RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: AllanUK on Wednesday 01 May 19 09:12 BST (UK)
-
Morning all,
Logged into Ancestry this morning and no matter what I tried to search, I was presented with error messages such as:
Searching for a named ancestor via 'Search all records' (information previously found via Ancestry) only to be presented with 'An unexpected error occurred'
On trying to use the search area 'Schools, Directories and Church Histories' presented with 'We're sorry, this page is no longer available' This applies to all other search topics, Census, BMDs etc.
Really getting to the end of my patience with Ancestry. Have been a subscriber for 20+ years, seriously thinking about stopping.
Allan
-
My error message was "An unexpected error occurred. You can try reloading the page, or come back later" ::)
Sandra
-
Hi.
I'm having the same problem. Very annoying!
Chris
-
Just had a reply from an 'Ancestry expert' --
Hi Allan
My name is Lauren. I am an Ancestry Directly Expert . We are not employees of Ancestry but certified expert users .
We can not access your account but can offer you other assistance.
Ancestry is suffering a fault with records searching currently. They are aware and are working to resolve it but don't have an estimate of a timeframe for resolution at this stage
Regards
Lauren
Yet again, Ancestry are suffering with 'a fault' and 'don't have an estimate of a timeframe for resolution' --- what about subscribers suffering, Ancestry is just about 'not fit for purpose' these days.
Allan
-
In the past if unable to access thru ancestry.co.uk or ancestry.com - it was possible to get in thru ancestry.ca or ancestry.com.au but not today apparently..................... ::)
Sandra
-
Look on the bright side folks. When things go glitchy it usually means there is an improvement about to be implemented :)
-
with ancestry...........lol...............can't wait.............. ;) ;)
-
It's been like that with the DNA section for ages now. I think they've been trying to make our experience 'fun' :-X :-X :-X
We have a thread running on the DNA board. Each day there are more oddities!
-
Same here, and it took 30 mins to log in to FindMyPast today only to get the following message...
Sorry, we had trouble getting those results.
Please try again or contact our Customer Support team for help.
Losing the will to live.
No problems with any of the free sites. Family Search did an upgrade a few days ago (Sunday?) and put a banner across the top of the screen apologising for any inconvenience but there didn't seem to be any.
I hope the 'enhancements' that follow these glitches on the sub sites are worth waiting for ::)
-
Ancestry have a banner now suggesting you might experience intermittent problems!!!!
-
The problem is -
a - Maintenance has to be done - sometime at short or no notice and sometimes NOW.
b - The world is round (contrary to the beliefs of Flatearthers). Night-time for some is midday for others. Most programmed routine maintenance is scheduled for daytime in the Pacific as it affects fewer people. Bad luck Hawaii.
c - If outages like this happen, it is because there is a real fault, that cannot wait.
Regards
Chas
-
True, although the issue is more about communication and managing expectations. It would be nice to get an email saying they have to do maintenance and apologise. This must be within their scope given how many emails they send about special offers and DNA tests.
-
I turned the DNA Beta off, which meant I could see my matches.
After a few minutes, I turned the Beta back on again - and everything seems to be working!
Might be a fluke, but maybe worth trying?
-
Both the main and DNA section are working at the moment!
-
I’ve had a different problem.
I’ve a few small private trees set for searching. Yesterday either they loaded showed hints but I was unable to view the hints they were all shown as unavailable, or if I did view a hint the tree would then hang or the tree wouldn’t load at all. With the error message telling me to either change my view or try another tree!
Nic
-
My match list is now working fine and a positive result of the downtime is that they have now fixed the issues with duplicate entries when using the Common Ancestors filter.
-
Hi all,
Have just returned to my PC (having better things to do than wait for Ancestry), searches seem OK now.
Why oh why can not Ancestry let users know when they have a problem or when they are doing a systems update, other gen sites do. Seems that they don't communicate with anyone but themselves.
Allan
-
I do wonder just how many staff they have in the background. Obviously they need scanners and transcribers and IT personnel and all the other people who make the information appear on our screens.
But if you have a problem it is an "experienced user" who answers your question. I wonder if they have any customer service people at all?
Regards
Chas
-
Glad I found this thread. The other day I noticed each ancestor's sex was "unknown" when I was in the Profile mode but is was correctly given when looking at the whole tree. Ancestry would not accept any corrections so I just figured something was afoot and not to worry.
:)
-
I do wonder just how many staff they have in the background. Obviously they need scanners and transcribers and IT personnel and all the other people who make the information appear on our screens.
But if you have a problem it is an "experienced user" who answers your question. I wonder if they have any customer service people at all?
Regards
Chas
They don't have scanners and transcribers. The bulk of their work is done by organizations like the LDS with its volunteer transcribing. That's why we get some bad transcriptions; volunteers with the best of intentions out of their depth with poor images or early records they are unable to read.
As for their so called maintenance, there has been no difference to me before during or after.
I still can't find record sets in the catalog, even some records disappear when i go back to the search from looking at the image. But most annoying is to suddenly find myself on the US version.
They are in denial about it all.
-
I've been getting the same issue with searches as described here. Also, when accessing my own tree on Ancestry I frequently get a message saying "this page does not exist".
Then there's the overall poor design features such as constantly giving "all collections" even when I have selected "UK and Ireland".
Transciption wise my current bugbear is that a whole selection of Scottish records have been attributed to completely the wrong side of the country, randomly. They come from records that are not that old and therefoe typed so handwriting is not an issue. I have seen the originals so know they are not only correct but very clear where they refer to. When I e-mailed and then called (no reply after 6 weeks) I was told I just didn't understand Scottish geography. When I pointed out that I was calling from the location in question I was told I had to understand that boundaries changed over the years. Customer service is awful, I know "the customer is always right" is a flawed mantra but "the customer is always wrong no matter what" is very flawed.
-
I keep getting the "We're sorry this page is unavailable right now". The "We're sorry" is a bit patronising as I doubt very much they are sorry. The site is now a shambles.
-
It was forseeable.... that the mess they created was not controllable at the cost they were prepared to pay..
I for one am totally fed up .. of the amount of times.. I cannot access a census return under the correct persons name .. it comes up like 'Jack flash' on FindMyPast ... but I cannot get the darn thing on Ancestry I need it to actually attach the correct census from Ancestry itself to add to the sources.. but I still download from FindMyPast to ensure a decent legible copy..
dipping in here and dipping in there to actually make sense of the research I am doing is not good for this already 'addled' brain.
THEN
WDYTYA comes on TV (american version!!!) and its all put down in front of them as if it is a 'click' of a button.. fgs..
okay moan over for today :)
xin
AS A BY THE WAY ---
anyone with any sense will download the GEDS they have on ~Anc~ to ensure safekeeping for the day of the 'crash' -- doom and gloom maybe OR forward thinking..
-
One good thing has come about, at least.
Today I have my old home page back, with My Shoebox, What's Happening at Ancestry, My Quick Links and Recent Member Connect Activity. It wasn't there this morning.
This has been unavailable for several months now, I didn't go to the trouble of adding quick links for them to disappear overnight.
Regards Margaret
-
AS A BY THE WAY ---
anyone with any sense will download the GEDS they have on ~Anc~ to ensure safekeeping for the day of the 'crash' -- doom and gloom maybe OR forward thinking..
That scared the life out of me when I saw that :o But it view of recent events yes a wise precaution. I have now exported the Gedcoms so thanks for the suggestion :)
-
I've always kept my 'real' trees on my computer (using Family Historian), with backup copies. Ancestry just has a pared down version of my direct line that I only put up after I did my DNA test.
I wouldn't dream of just having a tree on Ancestry - that would be folly indeed!
Gadget
-
I've always kept my 'real' trees on my computer (using Family Historian), with backup copies. Ancestry just has a pared down version of my direct line that I only put up after I did my DNA test.
I wouldn't dream of just having a tree on Ancestry - that would be folly indeed!
Gadget
Yes I agree, but that said there was a time I just had my tree on my computer and my computer gave up the ghost. Arghhhhhhhhh !!!!! Fortunately I did have a backup copy but a little out of date and it took a while to bring it up to date.
-
David ~
The lovely thing about Family Historian is that whenever you exit after making changes, it asks if you want to save a backup :)
-
I've always kept my 'real' trees on my computer (using Family Historian), with backup copies. Ancestry just has a pared down version of my direct line that I only put up after I did my DNA test.
I wouldn't dream of just having a tree on Ancestry - that would be folly indeed!
Gadget
Yes I agree, but that said there was a time I just had my tree on my computer and my computer gave up the ghost. Arghhhhhhhhh !!!!! Fortunately I did have a backup copy but a little out of date and it took a while to bring it up to date.
I work mostly on my tablet these days, so my Ancestry tree is usually more up to date than my family tree programme, but if I find out something about direct ancestors I do make copies elsewhere than Ancestry.
When I do go on my laptop, I make sure to sync my Ancestry tree with Roots Magic, saves all attached records and images for even my more remote connections. This on the free version, as I don't use Roots Magic for anything else.
Regards Margaret
-
I had, how shall I put it, an issue that meant I lost my computer and external hard drive. That's why I am glad I have an online copy of my tree. I'm a belt and braces kind of girl. it also meant originally that my now ex couldn't delete it.
-
Hi Roots Chatters
Re Ancestry problems: I am finding some weird stuff going on when I search the Public Member Trees.
The stated number of results returned is less than the results actually returned.
For example a broad search for Simon Newlove b. Yorkshire England with no dates mentioned, states that 14 records have been found whereas the actual number is 33 records. I have noticed this occurring over the last few weeks.
However today with my Newlove search I realized that my Tree name only came up twice in the results. On checking my tree, there are seven records for Simon Newloves that have not been returned in the search.
Has anyone else noticed this mismatch between stated and actual results on a search or records not being returned at all? I get the same results accessing via the UK or CA sites.
Venelow
Canada
-
When accessing Ancestry on my phone, I struggle to get what I put in the search parameters in any record set.
As an example last night (my time) I put a surname and a parish into London Baptisms Marriages and Burials and got no hits. Having looked at some of this name already I know there should have been.
-
I had, how shall I put it, an issue that meant I lost my computer and external hard drive. That's why I am glad I have an online copy of my tree. I'm a belt and braces kind of girl. it also meant originally that my now ex couldn't delete it.
There's a lesson here for everyone. BACK UP YOUR RESEARCH!
There's a thread here: https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=742752.0
I rang Ancestry on Wednesday morning as soon as their lines opened at 0900 BST (not 0900 GMT as they claim).
The fault had been evident for over an hour by then, but the chap on the helpdesk was still unaware of it. In his defence he had probably only just started his shift, and it sounded as though a colleague in the same room already knew.
I commiserated with the man as he was about to get a whole morning of calls about the same problem.
-
While browsing Anc I sometimes keep getting asked to sign in and/or create a free account when I have had a yearly sub since 2006 and I stay logged in. >:(
-
There have been problems with Ancestry lately as they have been updating - they did issue a warning on their page and on Facebook. I'm an Admin of quite a large genealogy group on Facebook and we always advise people (as do Ancestry) to log off, clear cookies and log on again. This usually fixes any problems. Failing that contact Ancestry who are very helpful. It also seems that Ancestry's preferred browser is Chrome, I use that and have never had any problems.
-
Let's try and be a little forgiving, Chatters. Ancestry is a huge site and there are bound to be problems occasionally, especially when they have to update it. It's annoying when you only have an hour and you have this amazing lead just to be given a load of error messages but I do try to be charitable (all the while cursing under my breath!). I am sure the staff who have to work on it get just as frustrated at times!
With regard to the Public Trees and the mismatch in numbers, venelow, I wondered if some of the owners of these trees had moved them into 'Private' since the last 'count'. I'm not sure how it works but that's the reason I've given myself! ???
-
There have been problems with Ancestry lately as they have been updating - they did issue a warning on their page and on Facebook. I'm an Admin of quite a large genealogy group on Facebook and we always advise people (as do Ancestry) to log off, clear cookies and log on again. This usually fixes any problems. Failing that contact Ancestry who are very helpful. It also seems that Ancestry's preferred browser is Chrome, I use that and have never had any problems.
I am not a member of your Facebook group, or Ancestry's. So I have not seen any such message. There has been a message on Ancestry's search engine more recently about back end problems.
However, I have been on Rootschat, which I find to be extremely helpful. I, like many others, have logged out, cleared cookies, logged in again as suggested by numerous people, including Gadget.
I use Chrome usually, when I first started having problems I switched to Firefox.
I don't think 'Back End' problems which they have been having recently are anything to do with cookies, though I stand to be corrected.
Whatever, it seems to be working mostly for me now, for which I am very grateful.
But to virtually lock us out for a week or more, especially DNA matches, when they are updating isn't really acceptable, especially without a warning on the website itself. To make a public statement on Facebook that there is a problem is laughable, not everybody uses it.
Let's try and be a little forgiving, Chatters. Ancestry is a huge site and there are bound to be problems occasionally, especially when they have to update it. It's annoying when you only have an hour and you have this amazing lead just to be given a load of error messages but I do try to be charitable (all the while cursing under my breath!). I am sure the staff who have to work on it get just as frustrated at times!
With regard to the Public Trees and the mismatch in numbers, venelow, I wondered if some of the owners of these trees had moved them into 'Private' since the last 'count'. I'm not sure how it works but that's the reason I've given myself! ???
I am usually fairly forgiving, lydiaann, but it has been very frustrating for the time it has been almost unusable, two weeks or so. I have accomplished more in a day since it has been working properly again than I did for the previous 2 weeks.
Regards Margaret
-
A banner on the home page and top of the DNA page would have been the most professional way of announcing changes/problems/etc. This is usual for most service providers. As, Margaret says, not all of us are members of Facebook, and an assumption that we are is amateur.
The main problems were with the DNA section.
I had various e-mails over the period telling me that it wasn't a problem at their end and I should clear cookies/cache/the world! I sent them snips of the messages that I was getting but the reply came back that they couldn't reproduce them at their end! The answers were very polite but I had the feeling that the people weren't really very computer literate! I didn't have any problems with the main site.
The Ancestry DNA problems also coincided with a Firefox update which seemed to mess up the usual way of clearing individual cookies. I used Chrome, Firefox and Safari but the problems occurred with all browsers at one stage, so I think that they were making changes without testing them on the various browsers - which would be the standard way of testing (well, it was when I worked on large databases!)
All is now back to normal.
Gadget
-
Let's try and be a little forgiving, Chatters. Ancestry is a huge site and there are bound to be problems occasionally, especially when they have to update it. It's annoying when you only have an hour and you have this amazing lead just to be given a load of error messages but I do try to be charitable (all the while cursing under my breath!). I am sure the staff who have to work on it get just as frustrated at times!
With regard to the Public Trees and the mismatch in numbers, venelow, I wondered if some of the owners of these trees had moved them into 'Private' since the last 'count'. I'm not sure how it works but that's the reason I've given myself! ???
In most circumstances I do make an effort to give people and indeed organisations the benefit of the doubt. However Ancestry wise it isn't, not for me at least an occasional problem, it's every day sometimes several times a day. Then there is the frequent denial of their being an issue and blaming the user no matter what. That IMHO is terrible customer service. Proper acknowledgement of issues(including algorithtm design), sincere apologies, not blaming the customer and evidence of actually trying to solve issues before tinkering with aesthetics would go a long way to placate me.
-
I agree. A little humility goes a long way. And if you call them and spend time trying to suggest ways of improving the site that might actually help them competitively, as well as us users, they should (a) welcome it and (b) have a process for feeding it into their 'back end' :o as they call it.
Whilst there are many things I like about Ancestry (and am happy to tell them these as well), there's a lot of niggles that could be ironed out quickly and make a big difference to the 'user experience' ::) Top of mind, I have hint leaves on the family tree, I click on it, it refers me back to my own tree, I click on it and get told I need a subscription. Perhaps I should invite myself to view my own tree.
I've changed ancestors in the tree (the joys of DNA discoveries) and the tips (oodles of them) still refer to the previous people. I find myself screaming 'keep up!!' at the screen as I delete 25 irrelevant tips.
Admittedly, you do get used to its foibles but not sure it's the most efficient use of time and resource.
-
Hi Lydiaann
I don't think people removing trees is the problem. I am no expert IT person but in the databases I use the number of results returned by a search is usually stated at the top of the list and that is the number that appears. In my Ancestry searches on the Public Tree Search the actual results are more than the stated results. Some sort of glitch I suppose.
The other problem I feel is more serious and raises the question are we seeing all the information available?
I explained in my post as follows:
" . . . today with my Newlove search I realized that my Tree name only came up twice in the results. On checking my tree, there are seven records for Simon Newloves that have not been returned in the search."
I was not referring to anyone else's tree. My Public Newlove Tree has nine Simon Newloves. In a search without reference to any dates, only two of the nine were returned in the result.
Surely all records for the search terms entered should be returned? I wondered if anyone else had noticed this problem.
Venelow
Canada
-
You can only be forgiving for so long. Often I have looked at their marriages and the index clearly says "marriage" yet when I click into the image, it is only a banns, which contains little genealogical info.
And when paying for a service, I do not expect a very patchy service with hit and miss searches, being asked to sign in every few minutes, getting irrelevant results, or "we're sorry" error messages etc. The site needs to look no further than themselves for poor customer service.
-
You can only be forgiving for so long. Often I have looked at their marriages and the index clearly says "marriage" yet when I click into the image, it is only a banns, which contains little genealogical info.
I started transcriptions for one site a few years ago, I can't remember which one now.
I was transcribing banns and marriages in a particular parish. With the banns, I was asked to enter the 3rd date as a marriage date. When I queried this, I was more or less told to get on with doing things as requested. I stopped transcribing those records and chose something else from the list, because it annoyed me to be responsible for entering it as a marriage.
Regards Margaret
-
You can only be forgiving for so long. Often I have looked at their marriages and the index clearly says "marriage" yet when I click into the image, it is only a banns, which contains little genealogical info.
I started transcriptions for one site a few years ago, I can't remember which one now.
I was transcribing banns and marriages in a particular parish. With the banns, I was asked to enter the 3rd date as a marriage date. When I queried this, I was more or less told to get on with doing things as requested. I stopped transcribing those records and chose something else from the list, because it annoyed me to be responsible for entering it as a marriage.
Regards Margaret
Their method was obviously very misleading. Good for you for querying it. They seem to think that a banns is a substitute for a marriage record. I have come across countless banns being read but no marriage, at least not in that church, or they married a few years later.
-
I think it's well established that Ancestry don't know their fundament from their funnybone when it comes to banns and marriages, despite the fact that every banns register I've seen has the word 'Banns' prominently displayed on the cover (and sometimes in upper case - 'BANNS' - even harder to miss) ::)
As for the patchy service you describe, I was getting all of that over Easter. Exasperation mounted until I called their UK 'help' number (free calls to UK/ROI on my mobile deal). After the usual blather about cookies and browsers, which I told them was irrelevant, I was firmly instructed to change my browser because there was no problem showing on my account at their end, therefore no technical issue for them to report, therefore it must be my fault. I equally firmly informed them that these issues were well-known and frequently discussed online, and that I personally knew(!) many other people with the same complaints. Also mentioned that it's always worse on their 'free' weekends.
They sent me an email about changing browsers, which I ignored, and the problems miraculously stopped that day (touch wood) without any action on my part ;D
Carol
-
I think it's well established that Ancestry don't know their fundament from their funnybone when it comes to banns and marriages, despite the fact that every banns register I've seen has the word 'Banns' prominently displayed on the cover (and sometimes in upper case - 'BANNS' - even harder to miss) ::)
Carol
Well you probably have been lucky as I have come across some very misleading "marriages" when they are clearly banns.
-
Coombs, maybe I wasn't quite clear - it's late here - but I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with you!
Carol
-
You can only be forgiving for so long. Often I have looked at their marriages and the index clearly says "marriage" yet when I click into the image, it is only a banns, which contains little genealogical info.
I started transcriptions for one site a few years ago, I can't remember which one now.
I was transcribing banns and marriages in a particular parish. With the banns, I was asked to enter the 3rd date as a marriage date.
Could it have been familysearch as I know some of their "marriage" dates are actually dates banns were read. That is why i do not like sites that just have transcriptions, without a link to the original registers you do not actually know what you are getting in reality.
As to Ancestry having banns dates for marriage dates they know they are doing this. I have messaged them several times about this when i found such records and never had a reply. When you consider that several of the big genealogical sites swap and sell transcriptions etc between themselves all they are doing is compounding the problem
-
I think it may have been Familysearch, David. It really bugged me, but that's what transcribers were asked to do, enter the last banns reading as a marriage date.
Ancestry may have copied this information over in their 'Select Marriages' set, but they haven't done so when transcribing their own record sets with images. So I think it might be universally accepted practice, which 'true' genealogists/family historians abhor.
No point in telling them about it, they must already know and choose to continue with it.
It annoys me when I find both the banns and the marriage record, have to enter them as two separate dates for the marriage, rather than one for banns and one for marriage.
Regards Margaret
-
Related to Banns vs Marriage entries:
I've often come across the Banns entries = 3 dates, but then in a number of cases the actual date of marriage is also entered.
Marriage entry - Charles William Swallow - 1866 - Christ Church Harrogate - date of Banns plus date of marriage.
Marriage entry - Charles William Swallow - 1866 - All Saints, Netherthong - image of marriage register
Both images on Ancestry.
Modified: Both images available via West Yorkshire, England, Marriages and Banns 1813-1935
-
For instance there is a "marriage" entry for Thomas Cripps in 1798 in Oxford St Giles to Catherine Davis, and the index says Marriage, but you click in to see the image and it is only a banns.
-
Thomas Crips and Catherine Davis:
The title is "Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages and Burials 1538-1812" and then OK, so it says "Marriage - 03/06/1798 Oxford St Giles"
Are we really so "nit-picking"? :-\ :-X
-
Thomas Crips and Catherine Davis:
The title is "Oxfordshire, England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages and Burials 1538-1812" and then OK, so it says "Marriage - 03/06/1798 Oxford St Giles"
Are we really so "nit-picking"? :-\ :-X
Not sure what you are getting at here but that is my possible several times great uncle. I am researching Cripps of Oxfordshire.
-
Coombs, I have explained why it appears as banns rather than marriage - it is what transcribers are told to do. They have no choice in the matter. As far as I remember there were boxes to fill in transcribed information, e.g. name, date etc. The type of record, e.g. Baptism, Banns, Marriage, Burial, was already completed and unchangeable, as was the place of the event.
If you were lucky there was a notes section, where additional information could be added, but not with the ones I was doing.
That is why on transcriptions you see the bare minimum of information in places like ancestry and Familysearch. At sites like FreeReg, there will often be extra information in notes.
So, in lots of sites, banns will appear as marriages. You just have to accept it and rightly grumble about it, but I don't think it will change, and is not considered an error as such by any of the sites.
Why not give your hand at transcribing some records, everyone? Hard work, and I didn't do it for very long, but it does give insights into how things are done.
Regards Margaret
Modified. This reply was intended to further explain the way in which I was asked to transcribe records.
Sorry if it offended, it wasn't meant to. I did say that it was right to grumble about it.
M
-
I do transcribe Margaret and agree with you that on some sites there are limitations. Whats better -show as date of 3rd banns or not show at all?
Just wonder whether any other country has a banns system like we do? Obviously they have baptisms and burials but if the procedure for marriage is different these big foreign companies may not understand what banns are or indeed, that they are different to the actual marriage ceremony.
Pheno
-
Isn't this all drifting away from the original topic?
Maybe it's time to start a topic about the problems of transcribing :-\
Gadget
-
Coombs, I have explained why it appears as banns rather than marriage - it is what transcribers are told to do. They have no choice in the matter. As far as I remember there were boxes to fill in transcribed information, e.g. name, date etc. The type of record, e.g. Baptism, Banns, Marriage, Burial, was already completed and unchangeable, as was the place of the event.
If you were lucky there was a notes section, where additional information could be added, but not with the ones I was doing.
That is why on transcriptions you see the bare minimum of information in places like ancestry and Familysearch. At sites like FreeReg, there will often be extra information in notes.
So, in lots of sites, banns will appear as marriages. You just have to accept it and rightly grumble about it, but I don't think it will change, and is not considered an error as such by any of the sites.
Why not give your hand at transcribing some records, everyone? Hard work, and I didn't do it for very long, but it does give insights into how things are done.
Regards Margaret
I know you have explained it by now, I do not need you to say that you have explained it. I am just saying it is still not right, and is very misleading. Anyway I have not come on here for a slanging match.
-
As far as I can see, no-one is blaming the transcribers for anything. It's the websites, whether free or paid, who should get their act(s) together and set up a separate category for banns in my opinion.
This is not 'nit-picking' as was alleged earlier - rather an offensive comment, I thought. Banns and marriages are obviously not the same thing.
Carol
-
Without going further off topic (apologies Gadget), this is why I no konger transcribe for familysearch. I discovered that they onsell the records as well putting them up on their own site. I refuse to assist these companies that then charge people to look at them.
-
Without going further off topic (apologies Gadget), this is why I no konger transcribe for familysearch. I discovered that they onsell the records as well putting them up on their own site. I refuse to assist these companies that then charge people to look at them.
It was always the case that records transcribed by the LDS and then passed on should be available free of charge on these pay sites ie 1881 census. Is that not still true :-\
-
In regards to the original poster, yes I am still getting endless error messages. It is very vexing and has been going on for too long now. We may moan and groan but it makes us feel better. There is the saying "mustn't grumble" but in Ancestry's case then must. It is like paying for broadband in a hotel and the service is very patchy. If so then it is not a facility.
-
Totally agree Coombs.
I think what is the most frustrating though is their constant denial of any problems.
-
Hi all,
As the originator of the post, I thank you all for your comments / concerns / moans. I totally agree with the comments made that some (thankfully not all) subscription sites ignore our comments / complaints by trying to tell us (the subscription payers who fund their site) that we don't know what we are doing / using the incorrect web browser etc. I have to say that if we had that sort of response from a high street retailer we would take our custom elsewhere and the retailer would soon see their problem(s) and rectify them. Sadly, Ancestry do not see the problems / errors as being theirs but ours!! Seriously thinking about not renewing my subscription in October.
Allan