the mapping of a person's timeline that widespread "Americanisation" became apparent. From what I've seen, this has been fixed
3 I am not convinced that leaving an entry as Heston, Middlesex has any deleterious effect on searches, especially when restricted to UK records, so don't worry too much whether I add ,England to the placename.
4 I don't believe that if I have someone born in Shoreditch, Middlesex, England then leaving the baptism as Shoreditch St Leonard's needs editing. Although this seems to map to the centre of England, to be honest, I don't really care.
While I agree that it's sensible to follow KG's advice, where I haven't, it's not because I've copied anything without checking.
-
I just checked mine, and found a couple with London Ontario, which should be London England. And a few others with the same sort of thing.
Another doosie is one that states my great great grandfather was "Burnt at sea in Northumberland, England! should be "Buried at sea from the ship Northumberland" Hilarious!
Having a bit of trouble with editing that one.
Strangely, sometimes my tree connects through Ancestry Canada, and sometimes Ancestry UK, which is the one I am actually subscribed to. I assume that it directs me through the Canadian one
if the UK site is overloaded or down for some reason.
-
You haven't used the site or know how it works so "obviously" your theory is right.
[/quote]
Hi Stevie,
I should have been clearer.....
I haven't used the "New Site" although was a member of the Old for many years.
Just waiting for a good "offer" before I re-subscribe.
Annie
-
I think the subject line says it all.
Just been into ancestry and its a nightmare. I dont like the new look.
It's strange. I was always a huge fan for FindMyPast - until their redid their site and rendered it unusable. I was one of many who complained, grumbled, etc, but seeing no improvement and unable to find anything, I eventually gave up and quit.
In contrast, I struggled big time with Ancestry and wasn't really a fan of it at all. Then they made some big changes. I never really used the "old" Ancestry. The "new" Ancestry is a different matter :) I'm not struggling with it at all and the fairly recent tweaks have made it even easier.
I keep finding new things including being able to search on a census reference, like FindMyPast used to have.
My only concern is the massive amount of information Ancestry has. What happens to that if something bad happens to them? Same applies to FindMyPast and I think they are the more vulnerable of the two.
Two other sites I use from time to time are The Genealogist and FamilyRelatives. I've not been able to access their site since July and they aren't posting on Twitter either. It looks as they've gone.
-
My only concern is the massive amount of information Ancestry has. What happens to that if something bad happens to them? Same applies to FindMyPast and I think they are the more vulnerable of the two.
If they go bust, then the records are assets that could be sold to another company willing to take on the business
If a massive computer virus swept through their entire systems including disaster recovery sites then the originals are still available
It's more likely that we haven't got similar measures in place for our own personal data in case of computer crashes, fire, floods etc
Must remember to do a backup...
-
I think the subject line says it all.
Just been into ancestry and its a nightmare. I dont like the new look.
In contrast, I struggled big time with Ancestry and wasn't really a fan of it at all. Then they made some big changes. I never really used the "old" Ancestry. The "new" Ancestry is a different matter :) I'm not struggling with it at all and the fairly recent tweaks have made it even easier.
Just have to make a final comment. No I didn't like the new ancestry hence the post. :-\ I didn't give it a chance. Now I am happy with it :D I don't have a tree but can see others and not too keen on the new look but it is not really a concern.
I have come full circle. This has been an interesting thread.
Jane :)
-
If they go bust, then the records are assets that could be sold to another company willing to take on the business
If a massive computer virus swept through their entire systems including disaster recovery sites then the originals are still available
It's more likely that we haven't got similar measures in place for our own personal data in case of computer crashes, fire, floods etc
Must remember to do a backup...
The contents of both my computers is backed up to an external hard drive. I don't always work from it but hopefully I won't lose anything. I've heard cloud storage is good.
Could take a while to get such a big site up and running again, especially if it means recopying everything.
-
Two other sites I use from time to time are The Genealogist and FamilyRelatives. I've not been able to access their site since July and they aren't posting on Twitter either. It looks as they've gone.
Hi Connie,
I can not access familyrelatives please see this link http://britishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/familyrelativescom-and-gro-overseas-bmd.html but The Genealogist website is working for me. ;)
Sarah
-
Hi Connie,
I can not access familyrelatives please see this link http://britishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/familyrelativescom-and-gro-overseas-bmd.html but The Genealogist website is working for me. ;)
Sarah
Marnin' :)
Sorry, that was badly worded. It was the disappearance of familyrelatives I was referring to.
Thank you for the link. It does seem the site has slipped away into the clouds. It was a good site and inexpensive, about 25GBP (IIRC) for an annual sub. Maybe that was the reason for its disappearance - lack of funds. It's a shame because they had some data sets others didn't.
It's also answered a question I didn't ask and that was what had happened to the overseas BMDs on FindMyPast. Small wonder I couldn't find them but thank goodness for The Genealogist, not only in having them as well but also that individual parts are searchable. I feel a Diamond sub coming on ;)
-
It's also answered a question I didn't ask and that was what had happened to the overseas BMDs on FindMyPast.
If you go to A - Z of record sets and type "overseas" in the box that comes up, it gives you a list of the overseas bmd records that FindMyPast has.
Not so easy to find as on the old search, but not gone away.
-
If you go to A - Z of record sets and type "overseas" in the box that comes up, it gives you a list of the overseas bmd records that FindMyPast has.
Not so easy to find as on the old search, but not gone away.
Thanks :)
I'll have to do that then add the direct link to a growing list. It's the easiest way to find what I want.
I really don't understand why sites have to keep fiddling with them. They seem to change them (the sites) to the way the IT people think they should be used, rather than the way they are actually used.
Like the latter part of the subject line says: If it aint broke dont fix it!
-
I have a question please.
In the new style trees they put "facts" in whether you want them or not. I am mainly talking about where they record the births etc of a persons children in their timeline, although their interesting facts inserts of what was happening in the wider word are just as annoying.
My question is, is there anyway I can stop these "facts" automatically being added to a tree ?
-
Whether looking on Lifestory or Facts view (the latter doesn't involve ancestry's constructed sentences that don't always put the location in the correct country if it doesn't like what you've entered for the location/place ;)) there's a "cog" with a drop down menu which allows you to show or disable Family Events or Historical Insights. Whichever is selected, ancestry does remember the preference as far as I have seen. Its the same if you only use the Facts view, it will remember you used that previously and not switch you to Lifestory next time you access your tree. I'm not sure if the site is remembering for your account or whether it is cookie based, if its the latter if the cookie is cleared it may reset the preference
-
Thank you, you are a star - that worked a treat