Author Topic: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?  (Read 1397 times)

Online Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 53,316
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:08 GMT (UK) »
Mine is circa 3000 and growing and, with many Welsh ancestors, I usually manage to find them without too much trouble. If I am in doubt, I go to the particular line that they belong to and work from there.
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

Online Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 53,316
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:13 GMT (UK) »
Would it be easier to do a List of all people and then search in the name and surname boxes at the top of the list. You can just put a few letters in the surname box and then narrow it down until you find the one you want and then click on that and go to their Profile.
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

Online Erato

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,868
  • Walker Home for Missionary Children
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #11 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:23 GMT (UK) »
I don't have a tree on Ancestry but surely there must be a way to just look at your list of names, ordered alphabetically.  I use PAF [which is about as primitive as you can get] with a much larger tree than yours and it's simple.  Which Benjamin Chapman do I want?  Check the details in the list.
Wiltshire:  Banks, Taylor
Somerset:  Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire:  Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol:  Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down:  Ennis, McGee
Wicklow:  Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire:  Logan, Conning
Wisconsin:  Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine:  Ware, Mitchell, Tarr, Davis


Online Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 53,316
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #12 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:29 GMT (UK) »
My last reply discusses the list of names and how to search.

Would it be easier to do a List of all people and then search in the name and surname boxes at the top of the list. You can just put a few letters in the surname box and then narrow it down until you find the one you want and then click on that and go to their Profile.
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

Online Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 53,316
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #13 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:35 GMT (UK) »
This is the Ancestry Tree Search:

Use the List of all people and select from there (added)

Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

Offline GaryMorton320

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #14 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:50 GMT (UK) »
I don't have a tree on Ancestry but surely there must be a way to just look at your list of names, ordered alphabetically.  I use PAF [which is about as primitive as you can get] with a much larger tree than yours and it's simple.  Which Benjamin Chapman do I want?  Check the details in the list.

Ancestry "tree search" does not show the associated information when you use it to filer on a name. You have to open a new window for each person of interest. It just makes it slower to find the person you are looking for (e.g. right place).

BTW I have never heard of PAF. I little googling suggested the following "Personal Ancestral File, as of 2013, is a discontinued free genealogy software provided by FamilySearch, a website operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

I will download (if still possible) and see if it can load/parse the GEDCOM format from Ancestry. I understand that although GEDCOM is supposed to be a standard, it isn't always portable across tools.

But just to clarify, my gripe is not that the only available search IMO is badly implemented (wasted space, not ordered usefully), but that it has no additional filtering, such as I suggested "and lived in Church Street".

Online Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 53,316
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 20:53 GMT (UK) »
Gary - have you bothered to look at my suggestion?

You seem to just want to complain and not try to use the facilities provided.
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

Offline GaryMorton320

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #16 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 21:00 GMT (UK) »
This is the Ancestry Tree Search:

Use the List of all people and select from there (added)

Thank you. I have always used the search box, and to be honest hadn't really noticed the "list of all people" box. I tried it and it is better than the basic search, in that the places associated with birth and death are now given, and there are more entries per page, but sadly no further (advanced) filtering options. I still can't ask it to filter by some additional thing such as "and lived in Church Street".

[rant]
Perhaps the majority of people are happy with what Ancestry provides, but my own opinion is that the tool needs an advanced search option, and I am surprised that Ancestry haven't had the foresight to implement this. The search given is the type of thing a web developer could implement in less than a week, so to me it doesn't look as if they have put much thought or effort into this. Perhaps they did consider it, but decided that it wouldn't result in more subscriptions, so why bother.

I will repeat until you have a piece of information in your hand which you want to add to the tree, due to recognising some linking information, there is no easy way to find possible candidates as stands.
[/rant]

Offline GaryMorton320

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry "tree search" is a joke! any alternatives?
« Reply #17 on: Wednesday 10 November 21 21:07 GMT (UK) »
Gary - have you bothered to look at my suggestion?

You seem to just want to complain and not try to use the facilities provided.

Why shouldn't I complain?

I have been reading this thread and seeing the replies.

Forgive me for taking a break to have my tea in the other room.

I was posting a reply to you, and when I came to post, was told about a new reply. Ironic.

So back in the early 2000's if anyone complained about their Nokia phone "wouldn't it be nice if..." this was wrong of them? Then Apple came out with something offering new features never considered by Nokia.

All I'm trying to point out is that it would be really useful to have an advanced search tool for your tree/GEDCOM. Perhaps 99% of researchers wouldn't be interested. I can't be the only one who would be prepared to spend more $$$ for such a tool, as I  would hope it would help me be more efficient.

If you are happy with your Nokia, good for you ,no-one is suggesting you change, but there are some people looking for something which offers more.

The feature you point out sadly doesn't offer the additional advanced search feature I would like to see.