Ancestry "new search" disaster part 1

[avm228]

Sorry to hear about all the New Search problems on Ancestry.  This is why I didn't renew my sub when it expired in January.  It is such a disappointment after so many of us submitted really careful and detailed responses to their consultation on the subject. 

On the weaselly 2% figure, I thought I had read that it was 2% of searches rather than of users. Since Old Search was so much more efficient there were fewer failed searches for any given inquiry. Also since the system defaulted to New Search in recent years many newer members would have used it by default rather than choice.  They did I think admit that Old Search was favoured by what they called "power users", by which they presumably meant people who know the ropes!

Oh well. I shall miss Ancestry as they have fantastic records.

I am horrified to hear the suggestion that FindMyPast are thinking of abandoning the address search. Why oh why, when it is such a strength of theirs?  I too signed up for access to the Beta site but have not seen anything of it yet.

[andycand]

Hi Andrewalston

I just tried your example without a problem.

Firstly I went to the 1871 England census and then entered Mary Jane (left surname blank) born 1854, Hale, Lancashire. The first result is your Mary Jane Forshaw. You do need to enter the full birthplace. In many cases the dropdown menu includes the place but if it doesn't list the place then start entering the county (don't forget the comma between place and county) In the case of Hale it appears once you enter Hale, L.

Like most people that used the Old Search I haven't bothered looking at the instructions relating to the new search but probably most answers would be there.

One of the first things you should do when using something new is to forget about the old, read the instructions or help guides etc, and experiment. Generally it is a waste of time contacting Ancestry (or whoever) as, unless you detail what steps you took, and exactly what you entered (including punctuation etc) they won't be able to replicate your problem.

Andy

[groom]

One of the first things you should do when using something new is to forget about the old,

Very true - look how many moaned when Rootschat changed a few months ago, but we soon got used to it. 

[andrewalston]

But I didn't know it was Lancashire. It could easily have been Cheshire, or even Hale Barns along the road from there.
Accordingly, I entered "Hale". Up pops a list of the places which Ancestry thinks are ideal. One in Syria, 14 in the USA. You get the same stupid list for Abode, too, even though this is the England census.
Knowing there is more than one Hale, I also tried "Hale*", which should match ANY Hale, even the place in Syria. It gave the same bad search results.
In the old search, the right person popped up as top of the list without having to tweak things with tick boxes all the time.

[keyboard86]

Hi Andrewalston

I just tried your example without a problem.

Firstly I went to the 1871 England census and then entered Mary Jane (left surname blank) born 1854, Hale, Lancashire. The first result is your Mary Jane Forshaw. You do need to enter the full birthplace. In many cases the dropdown menu includes the place but if it doesn't list the place then start entering the county (don't forget the comma between place and county) In the case of Hale it appears once you enter Hale, L.


Hi so now we have to enter a comma between our hopefully correctly transcribed birth place and county, do they allow Margaret P* b 1861 Manchester as FindMyPast at present, or an alternative?

Keyboard86

Like most people that used the Old Search I haven't bothered looking at the instructions relating to the new search but probably most answers would be there.

One of the first things you should do when using something new is to forget about the old, read the instructions or help guides etc, and experiment. Generally it is a waste of time contacting Ancestry (or whoever) as, unless you detail what steps you took, and exactly what you entered (including punctuation etc) they won't be able to replicate your problem.

Andy

[wrjones]

If I might be so bold as to offer a hint on this New Search on Ancestry.The first thing to do is to tick "Match all terms exactly.Enter first and last name,enter Location and underneath make sure it shows "Restrict to exact".Ignore everything else and go to the bottom box,make sure this shows "All collections".Tick "Historical records" then press Search.With the greatest of respect you shouldn't have to be Einstein to access the records that show up!

I would suggest that if you are searching for a particular person with a rough idea of birthplace and year,you should do this search via the UK Census Collection in the right hand column of the main search page.

Regards
William Russell Jones.

[wrjones]

One thing I forgot to add was that underneath the box for a first name is a box that you should change to show "Any event".

Regards
William Russell Jones.

[down-under]

They are at it again!  I really do prefer the old search, keep Ancestry in my favourites so I can just click on it.  Now all of a sudden I can only get the new search.  Piffle!!   


Pam

[jc26red]

Mine changed last night too

It wouldn't be so bad but the site slowed down to a trickle... Why spend all that money on bringing in new databases then make it harder for subscribers to find them

Piffle ! 'Fraid my word was a bit stronger than that!