Ancestry "new search" disaster Part two

[Gadget]

I typed in Leicester UK it showed me all around the country......... etc etc etc

Hi Xin

If you type in Leicester, England, it should suggest Leicester, Leicestershire, England before you have even finished  your typing.  Make sure you type the comma 

Good on you for sticking with it 


Gadget

[Lady Di]

I am trying to be sympathetic, but I really cannot think of any occasion in which I have wanted to search a 40 year timespan?!

I hardly ever change the timespan from the default!!

Gosh you're lucky - wish my families were that easy to find 

As a "fr'instance" - looking for the death of a gent (B: 1710) - have no idea when he died but obviously after the birth (+/-9mths) of the last known child's birth (1734).

Therefore - Name eg John Smith
Date of Death - 1744 (+/-10) ... That covers the 1734-1754 range

second try:
Date of Death: 1764 (+/-10) .. That covers the 1754-1774 range

and kept trying until I finally found his death at the age of 98   

At least I finally found him 
(it just took a LOT longer than necessary unfortunately)

[libby9]

Libby9, while I understand that some of you are finding the change difficult, I really don't think you're being completely fair to Ancestry?

We are ALL entitled to our own opinion, just because yours is different to mine does not make it more, or less valid,

The "new" search was introduced in 2008 - so you've had 6 years to try it out and get used to it.
I think the mistake that Ancestry made was to keep the "old" search available for all that time!

I am aware of how long the new search has been running, and intermittently tried it, my grouse is that feedback was not encouraged, or listened to. 

Those of us who have been using the "new" search for some time seem to get on with it perfectly OK?

I'm not saying I don't, I know how to get the best from it, but each search takes longer, progress?

Like anything new, it just takes a little time to get used to!

I AM used to it, that does not mean I think it's a good substitute, and that, I think, is the point.  When changes are made I expect them to be for more efficiency.

ErrorSPAM REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.]Being realistic I know 'old search' is dead never to be resurrected, and I DO understand Ancestry's reasoning behind this, but the new model is not the best it could have been.[/color][/b][/color]

I agree to disagree with you.

[Knight-Sunderland]

Another major problem for me is that you must select the location it recommends - so whereas before I could type in 'Sunderland' and get the results for that, I now must select 'Sunderland, Durham, England'. Which is really problematic because the 'County' section is Ancestry is unreliable a lot of the time, so Sunderland appears as being in 'Cumberland' on quite a few search results, so those results, although still relevant to my research, do not appear. For me and my research, this is a big problem.

[msr]

Libby9, while I understand that some of you are finding the change difficult, I really don't think you're being completely fair to Ancestry?
The "new" search was introduced in 2008 - so you've had 6 years to try it out and get used to it.
I think the mistake that Ancestry made was to keep the "old" search available for all that time!
Those of us who have been using the "new" search for some time seem to get on with it perfectly OK?
Like anything new, it just takes a little time to get used to!

I do rather have to take issue with this KGarrad. 

Ancestry may have introduced A new search some years ago, and allowed the old search to be used if preferred, but are you saying that what appeared last week is EXACTLY the format which you have been using all this time?  6 years?
I have also been using the new search as default, but not that which is placed before me now.

I have been following comments from Ancestry users worldwide, and can tell you that it is more than a few who are complaining of the many aspects that just don't work.  Some of these subscribers have been members for a few years only, so have never used the 'old' search.

I quote.        "Those of us who have been using the "new" search for some time seem to get on with it perfectly OK?"
Is this a question for all users?  It does have question mark at the end, but it seemed you were really making a statement, and that anyone not happy would just have to 'suck it up'.   Rather in the vein of Ancestry's sentiments I think.

I agree with Libby.  Ancestry really should listen.  Shortsighted not to.

[BumbleB]

Sorry, but you don't have to select the location it recommends.  I have just searched for, from the basic Home page window, Fred Smith who once lived in Sunderland (no county, country or anything) and the results were for the 1891 census for Fred Smith born in Sunderland    I then tried the family name of Wood and the little village where I grew up - Little Budworth.  I was offered Little Budworth, Cheshire (which is correct) but I ignored it and up came all the Wood families living or born in Little Budworth. 

[msr]

On another note, I have noticed comments posted by Ancestry subscribers on social media sites who have sent messages to other members which, because of some glitch that Ancestry are in no hurry to resolve, are not being passed on.

This interested me as I have sent messages for which I have not received answers.
Now I don't know whether my messages are being ignored or are still waiting in some holding point.

[Knight-Sunderland]

Sorry, but you don't have to select the location it recommends.  I have just searched for, from the basic Home page window, Fred Smith who once lived in Sunderland (no county, country or anything) and the results were for the 1891 census for Fred Smith born in Sunderland    I then tried the family name of Wood and the little village where I grew up - Little Budworth.  I was offered Little Budworth, Cheshire (which is correct) but I ignored it and up came all the Wood families living or born in Little Budworth.

Yes sorry I should have specified, I'm referring to exact searches on the BMD indexes. It doesn't work if I wanted to search for all children by the name of Smith with the mothers surname Brown and specify it to just 'Sunderland', it won't let you.

[Gadget]

Sorry, but you don't have to select the location it recommends.  I have just searched for, from the basic Home page window, Fred Smith who once lived in Sunderland (no county, country or anything) and the results were for the 1891 census for Fred Smith born in Sunderland   

I got the same  from the Home page Search - also a marriage cert for (I think a different) Fred Smith, Sunderland and a few other entries - all Sunderland (Co Durham).  I then typed in Roberts, b. Chirk (one of my names and places) and I had lots come up. I went over to the seach page and selected 1871,England census and typed in the same info. Chirk, Denbighshire came up as the second suggestion and I had quite a few results.   It seems that on some searches it selects the correct place that is typed in, while on others it doesn't - or the gazetteer that they are using is in 'learn mode'!

I think that it's worth having a play around to see what works for the way we use it.


Gadget