RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: bucksboy on Monday 14 December 15 02:14 GMT (UK)
-
It's gone down the pan.......I don't like it at all. >:(
Oh well, at least Xmas is near. :)
-
You mean that despite being warned in August, you've only now decided to take a look?! :o
-
Well -- I have spent a lot of time with the new format - cos its a case of having to. AND in the end I decided it would be good for my brain to face the challenge........... :-\
So far I am coping and altering the information that they have decided is correct ( :o :( >:( >:() as I go along...ARGH the HINCKLEY I need is in LEICESTERSHIRE --- although I know at one point it crossed the border as far as census returns were concerned to Warwickshire ... It definitely did not find its way to AMERICA :-X :-\ :-\
I am not going to use the term 'happy' but I am becoming accustomed with it.
one slight niggle is - viewing other peoples trees and attempting to make a comparison, with your own -- is now not so easy... Maybe that is just to 'be-fuddle' us.
OK.... now I have to learn how to use my new phone and
I may not be such an O.F ool
Xin
-
You mean that despite being warned in August, you've only now decided to take a look?! :o
Groooooooooooooooooan ::)
Carol
-
I had a quick look when it was first announced, didn't like it then so went back to the old version.
I still don't like it, but I suppose I will have to get used to it.
Just hope that all my editing efforts have worked to add countries where I needed to, and no one has moved overseas. :-\
-
So far I am coping and altering the information that they have decided is correct ( :o :( >:( >:() as I go along...ARGH the HINCKLEY I need is in LEICESTERSHIRE --- although I know at one point it crossed the border as far as census returns were concerned to Warwickshire ... It definitely did not find its way to AMERICA :-X :-\ :-\
Just hope that all my editing efforts have worked to add countries where I needed to, and no one has moved overseas. :-\
Then don't use the Lifestory view but just the Facts view, as that won't add incorrect Countries where no country, or county, has been entered. As it remembers which view you've used previously, its not really an issue. ;)
-
You mean that despite being warned in August, you've only now decided to take a look?! :o
Since I have had NO internet access, for almost 2 years, except an odd hour at my part time library every week or so, I was unaware of what this site was to become.
I was asked to TRY the new layout, (once I had established an internet supplier). I didn't like it, so I carried on using the 'old one'.
Lo and behold, while adding information to my tree last night, without warning it switched to the new layout.
At this moment in time, I feel like deleting my trees, and going elsewhere. I will try and persevere, but I can't see it happening. I'll give it a serious go, and see what happens.
But at the moment, it's not looking very good for that site, as far as I'm concerned. Why fix what isn't broken, and they will never go back to what was a very easy, and usable layout, despite their little problems with it.
Too much time and money spent, for them to backtrack. Typical for a site and country, that does not want to ask it's customers for their opinion that actually use it, and pay for it.
There is obviously a reason why the old and new, cannot work side by side. And I do not know why, nor do I care. They are the masters of it all, so I, and others have to make that choice, of to carry on with it, or dump it. But I would guess, a good majority will try and persevere.
Time will tell, but it still stinks, in my opinion. >:(
Oh yes, I have quite a few rellies from PENN in Buckinghamshire, and not Pennsylvania, USA, thank goodness. Are these people,(so called transcribers) unaware, that there is life outside the USA in Bucks. ;D
-
There's a previous topic here:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=730353.
-
I also logged on today after an absence and found the "new" version. Have managed to find my way around it and will persevere and see how it goes, no choice really. :-\
I have hopped between the two versions, but did prefer the "old" one, don't know if it is because I was "used" to it and if that's the case perhaps I can get "used" to the new one. Time will tell
-
I've been 'changed' over to the new version , haven't been on Ancestry for a while and today found the change having to make a few alterations as to Place names, they have my husbands grandmother living in Papua New Guinea in 1963! (should have been Hackney )
-
I have been switched over to the new Anc and you need a degree to work it out. Before anyone says, "you were told in August", I wanted to stick to the old format for as long as I could. I may get used to it but I am not holding my breath.
-
I must be missing something. When I search, the results seem to come up pretty much as before. The page looks a little different but that's only cosmetic.
Maybe it's because I don't have an online tree, and rarely look at other people's because, from what I've seen, there are plenty of Ancestry users who neither know nor care if the information is wrong . . . as long as they have plenty of it ;)
Mike.
-
You mean that despite being warned in August, you've only now decided to take a look?! :o
We've also been warned that the end of the world is coming, but do I want to experience it? No! Unhelpful comments to be expected I suppose!
Anyway, logged in, and Yikes, there it is! Didn't like it when first introduced and still don't.
First person I look at was married in Leeds, Yorkshire but his daughter is born in Leeds, Ontario. Smart isn't it? I haven't changed it so it was THEM.
The dark bar is gloomy, nothing else to say yet.
-
I must be missing something. When I search, the results seem to come up pretty much as before. The page looks a little different but that's only cosmetic.
Maybe it's because I don't have an online tree, and rarely look at other people's because, from what I've seen, there are plenty of Ancestry users who neither know nor care if the information is wrong . . . as long as they have plenty of it ;)
Mike.
Thanks. Mike.
Exactly what I have been saying on the other thread!
First person I look at was married in Leeds, Yorkshire but his daughter is born in Leeds, Ontario. Smart isn't it? I haven't changed it so it was THEM.
So you entered their place of birth as simply "Leeds", rather than "Leeds, Yorkshire, England"?!
-
I changed to the new version about a month ago. Not having any problems with it, other than it has moved some places to other parts of the world when I had not stipulated England. That is not a problem as I only have small trees on there but I do feel sorry for those with several thousand people in their trees, still I am sure they will assiduously check each and every one to ensure they are still correct. ;)
On a side note in the tree I was building recently the drop down label for Scalby, near Scarborough is
Scalby (near Scarbprpigj), Yorkshire, England :)
Oh dear !
-
I have just managed to access the old version??? the one I was using yesterday :)
so today I have been on old and new... and cos MY Mind had decided to put up and shut up, just get on and learn the new ................ the old format came back!!! how long for I don't know..
xin
-
That's hilarious David...try putting that into your Sat Nav....who knows where you'll end up :D :D ;D ;D ;D
Carol
-
Well I only changed today and although I was absolutely dreading it, I'm pleasantly surprised to find it not as bad as feared.
Nothing too awful seems to have happened in terms of people popping up in another country. Perhaps I've been lucky there because I have omitted England in many instances. The facts page is ok. I like the gallery page.
It is certainly different and will take some getting used to. Especially when actually working on the tree........ but I'm sure I'll get there :)
-
So you entered their place of birth as simply "Leeds", rather than "Leeds, Yorkshire, England"?!
Why should it matter if I did? Leeds, Yorkshire should be enough in my opinion, but then it is only mine, and I'm sticking to it. Even Leeds on it's own should be left how it is, and not changed by some know-it-all, whether human or machine. >:(
-
I haven't looked yet...I've been avoiding it. :-[
Wish me luck :-X
-
Ancestry hasn't changed your data at all! (Check the Profile of that person if you don't believe me!)
BUT when it displays the details, Ancestry defaults to North American place-names - well, Ancestry IS an American company ::)
Leeds, Yorkshire might be OK in a UK-based FH program.
But Ancestry is worldwide! Leeds could be anywhere!! ;D
-
BUT you HAVE/NEED to qualify the location:
I live in Tamworth, Staffordshire - there's one in NSW
I used to live in Rainham, Kent - there's one in Essex - just across the river
Rainham, Kent is near Gillingham, Kent - there's another Gillingham in Dorset
Cowes, Isle of Wight - there's another on Phillip Island in Australia
Canterbury, Kent - there's another in New Zealand
And, on and on and on!!
Don't blame Ancestry or any other worldwide website. :-\ We all have our own idea of where somewhere is located, so why should you deny someone else of their idea of where somewhere is?
Added: AND having lived in Kent I forgot about Leeds in Kent :-[ - wonderful castle ;D ;D ;D
-
My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.
-
My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.
Sorry? ???
That's simply not true! ;D
The "new" Ancestry (i.e. as of today) has NOT changed the search functionality one iota.
Use the sliders if necessary to increase the exactness.
-
Hi all,
Okay - I've looked now. When I logged in I had a last fleeting view of the old site...and then it changed. I'm not impressed but as a lot of people have said I suppose you get used to it. I find it very 'dumbed' down. It seems to mimic the FindMyPast site 'Lives of the First World War' somewhat in the timeline formula. But somehow the military information seems to fit this style. I wondered if the big changes were so that the site is now more compatible with use on android & digital devises via an app?
What I did wonder was have they now done away with the 'discussion' platform? I couldn't find it. I don't use it that much but sometimes it is useful to look through.
Thanks
CD
-
Do you mean the Message Boards?
Click on "Help", and then "Message Boards".
-
My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.
Sorry? ???
That's simply not true! ;D
The "new" Ancestry (i.e. as of today) has NOT changed the search functionality one iota.
Use the sliders if necessary to increase the exactness.
I put in Livermore (surname exact match) and I am getting additional surnames not all even starting with L.
-
Ancestry hasn't changed your data at all! (Check the Profile of that person if you don't believe me!)
BUT when it displays the details, Ancestry defaults to North American place-names - well, Ancestry IS an American company ::)
Leeds, Yorkshire might be OK in a UK-based FH program.
But Ancestry is worldwide! Leeds could be anywhere!! ;D
Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be ;D ;D
Carol
-
Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be ;D ;D
Carol
No! ;D
But I have worked in IT since I left school - changes to computer systems/software are part of my everyday life ;)
Most changes to software are cosmetic; but people get frightened by the new look. (Remember the howls of anguish when RootsChat changed? Does it bother you now?!)
Sometimes the changes go wrong (FindMyPast take note!).
All I ask is that people stop and think about the changes; work out what has really changed, rather than moaning about the look and feel.
And, please remember that Ancestry is a commercial organisation, in business to make a profit.
They make changes to appease the masses.
-
All I ask is that people stop and think about the changes; work out what has really changed, rather than moaning about the look and feel.
This is an example of what has REALLY changed
Livermore (exact match) census list
Not even best matches first. It did NOT do that on the old version, when EXACT search really was exact. It is acting as if I had ticked similar.
So don't tell me what I'm saying "simply isn't true"
My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.
Sorry? ???
That's simply not true! ;D
The "new" Ancestry (i.e. as of today) has NOT changed the search functionality one iota.
Use the sliders if necessary to increase the exactness.
-
. Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be ;D ;D
I was wondering that as well. ;D
I think they have tweaked it a bit since I first saw it back in August, there certainly aren't so many people who have been whisked overseas to die etc. It seems to be a case of fiddling around with settings until it suits you, for instance I've turned off the historical fact bits that told me, " xxxxx was born during the coldest winter of the decade."
-
I suppose its like all technological changes there will be teething problems to sort out, eventually.
Am finding my way around ok. I think now that you cannot jump back and forward from old to new
its better, for me at least.
I stick to "facts" as this suits me best and the rest is unnecessary in my opinion.
My only real criticism is the COLOUR - its sore on the eyes and the dark background makes my old eyes water :'( :'( :'(
Dorrie
-
This is an example of what has REALLY changed
Livermore (exact match) census list
Not even best matches first. It did NOT do that on the old version, when EXACT search really was exact. It is acting as if I had ticked similar.
So don't tell me what I'm saying "simply isn't true"
My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.
Sorry? ???
That's simply not true! ;D
The "new" Ancestry (i.e. as of today) has NOT changed the search functionality one iota.
Use the sliders if necessary to increase the exactness.
I'm with KGarrard on this, the search does not seem to have changed with the latest 'new' ancestry. What you are showing for Livermore is no different than before. The alternatives put in by other ancestry members have always come up as have the alternative name Ancestry has always put in for say a daughter in law. All 702 records shown in your example do give exact matches to the records held.
Simon
-
Exact should mean EXACT and I certainly did not get all these additional other names previously.
-
Why cant I access the census information? I have a subscription and its telling me to subscribe again!?
Willow x
-
Probably silly but you are logged in aren't you?
-
yes even tried logging out and back in again in case it was that but still will not work
I click on view record and it tells me to 'sign up to see more' if I click on my account it says 'registered guest' and my last payment was 12.11.15 for my worldwide subscription
Actually looking at my bank account they haven't take this months payment out yet
Willow x
-
You could always ring Ancestry - they're usually very helpful. 0800 404 9723 up to 10.00 pm
-
Ok I will give that a try thanks they naffed me off last month because it said that my subscription details needed updating so I did that and they charged me again!
Willow x
-
Exact should mean EXACT and I certainly did not get all these additional other names previously.
I'm with you on this Lizzie, what locksmith and kgarrad think is immaterial in this instance, it is what you, I, and others are experiencing that is relevant. We have concerns, they have opinions.
Going back to the Leeds I mentioned earlier, no matter how many towns, cities or any other place variations there are with this name, leaving as input shouldn't be a problem. I have now discovered that my grandfather's baby sister died in Jamaica according to the IT programmer. No she didn't, she died in England, but of course I shall be berated by those who say I should input full information.
-
. Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be ;D ;D
I was wondering that as well. ;D
I think they have tweaked it a bit since I first saw it back in August, there certainly aren't so many people who have been whisked overseas to die etc. It seems to be a case of fiddling around with settings until it suits you, for instance I've turned off the historical fact bits that told me, " xxxxx was born during the coldest winter of the decade."
How do you do that - turn off those historical facts?
-
How do you do that - turn off those historical facts?
On the facts page (of any person in your tree) on the page near the top of the light grey area is a black box saying show. Click on that and there are "Family events" and "Historical highlights" and you can turn either or both of. It will affect the whole tree. There is a similar option on the Lifestory page.
(I asked the same question a few days ago). Reply #135 here explains it also
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=730353.msg5825505#msg5825505
-
Going back to the Leeds I mentioned earlier, no matter how many towns, cities or any other place variations there are with this name, leaving as input shouldn't be a problem. I have now discovered that my grandfather's baby sister died in Jamaica according to the IT programmer. No she didn't, she died in England, but of course I shall be berated by those who say I should input full information.
Are you looking at the Lifestory screen or the Facts screen? Lifestory will, where the place isn't in the desired format, select probably the wrong place (usually defaulting to the same place in the US or Canada), in the Facts view, it will show exactly how you entered it.
-
While there is much I dislike about Ancestry, the search engine seems pretty good to me. Going back to an earlier post, when I search simply on the surname Livermore with the 'exact' box ticked I get a list of 392,376 records. I can't say for certain that other names are not included but at least the first 3 pages are exclusively Livermore :-\
I've done a similar exact search on names from my own tree and the results are similarly satisfactory. People use the site in different ways: I don't have an online tree and just use it as a very powerful searchable database, saving relevant records to my own PC as required. Maybe that's why I haven't experienced some of the problems others have ???
Mike.
-
While there is much I dislike about Ancestry, the search engine seems pretty good to me. Going back to an earlier post, when I search simply on the surname Livermore with the 'exact' box ticked I get a list of 392,376 records. I can't say for certain that other names are not included but at least the first 3 pages are exclusively Livermore :-\
You must have found a way to sort with the most relevant first, I haven't found any way to sort the list like you can on FindMyPast.
-
This is all I did:
-
I tried it Lizzie, just Livermore, all collections, and came up with the same number as Mike.
Then adjusted to UK and that reduced to 69000+. Filtered again to just census and it reduced to 23000+.
When I tried it the other day after your post I received different information. Confusing? Just a bit!
-
BUT - using your method and then restrict it further to 1851 Census - you will get all the other "alternatives" first, all 44 of them (Finnemore, Livermon, etc. etc.) before you get to Livermore. ::)
-
BUT . . .
If you look at the actual images you will see that they are actually Livermores, but the names have been mis-transcribed, or relate to other people on the same page as a Livermore ;)
-
But then exact isn't exact.
I want to be able to search Livermore (exact) first, then the common alternatives, not mistranscriptions necessarily, but the way it has been spelt in the past when people were less literate and spelling was more fluid: e.g Livermoor, Livermoore, Levermore etc.
If I haven't got what I expected, I would do a search on "sounds like" and similar" which it now seems I am getting if I select "exact"
But now I'm resigned to the fact that Elisha Livermore and his wife Sophia were abducted by aliens on census night 1851 and returned to earth later so that Sophia could appear on the 1861 census with her daughter and son in law in Newmarket and Elisha could die in Newmarket in early 1861, annoyingly not quite making it to census day.
-
I guess there's little point in debating it further because people have different expectations, but just to take the first result in the list I get from the 1851 census:
It is indexed as Thomas Finnimore but the image CLEARLY shows Thomas Livermore with his wife, Mary on the next line. Someone has gone to the trouble of submitting a correction, as I have done countless times, so the result is now correctly listed when you search for Livermore, but it will presumably also be found under Finnimore where other people will be justifiably annoyed that it is wrong ::)
The error is in the transcript, not in the search.
Sorry I can't help with Sophia but for what it's worth she doesn't show on FindMyPast either, at least in a very brief search. But that is where the fun detective work starts :) I've had ancestors turn up in the census indexed under a completely different name - copied from the unrelated person on the line above ::)
-
My main moan - apart from the fact that as a fully-qualified luddite I dislike change for no good reason, is that the colours seem to make the screen so busy that my eyes tire more quickly.
I realise that it may seem more "user friendly" in jolly colours, and I've got gripes on the (rare, because I tend to input full place details) transportation of innocent ancestors, but somehow it does seem a bit dumbed down??
Really don't want / need "Historical facts / context" at all. Why bother?
I peeked at it when it first came available - swapped back. Tried again later - swapped back. Gritted my teeth and thought "I'll just have to live with it" on 14th. But I don't. But I probably will. And so will most of us. and the next time "they" change something, we'll say "Why? I liked it as it was".... won't we?
-
Really don't want / need "Historical facts / context" at all. Why bother?
You can turn them off. See replies 40/41 in this thread (also been answered in other threads)
-
Yes, I did turn it off, easy. But was annoyed to find I didn't seem to be able to type in any "children" to couple I'd just provided a spouse for the female half of, when updating records, and it puzzled me.....
-
Under the Facts tab, right-hand side, you get:
Family (plus an "Add" button!))
Parents
Add father Or father's details if already entered.
Add Mother or mother's details if already entered.
Siblings
Spouse (either Add spose, or name)
THEN Add Family ;D
Click on that and you get the option to add Father, Mother, Spouse, Son, Daughter, Brother, Sister.
-
Maybe Ancestry should consider dumbing down their site a tad?
-
Perhaps Ancestry have dumbed it down so much that the smart people have to start lowering their standards. :-\
Just a thought.
-
Hi good people, sorry I have not had time to read all the posts, so I will just put my thoughts on here "trying not to rant"... Grrrrrrr, now the enjoyment of my beloved hobby has been spoilt! by "Angstry" and its new format.
The arbitrary imposition of this new format on its paying customers is to be deplored. It is obvious that this format is designed for use on the i-phone, i-pad, tablet etc. The garish and highly contrasting colour scheme is designed to show up on small screens, The media on the personal media gallery has been moved off the profile to another page and the format changed so items (Photos etc) can easily be scrolled on tiny touch pad screens. Search results now only appear 2 at a time, again so they are big enough to read on an i-pad and of course you may have noted the larger size of the lettering, again for the obvious reason of suiting the i-pad/i-phone. In my opinion this retrograde edition of ancestry has much diminished its functionality and its ability to be enjoyed.
Traditionally the customer base of 'Ancestry' increases around Christmas time and cashing in on the Christmas sales of i-phones, I-pads etc with a format to suit them would seem to be what its all about (note the introduction date of the new format 12th Dec).
One could be forgiven for thinking that "Angstry" Is in total disregard of a large section of its customer base i.e. Those of us who are serious about genealogy and use larger devices that are eminently suitable for the same.
The very least Ancestry can do is offer us the choice between this "new" unsuitable format or the Classic view.
I can only encourage those of you who are of the same opinion and are serious about their Family History to contact "Ancestry" and protest in the strongest possible terms.
I am now considering the alternatives with the intention of cancelling my subscription to the said company after 8 years. :'(
;) The seasons greetings to one and all. Regards, Nigel
-
It cant be :) cos if it is I am totally useless, cos I still cant do it :)
dumb and or even dumber than that
xin
great chrissy mas to one and all and NO I have not been imbibing :) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
After many sessions on new Ancestry, I am more confused than ever, and certainly don't agree that it has been dumbed down! No way! I'm getting more and more confused every time I log in to have another go! Not good for my self esteem at all. :-[
When I first subscribed to Ancestry, I found the whole process very user friendly. Loved the set out - the overview etc, and it was simple to flick through the rest of each family, add media, stories etc etc! I found it extremely easy, and loved tinkering around in there, adding bits and pieces, no trouble, and refining others!
I use both my PC or my ipad to access it, (it was perfectly fine on the iPad before) and after many tries - still unable to make any sense of it! Other than editing a few incorrect countries, no sense! I have a record for a relative that died at sea on a ship named "Northumberland"! Of course the new format showed died in Northumberland, England! I did manage to fix that one though! The only success I've had! ;)
At all! After about 1/2 hr of trying, I give up and do something else, and before the neighbours hear my bad language!
My true sympathies are with others who are finding it difficult! It's just a nightmare for me, and I dislike it intensely! Now I had better sign off,have a cuppa and dream sweet dreams instead of being such a b#**%¥ old misery! ::)
Seriously considering moving it, but when I think of all the family stories and photos that I have added, I hate to think that I'm going to have to add them all manually! It's only the Gedcom and sources that exports isn't it??
-
The first rule about new Ancestry is that they say it has all the features of old Ancestry, just some may be harder to find than others.
So you need to be thinking, it's there somewhere, where is the bloomin' thing NOT they've got rid of X, it's useless.
Now, there are only a limited number of places they can hide anything, so with a bit of grit and determination, everything should soon fall into place
-
After many sessions on new Ancestry, I am more confused than ever, and certainly don't agree that it has been dumbed down! No way! I'm getting more and more confused every time I log in to have another go! Not good for my self esteem at all. :-[
When I first subscribed to Ancestry, I found the whole process very user friendly. Loved the set out - the overview etc, and it was simple to flick through the rest of each family, add media, stories etc etc! I found it extremely easy, and loved tinkering around in there, adding bits and pieces, no trouble, and refining others!
I use both my PC or my ipad to access it, (it was perfectly fine on the iPad before) and after many tries - still unable to make any sense of it! Other than editing a few incorrect countries, no sense! I have a record for a relative that died at sea on a ship named "Northumberland"! Of course the new format showed died in Northumberland, England! I did manage to fix that one though! The only success I've had! ;)
At all! After about 1/2 hr of trying, I give up and do something else, and before the neighbours hear my bad language!
My true sympathies are with others who are finding it difficult! It's just a nightmare for me, and I dislike it intensely! Now I had better sign off,have a cuppa and dream sweet dreams instead of being such a b#**%¥ old misery! ::)
Seriously considering moving it, but when I think of all the family stories and photos that I have added, I hate to think that I'm going to have to add them all manually! It's only the Gedcom and sources that exports isn't it??
Jaybelnz, I wasn't really suggesting that it had been dumbed down at all, but as one or two people seemed to be inferring that we who don't like it are all too stupid to work with the changes I decided to vent a little. As you said, it used to be user friendly, the set-out was good, and clean. I'm not against changes for improvement, but this version does not fall into that category. My opinion of course.
I do wonder how many of the programmers actually use the finished product on a daily basis - for hours on end as we subscribers do
As for making things harder to find as StevieSteve has just intimated - why on earth do that. It isn't a scavenger hunt, it is serious business!
-
Don't blame the programmers! They just do what they are told by the Business Analysts! ;D
And they just do what they are told by Management! ;D
KG (ex-computer programmer ;) )
-
I guess one man's "harder to find" is another's "more logically placed to aid the user journey" :)
-
It's fine to vent MSR, I had a pretty good vent myself! I suppose basically my main thought is "why fix something if it's not broke"?
As I said in my other post, mine worked equally fantastically before on either my PC or my iPad, so there were no concerns there! Everything worked perfectly! Screen display on ipad was identical to that on my PC.
It's much more comfortable to be sitting in my comfy chair in the lounge too, tapping away and doing everything I need to, instead of being shut away in the other room on the PC! Warmer too in the winter! :)
As for iPhones I can't imagine that anyone would actually be researching and creating a tree and adding all the bits and pieces from that! But each to his own I guess!
A quick look maybe, but surely not the whole 9 yards, including searches etc?
Time I went to bed anyway! Night night all! :)
-
Don't blame the programmers! They just do what they are told by the Business Analysts! ;D
And they just do what they are told by Management! ;D
KG (ex-computer programmer ;) )
Well perhaps they all need to start taking note of the opinions of the users. :-X
Can't keep using the excuse that 'I followed orders'.
I guess one man's "harder to find" is another's "more logically placed to aid the user journey" :)
Yes, well! That has worked out swimmingly, I can almost hear the enthusiastic applause from 100% of the subscribers.
-
I put my tree on Ancestry many years ago now - haven't worked on it of late but would regularly check in Public Trees (noting how many people had 'pinched' my information).
Did it a couple of days ago and was astounded to find that none of my tree entries appeared in Public Trees and yet, if I signed into my tree, my entries were all safely there - my main reason for looking at it was to ensure that I had entered place names correctly i.e. place/county/country as that seems to have become an issue for people who didn't. Thankfully I had. I duly contacted Ancestry to find out why my tree entries no longer appear in Public Trees and was told that it was because I hadn't entered 'sources'.
So, for others like me who didn't enter sources at the outset please be aware that your tree entries will no longer appear in a search on Public Trees. (Had to smile as over half of the trees I've looked at of late have just one source generally i.e. Ancestry tree so they have just 'pinched' the details from someone elses tree.) So at some point I will have to amend the entries on my tree (won't be before Christmas, that's for sure) but as I have full baptism/marriage/burial dates it's clear that these details have come from parish registers and not simply filched from someone else.
Annette
-
My apologies if any one was offended by my comment "dumbing down" the item now removed from my post.
I did not mean dumbing down in the terms of its fuctionality or ease of use.
I was refering to ancestry's aiming at the lower end of the market.
Nigel
-
Don't blame the programmers! They just do what they are told by the Business Analysts! ;D
And they just do what they are told by Management! ;D
KG (ex-computer programmer ;) )
Well perhaps they all need to start taking note of the opinions of the users. :-X
Can't keep using the excuse that 'I followed orders'.
Its all very well saying they can't hide behind the excuse "I followed orders", but if they don't follow the remit set by Management and the Business Analysts, they'll most likely either get sacked for failing do do their job properly, or, if contractors, not get their contracts renewed.
-
I wasn't offended by your post Nigel, so no need to remove your comments.
I was more offended by the suggestion (whether tongue in cheek or not) that Ancestry should perhaps dumb it down so that we who oppose the changes can keep up. New does not always mean better.
As for Management and Business Analysts, they don't always live in the real world. Many a company has gone under due to their decisions, just ask the thousands who lost jobs because of them.
I continue to stand my ground!
-
I've - by fishing around and also following the guidance given, thank you KGarrad, found some things - it does seem to have mislaid a few side-twigs, however, somehow, and I'm still wondering which corner they're packed in. As my qualifications don't include any really in I T, I suppose I can be a bit slow working into things like that - but in the past I've used quite demanding drawing packages fairly instinctively. And that, to me is the point. It doesn't feel instinctive - and it is fussy in presentation. I'm okay if it thinks I'm dumb, but I do like to be able to do what I want quickly and efficiently, then move on. I've always entered full details, I'm that sort of rather over the top person, so I've not - yet - found much in the way of transported family, and those I've managed to repatriate.
A motto I've often quoted over the years ( funnily enough, usually when "Computer says" or someone who's just been on the latest IT course, creates some new way of doing things is "New does not mean improved" It may, but often it doesn't - vide Windows 10 at the moment, which has a grudge against "GoogleEarth", I think!
-
As for Management and Business Analysts, they don't always live in the real world. Many a company has gone under due to their decisions, just ask the thousands who lost jobs because of them.
Never said they did live in the real world, but unfortunately if you don't follow what you are told to develop, your time is often short with the company. ;) The fact that they ultimately may lead to the ruin of the company is neither here nor there, that can happen whatever.
Unfortunately, its almost always "IT's fault" when someone dislikes something new, never the numerous chiefs in the background who insisted that was the way forward, whether its a good business sense or not.
-
Those who have the synchronised family tree maker (which hopfully they cant change) will also be in for a disappointment as I believe Ancestry will not support it after 2017
Nigel
-
If you would like to make a complaint, I believe this is the address.....send them a fax?
better still jam their phone line
Ancestry UK Office
Waterfront Building
Hammersmith Embankment
Chancellors Road
London W6 9RU
Ph (0) 208-846-3625
Fx (0) 208-748-3716
-
Hi
Sorry if there is already a post but I can't find it. I logged onto Ancestry today after not using it for a while and it is a new look, I thought we had the option of using the old or the new however I can't find this anywhere, does that mean that I am stuck with what I have at the moment?
Regards
Kevin
-
Sorry if there is already a post but I can't find it.
There's several ::) :D
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=737067.msg5830163#msg5830163
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=730353.msg5751216#msg5751216
-
Hi, yes there are several threads.
I'm afraid there is now no option of switching back to the old site, it changed for good on the 15th December.
-
Thankyou for that Groom.
Kevin
Topics meged.
-
Didn't know where to post this question but here seems as good a place as anywhere :)
Does anyone know how to put the relationship of someone on their profile please?
There used to be a place to click, which would do the calculation for you...... but now it seems to have disappeared. Hope it hasn't gone altogether but I can't find it for the life of me!
-
I hadn't noticed that! It's also removed the ones that were there hasn't it? I'm glad that I've always recorded my direct ancestors in capital letters, otherwise it would be quite hard to follow them back.
-
Mmmm, thanks groom, that's not good.
I'm working on a friend's tree at the moment and in the process of checking things and transferring to a paper tree chart. I started to put the surnames of direct ancestors in capital letters..... but am in a right muddle now :)
-
Someone has just asked this on the Ancestry FB page, I'll keep an eye on it and see if there is a reply.
-
Thanks groom :)
I actually sent them an email via the contact page asking if it could be re-instated. I think they must be overloaded as the message took forever to send.
-
My reply from Ancestry.
the relationships should still be located under an individual's birth and death dates on their profile page. However, we are currently experiencing some trouble with this feature not showing in some trees on our site. This is an issue that we are looking into, and we hope to have it resolved as soon as possible. We apologise for the inconvenience.
-
Thanks groom, that would explain why I thought the relationships showed up the other day on one of my other trees.
Perhaps it will all come out in the wash :)
-
So, for others like me who didn't enter sources at the outset please be aware that your tree entries will no longer appear in a search on Public Trees. (Had to smile as over half of the trees I've looked at of late have just one source generally i.e. Ancestry tree so they have just 'pinched' the details from someone elses tree.) So at some point I will have to amend the entries on my tree (won't be before Christmas, that's for sure) but as I have full baptism/marriage/burial dates it's clear that these details have come from parish registers and not simply filched from someone else.
Annette
Does the source have to be an Ancestry source?
My sources are from all over the place - FindMyPast, newspapers, wills, Deceasedonline, mortcloth records, Irish parish registers. I have some people on my tree that Ancestry has no obvious records for and probably never will.
-
Thanks groom, that would explain why I thought the relationships showed up the other day on one of my other trees.
Perhaps it will all come out in the wash :)
Just tried looking at it on the iPad and the relationships are on there, I use Chrome on both that and the laptop. I wonder if it is, as people have suggested, that the update is aimed at tablets and phones and it is on laptops and desktops where the problems arise?
-
Thanks groom, that would explain why I thought the relationships showed up the other day on one of my other trees.
Perhaps it will all come out in the wash :)
Just tried looking at it on the iPad and the relationships are on there, I use Chrome on both that and the laptop. I wonder if it is, as people have suggested, that the update is aimed at tablets and phones and it is on laptops and desktops where the problems arise?
Sounds a plausible explanation groom but I've just checked my various trees on my laptop and my Kindle and find that some people have their relationship displayed and others don't. There is no variance between the laptop and Kindle.
I think where I had previously clicked to establish the persons relationship to the home person, it is still displayed on the new site. At the moment if you want to establish the relationship, the facility to calculate this is not there.
We can only hope in due course it will be re-instated.
-
Lots of people asking on Ancestry's Facebook page where the relationship to me but has gone. They did reply once - usual guff about being aware of the issue but no time frame for a fix - but no updates since.
I'm currently using my iPad.
It's a shame as I'd just discovered an indirect ancestor who married a U.S. army major in 1944 and left England to live with him, and was wondering what our relationship was - can't find out now..... >:(
Why oh why wasn't this all tested rigorously on a mirror site before launch?
-
I got the reply I posted last night. I would have thought that was one of the most useful things about the Ancestry trees, being able to see the relationships.
-
This from the bloke in charge at ancestry. Not many positive comments follow it.
http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2015/12/14/all-members-now-moving-to-the-new-ancestry/?o_xid=64494&o_lid=64494&o_sch=Social+Media+Natural+
-
Not many = 4 I don't think I counted any more than that.
-
People are hopping mad alright.
If they're going to foist Life story on us, at least make it more relevant. We have a marriage that occurred on 1st August 1834 in England, and they chose this day for a reason. There is no mention of anything that happened on that day at all.
But the Religious Disabilities Act of 1846 is taking up space on their page.
-
So was anyone on here asked to take part in the extensive research? ???
Thought not. >:(
-
You can turn that historical stuff off. You don't even have to look at the Lifestory tab.
Ancestry catastrophic new update solved
Though I say that as someone who quite likes the new colour scheme so if people really are finding it so painful they need to cancel their subscription, then I can see that as a valid complaint
-
So was anyone on here asked to take part in the extensive research? ???
Thought not. >:(
They do do customerwide surveys on the site. I think that anyone who answered them would be surprised that it would be used to justify any changes made in their name
-
Though I say that as someone who quite likes the new colour scheme so if people really are finding it so painful they need to cancel their subscription, then I can see that as a valid complaint
You may like it, but there are people on their FB page who are now saying that due to problems with their eyesight eg impaired vision, they are finding it very difficult to use the site. It is a shame that it wasn't taken into consideration rather than going for a pretty display. A close relation has impaired vision and I know finds it much easier to see things on certain coloured back grounds.
-
Hi, yes, as said there, I fully accept that as a valid complaint
-
Yes but why should they be forced to cancel their subscription because Ancestry didn't consider people with disabilities? They were probably quite happy with it before and their complaint isn't so much with the new site, just the colours.
-
Groom, really, I agree with you on this
-
In the second quarter of 2014 Ancestry lost 52,000 customers, I suggest this trend will continue, The new 'Ancestry' has gained few friends, The new Christmas i-phone customers will soon get bored after 10 minutes and their free trials will not be extended.
Nigel
-
Well I've had a reply from Ancestry to my enquiry about the facility to show relationship to the home person on a tree.
They said they are working on this and it will be re-instated.
On looking at my trees today I find that the relationship is now automatically displayed in the usual area under their name. I believe this has improved because it now automatically shows everyone's relationship to you, without having to click to discover it. Also if you click on the relationship it opens a new list explaining the route to this relationship through all the generations.
So..... thank you Ancestry :)
-
Well I've had a reply from Ancestry to my enquiry about the facility to show relationship to the home person on a tree.
They said they are working on this and it will be re-instated.
On looking at my trees today I find that the relationship is now automatically displayed in the usual area under their name. I believe this has improved because it now automatically shows everyone's relationship to you, without having to click to discover it. Also if you click on the relationship it opens a new list explaining the route to this relationship through all the generations.
So..... thank you Ancestry :)
Mine's back as well, and I agree, it is much better and easier the way they show it now. I'm still discovering new things about the site and although I find it strange at the moment, I can't say that I dislike it enough to stop subscribing to Ancestry.
-
It is considerably different groom but I truly like it. Trust me to be in the minority!!!
I'm finding it easy to add people and so far my searches have produced relevant results.
Perhaps it's just luck but so far so good.
-
Perhaps "they" might listen to a few more of our gripes, and change features back - I've, thankfully, no visual impairment, but I find that colour scheme fussy and unpleasant.
I've tried to remove or diminish most of the things I don't like about the site now, but I'm seriously feeling "If it wasn't broken, then why fix it?"
When you type in a search, a heck of a lot of names thrown up ... or at you ... seem to me VERY random!
I ranged through the comments, and thought "If that was M & S, or any other retailer, they'd be backpedalling like made, because of losing customers". It's a real pity, because I did like the site, and the way it used to work was fine. Why can't "they" let us stick with that, if we want?
-
Well I'm still really struggling with all of it, and that's really disappointing! But I gotta keep going with it - so keep on keeping on! It was all so simple to navigate through before, but now simply frustrating! I'm not a happy Chappy at all in regard to the changes :-\
But apart from that?? Life is beautiful! 😃
-
Ive just cancelled my longstanding membership with Ancestry tonight. I never did like the search system, There is no need to give numerous names, places, et'c that are not even remotely connected to the search..
I told Ancestry in my comment's that it is simply to get members to renew and renew their membership for ever!
I am looking at find my past, so would welcome any pros and cons on that please, but I suspect they will give me as many headaches as Ancestry has ... Dolly
-
There are many threads on here comparing Ancestry and FindMyPast. It really depends what you are looking for, as each have different records eg I like Ancestry for my London Ancestors, but I sometimes find FindMyPast better for census.
It wasn't that long ago that people were complaining about changes on FindMyPast I believe!
-
In the second quarter of 2014 Ancestry lost 52,000 customers, I suggest this trend will continue, The new 'Ancestry' has gained few friends, The new Christmas i-phone customers will soon get bored after 10 minutes and their free trials will not be extended.
Nigel
I'm not sure I see the relevance of quoting from the financial results of 18 months ago. How is this related to the recent changes that have been made? What are the trends over the last 18 months?
Simon
-
Would be interesting to see the trends since 15th December?!
-
In the second quarter of 2014 Ancestry lost 52,000 customers, I suggest this trend will continue, The new 'Ancestry' has gained few friends, The new Christmas i-phone customers will soon get bored after 10 minutes and their free trials will not be extended.
Nigel
I'm not sure I see the relevance of quoting from the financial results of 18 months ago. How is this related to the recent changes that have been made? What are the trends over the last 18 months?
Simon
The point I was making is that I believe the loss of customers in 2014 prompted Ancestry to change the format in an attempt to gain more customer's, it takes several months of work to do the programming etc.
-
Under the Facts tab, right-hand side, you get:
Family (plus an "Add" button!))
Parents
Add father Or father's details if already entered.
Add Mother or mother's details if already entered.
Siblings
Spouse (either Add spose, or name)
THEN Add Family ;D
Click on that and you get the option to add Father, Mother, Spouse, Son, Daughter, Brother, Sister.
This is not working for me. In theory you can do this by clicking on the "add" button by Family and you get the options to add the relatives you mention. Click on one of these and - absolutely nothing happens. The same thing happens when you click on the "add" button by Facts, click on it and you get a list of facts, click on one of these and you get a box with the fact title, nothing else happens and there is nothing else you can do.
There is a similar thing with Facts Click on Edit by a fact, the box comes up and you can make alterations but then nothing happens when you hit the save button.
-
This is not working for me. In theory you can do this by clicking on the "add" button by Family and you get the options to add the relatives you mention. Click on one of these and - absolutely nothing happens. The same thing happens when you click on the "add" button by Facts, click on it and you get a list of facts, click on one of these and you get a box with the fact title, nothing else happens and there is nothing else you can do.
There is a similar thing with Facts Click on Edit by a fact, the box comes up and you can make alterations but then nothing happens when you hit the save button.
It's working for me, every time?
I think you need to contact the Ancestry Help Desk?
-
I have had similar problems in the past with several websites ( non-functionality of some buttons), and the problem turned out to be that I was using an old browser and the websites in question had been updated and were no longer compatible with my browser
-
Interesting, I've just updated Firefox and it is still not working but it is working on Pale Moon and Vivaldi so it is browser specific. Can't try it on Internet Explorer or Chrome as I won't have them on my computers. Off to Ancestry Help I think.
-
I'm at my daughter's for Christmas, so I currently using Google Chrome (Version 47.0.2526.106 m) on Windows 10.
At home I use the latest Firefox, on Windows 7.
On both systems, I can add to my Ancestry Trees without problems.
-
I am also using Google Chrome on Windows 10 and have Firefox on Linux on the laptop. No problem adding just a problem with some 2nd spouses not showing on "Main Tree", but that may be me. The show on the Husbands' so the child looks as if it has no mother, but as I said that may be just me being stupid ??? ???
-
OK, sorted. A slightly odd add-on problem. Ghostery was blocking Tealium, which is an analytic & tracker platform. Not sure why Ancestry makes that essential other than to snoop on you fro marketing purposes. As tealium themselves say "Shine Light on Your Data to Deliver Customer Delight" Some hope.
-
Hello,
Just want to vent.
Haven't been on Ancestry for a while and while I know there had been an update I didn't realise I would be infuriated with it.
It's in relation to the Life Story section of the profiles - as we know ensuring we have the correct info is a work in progress but I never knew it would be altered. A number of ancestors were Leeds B/M/D and ok maybe I should have stated West Yorkshire, England but I never thought for a second that years down the line Ancestry would introduce a Life Story Narrative automatically generated to state Leeds, Ontario! I have emailed Ancestry Support Centre to ascertain if this can be stopped or do I have to record by record have to delete and then add a new fact ensuring that I state Leeds, West Yorkshire, England. Failing that can I have the old version of Ancestry back.
Vent over thanks for listening.
Tonya x >:(
Topics merged
-
Failing that can I have the old version of Ancestry back.
I'm afraid the answer to that will be "No," the new version is here to stay I'm afraid.
-
I know it is but just needed to get it of my chest!!!!
-
. . . . or do I have to record by record have to delete and then add a new fact ensuring that I state Leeds, West Yorkshire, England.
No you don't have to delete anything!
Just edit each fact ;D
Position the cursor after the last character of the current town name; backspace 1 character.
Ancestry should then come up with a list of possibles.
Select the correct one!
If you get too many North American suggestions, then try adding a comma and the county :D
-
It's in relation to the Life Story section of the profiles - as we know ensuring we have the correct info is a work in progress but I never knew it would be altered.
If you don't like Life Story, just click on Facts and don't look at it again. ;) It remembers to open up in Facts rather than Life Story.
-
I find the difficult part is the layout of the trees. Whereas I have got more used to the search engines. It takes longer though to add a source to a ancestor on a tree though.
-
The searches aren't really the problem, we can all adapt to changes, but it is the ridiculous story that Ancestry seems to think we all need as if we can't imagine things for ourselves.
Yes, I know it can be ignored, but it is an unnecessary facility. I say 'facility' but mean something rather different.
If I have rubbish in a cupboard I can either remove it completely or push it to the back and try not to see it, but I would still know it was there. Get rid of it and there is more room for the important stuff.
I'd really like to know the bright spark who came up with the idea. Was it ever asked for, and how many find it useful?
As for the requirement of adding the country to a city or town because there are several around the world, I say this. Default to the original. London, England; Manchester, England etc.
My Manchester is not in Jamaica, nor London in Ontario. Besides being the originals, the country is earlier in the alphabet than the others, so who in their wisdom decided that the others take priority?
I live in hope that by next renewal date in November something will have been done to actually make Ancestry 'better'. It would be a shame to leave.
-
As for the requirement of adding the country to a city or town because there are several around the world, I say this. Default to the original. London, England; Manchester, England etc.
My Manchester is not in Jamaica, nor London in Ontario. Besides being the originals, the country is earlier in the alphabet than the others, so who in their wisdom decided that the others take priority?
I live in hope that by next renewal date in November something will have been done to actually make Ancestry 'better'. It would be a shame to leave.
You mean London, England, United Kingdom?! ;D
I have spent some time complaining that people on .co.uk should have places defaulted to UK, and those on .ca defaulting to Canada, etc.
But Ancestry is an American company, and they do things in an American way.
-
No KGarrad, we hear Americans say London - England; Paris - France; Rome - Italy etc. Not followed by UK or Continent of Europe. England is the country!
-
That's strange, because the Government is HM Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!
Just like it says on a passport?!
I have also heard Americans say Cardiff, England!! ;D
-
Well there you are then. Just another load of rubbish ::)
-
Is there any way to change or remove the map? I've edited out such references to a ship called SS Manchester being referred to as being in Manchester, Ontario but can't change the map. I had Dublin Street Liverpool meaning the person lived in Dublin with accompanying map and a resident of India Street they rightly didn't say they lived in India but still managed to provide a map of India!
Blue
-
If you have entered "SS Manchester" in a location box, then any software will get confused with that!
As for the other address, have you entered "Dublin Street, Liverpool, England" or "Dublin Street, Liverpool, Lancashire, England"?
Personally, I don't enter street names in the location boxes, but put that kind of detail in the Description box.
Also I have never used the map? Where is it? ;D
I just use the Facts tab.
-
The map is on Lifestory. I don't mind using Lifestory I can edit mistakes thrown up by the software but the map doesn't appear to have an edit facility.
Blue
-
While I don't have a general l problem with the change/update of Ancestry in principal I have to say that I have less confidence in the new format. Until a couple of days ago I had no problem using it. Then - there's always a then - I discovered a glitch. I was investigating the First World War records of a particular individual. When I searched under the general Military section nothing relevant came up. I was puzzled because I knew for certain some records did exist, if not the actual service record. Lo and behold, when I separately checked the individual under the, 'WW1 Service Medal and Award Rolls' and 'British Army WW1 Medal Index Cards' sections up popped the relevant records. Why then, when I did a general military check were these relevant records not flagged up. If I had been doing a purely speculative check under the general military section (without knowing for sure if any records existed) I would have presumed there was nothing relevant to view and so would not have checked any further. I'm a bit concerned to say the least, or am I doing something wrong?
Regards
Doddie
-
I've managed to change the maps by adjusting the addresses they are automatically responsive to county and country data.
Blue
-
Doddie, bad the same problem with the Silver War Badge records. I was trying to find a copy of my grandfather's which I had found before but this time it didn't appear in the general search results, only when searching the specific data set.
That said, that happened when using the old ancestry a few weeks before the cutover. :-\
-
It is an acquired taste, I find I am getting more used to the new Ancestry format now. It takes time, but the layout of the trees is the most difficult but again I am getting the hang of it.
-
Anybody know how to edit the source citations on the new Ancestry. I incorrectly attached an incorrect record to one of my people and although I can and have removed the actual record from the facts area, it still remains within the list of sources and I can't see how to edit/delete these.
Regards, Pheno
-
If you hover over the required source citation, the EDIT function will become visible.
Click on that to open the edit box; Remove is in the bottom right corner.
-
Thanks but I obviously didn't explain myself very well.
From viewing a profile I have then gone to 'Search on Ancestry'. When you get the list of results you also get a list of what records are already in the tree attached to that person. In that list I have records that don't actually refer to the person in question - may relate either to spouse or to 2nd spouse etc which I don't want in her list. I can go the actual record and remove it so that it doesn't appear on the facts page of that individual but I can't seem to remove it from the original individual's list of records even though it no longer shows in facts.
Relates to when I was very new to Ancestry many moons ago and any that cropped up under the old Ancestry were removable but that facility seems to be lost.
Regards, Pheno
-
So from the list of records click on the one you don't want.
It goes to the record and a message appears saying
This is attached to xxx in tree yyy. Remove
Click on Remove and it's gone
-
Yes what I am trying to say is the record has gone and no longer appears in facts but it still appears in the list of records attached to the person when you next do the search in Ancestry. I can't seem to get rid of it from the list although I have got rid of it from the facts! I think its because the source is still attached even though the record no longer is.
You used to be able to go to source citations and delete but cant seem to find that option now.
Pheno
-
Yes, when you do the search follow the steps in my previous post
-
Hi blue
I read in one of your posts that your father lived in India street Liverpool?
My great grandfather lived in India street in number 25 I have hit a brick wall with him , his name was Bernard Morgan he was born Armagh around 1864 and his father was Owen Morgan a farmer , Bernard was with is wife in 1891 and was a baker his wife Mary Ann duffield was manager of the bakers shop . Any info you may know would be much appreciated, Bernard worked as a baker on the ships going back and forth to Quebec after 1904 ( last info on him ) he left his wife and children and took off to make his fortune ( family story passed down about where he went but no trace
though ) 😞 I have lots of family info but not birth certificate, I’m interested in any photos India
Street as my mother who is 83 is still alive and would love to know about her fathers birth place also called Bernard Morgan who was born in 1891 in India street Liverpool ,( my grandad ) thanks a lot any helpful hints appreciated
-
Hi Loveireland ad welcome to Rootschat..You may have better luck with your search if you start a new post here:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/lancashire/
Good Luck!
Carol
-
Hi blue
I read in one of your posts that your father lived in India street Liverpool?
My great grandfather lived in India street in number 25 I have hit a brick wall with him , his name was Bernard Morgan he was born Armagh around 1864 and his father was Owen Morgan a farmer , Bernard was with is wife in 1891 and was a baker his wife Mary Ann duffield was manager of the bakers shop . Any info you may know would be much appreciated, Bernard worked as a baker on the ships going back and forth to Quebec after 1904 ( last info on him ) he left his wife and children and took off to make his fortune ( family story passed down about where he went but no trace
though ) 😞 I have lots of family info but not birth certificate, I’m interested in any photos India
Street as my mother who is 83 is still alive and would love to know about her fathers birth place also called Bernard Morgan who was born in 1891 in India street Liverpool ,( my grandad ) thanks a lot any helpful hints appreciated
Unfortunately we don't have any photos of India Street. I posted a map showing the street here:-
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=774748.9
Blue