The new FindMyPast (Part 5)

[LizzieW]

I find the problem is they give you all the search options, yet when you fill them in they come up with 0 results.  Just put in a name and approx date of birth/marriage/death and you get 100s of results.

[smudwhisk]

I do like the ability to view the scanned original PR on findmypast compaired with ancestry, I tend to use findmypast more for the PR searches than anything else. One gripe I do have with the PR's though, is that I have come across a number of errors on the parish locations. The search results will show a PR from one parish but when you open the image the record will be from somewhere totally different. As these occur in welsh PR searches I accept there may be some confusion with welsh names during transcription so some errors are understandable but some are ridiculous e.g. Dwygyfylchi see Dolwyddelan also vice versa, Llanbedrgoch see Llanbadrig and vice versa and a few Dwygyfylchi come out as Edern

I've always found the browsing facility on ancestry's parish register image collections far superior to FindMyPast because FindMyPast have tended to restrict the browse facility to only the odd collection - at the moment Westminster, Lincolnshire and Shropshire.  OK you can browse forward and backwards via the search results facility, but on ancestry you've always had the option to browse to all images in all of the collections.   Granted there are times when you select a date range, only to find ancestry haven't listed them correctly but it tends to be not that often.

As for the Welsh records on FindMyPast, I also noticed this and raised it with FindMyPast who turned around and flatly refused to even consider they were named incorrectly.   I accept I don't know that much about the parish names because I was only following sidelines but I can't think the spellings have changed that much in the last couple of hundred years and I'm not talking about the odd variation in spelling, but something that is very different.

[100%Gog]

I find the problem is they give you all the search options, yet when you fill them in they come up with 0 results.  Just put in a name and approx date of birth/marriage/death and you get 100s of results.

I agree with you on the search options I have found that as well, but I think that happens in a lot searches, to get more you have to put in less.

I've always found the browsing facility on ancestry's parish register image collections far superior to FindMyPast because FindMyPast have tended to restrict the browse facility to only the odd collection - at the moment Westminster, Lincolnshire and Shropshire.  OK you can browse forward and backwards via the search results facility, but on ancestry you've always had the option to browse to all images in all of the collections.   Granted there are times when you select a date range, only to find ancestry haven't listed them correctly but it tends to be not that often.

As for the Welsh records on FindMyPast, I also noticed this and raised it with FindMyPast who turned around and flatly refused to even consider they were named incorrectly.   I accept I don't know that much about the parish names because I was only following sidelines but I can't think the spellings have changed that much in the last couple of hundred years and I'm not talking about the odd variation in spelling, but something that is very different.

I agree that as a whole the browsing facility on ancestry is better than find my past but in my experience with Welsh parishes (my research is 90% Welsh) find my past gives me more parish records. It does appear that there is better coverage of English parishes using ancestry as I have had greater success with my wife's predominantly English family history. I have also had some success with nonconformist records on ancestry although these are few and far between but I think that has more to do with a general lack of nonconformist records online anyway.

I too have contacted find my past about the parish record location errors but have not had a reply. Spelling is not an issue with the records I have dealt with as the spelling has not really changed that much over the years. To be honest, its more of a nuisance for me than anything else as I am familiar with the local areas and once you spot the mistakes then there tends to be a pattern to them and you just do a vice versa check on them. However, if you are not familiar with a particular local area then I am sure it can get confusing and sending you in the wrong direction with your research.

[LizzieW]

Quote from: LizzieW on Today at 15:12

    I find the problem is they give you all the search options, yet when you fill them in they come up with 0 results.  Just put in a name and approx date of birth/marriage/death and you get 100s of results.

I agree with you on the search options I have found that as well, but I think that happens in a lot searches, to get more you have to put in less.

The problem is, of course, that just a name and maybe date of birth or year of event brings up 100s of results as anything but the name is ignored.

[libby9]

When Ancestry forced their new search onto me I wasn't happy.  I had intermittently tried the new search during the years old and new were run in parallel - just to try and acquaint, but always gave up in frustration.  After using the new platform for only a few days I very soon became au fait with it and although not as easy to use as old search it does what it's supposed to do, i.e. find the records I'm looking for.

FindMyPast's new platform was launched approx 10 or 11 weeks ago and proved to have many bugs, anomalies and ugly, unwieldy search forms, also many other problems which seem to come to light on a daily basis.  I do ask myself will FindMyPast ever be an intuitive site again!   My answer is always - probably not! 

[LizzieW]

Like you I found the Ancestry new site very easy to get used to, unlike FindMyPast which I don't think will ever go back to being the site we knew and loved.  RIP FindMyPast is all I can say. 

[trish58]

I, like everyone else that was used to the old FindMyPast site am still finding it really difficult to navigate the new site, to be fair I thought "give them the benefit of the doubt" it will get easier, and few of us like change as we get older. Well sorry to say it hasn't got any easier  and I still can't find anything that I search for, and find it very time consuming just looking for things.

I will not be renewing my subs again though they go through to Jan 2015. Such a pity when we had such a wonderful option to Ancestry, what I couldn't find on Ancestry I found on FindMyPast, but not any more. Off now to un-tick my auto subs box.

Trish

[libby9]

Sad isn't it that a once great site is now such a shambles?  Very difficult to understand why a big company like FindMyPast rolled out the new search way before it was ready.  It's bound to backfire on them, there's so many negative comments on different web sites.  Only themselves to blame though.  They have taken their loyal customers' for a ride, but folks aren't stupid and will subscribe to another FH site.

 I've already taken up The Genealogist offer of £50.00 cash back, and I've always had both Ancestry and FindMyPast, I'll stay with Ancestry, still to explore The Genealogist which has some great features, not sure whether ir has any parish records.  It does have a super address search. 
 

[trish58]

What I also find upsetting is the fact that if I made a purchase anywhere for any item I would be entitled by law to a full refund if the product was faulty or didn't do as advertised, my faulty purchase cost me almost $au200 and yet I can't get a cent back.

How is this fair.

Trish