It looks like Ancestry are doing away with the old search

[MargP]

Thanks for looking Larkspur

[larkspur]

Marg, I have just been having a "play" with the new search. Looking for my great grandfather, information I can find easily on old search by just entering his name and Nottinghamshire. On the new search- PLEASE, I have to fill in so many boxes and then it only brings up the 1911 census. How does anyone possibly think this is better? I filled in the survey, some quite odd questions on there, so I suppose they can turn our answers around to ones they like. I cannot believe only 2% use old search.

[MargP]

Hi

I would inform Ancestry of what you have just done, and see what they say, I am going to ring them and cancel  my sub if they remove it

[jc26red]

Just glad i've got just about everything I can find in the databases they have....


Think most of us on here must be. part of the 2%.  Or maybe, like me many are not renewing their membership.

[Hampshire Lass]

I think this is going to result in the public online trees being even more inaccurate than they are already.

Not all of them of course, because there are some very well researched ones.

However, the "new search" results are so vague and many people seem so slap dash with their research that they will probably just accept any old results and take it as gosple.

Beats me how Ancestry think that the "new research" results are offering us a good service. Surely they must see that "old search" is far more accurate.

[Annette7]

I agree wholeheartedly with all the comments made.   I too, just did a 'New' search of one of my ancestors, under the 'Advanced' screen as the initial screen was just not specific enough.   The results came up on the right half of the page, in separate boxes and I had to scroll down the page.   There were around 8 different results I think and then there was listed 12 pages of people that didn't match but whom I might be interested in!!!   I should add I was searching for someone who was born and lived in Ipswich, Suffolk UK and the first person I 'might be interested in' was someone with a totally different middle name who was born and lived in Pennsylvania, USA.

We've had numerous threads from 'Beginners' here on Rootschat who are new to family history, subscribed to Ancestry, and can't understand the results screen.  The 'matches' aren't who they are looking for.   We suggest they switch to the 'Old Search' screen which is faster, and more accurate, and they are unaware that it even existed.

I rest my case!

Annette   

[Hampshire Lass]

Yes, the first results do always seem to be overseas, even though you specify uk. I had worldwide membership last year and recently changed to premium and have come to the conclusion that they give us these results so that we'll upgrade and examine the overseas results.

Forgot to add on my previous post that I think the results of people accepting obscure and incorrect information on their trees will perpetuate the errors because Ancestry hints are based on the fact that people have "Joe Bloggs" on their tree, with this 1841,1851, 1861 census etc and perhaps 2 of the census results are the wrong ones.........oh, but that's fine because this is what inexperienced reseachers have accepted , so it's fine.

In other words in 5 years or whatever, the results are going to be even more obscure because they are based on averages rather than information relating to the search you are making.

[MargP]

I have just contacted Ancestry about the old search, they have given me an e-mail address to make my complaint, I am not sure if I can post it here, so if anyone wants it send me a PM

[MargP]

I just been on the Ancestry site, on Facebook, and there are some people complaining about this, so if you are on Facebook put your complaint in