RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: CaroleW on Thursday 06 January 11 23:58 GMT (UK)
-
Is anybody else having this problem when searching for births and marriages directly via Ancestry website and NOT freebmd
Births from 1916 - I ask for a search for George Parry - exact matches only - no mothers maiden name given
Ancestry then throws up 754 "matches" starting with an unconnected surname in 1969 whose mothers maiden name was Parry.
The same is happening when searching for marriages. Search for George Parry from 1916 and you get 1016 "matches" starting with an unconnected surname in 1967 who married a female Parry.
I have only used this name as an example but I am experiencing it on any search from the 1911/1912 period when maiden names are shown alongside birth and marriage entries
It is also happening on the London B & M's
This is a fairly recent issue as I had no problems before Christmas that I can recall
-
Is anybody else having this problem when searching for births and marriages directly via Ancestry website and NOT freebmd
then throws up 754 "matches" starting with an unconnected surname in 1969 whose mothers maiden name was Parry.
I hate using Ancestry for just that reason. You put in asking for an exact match birth or marriage and you get all sorts of census information, wrong countries, etc.! And people with names other than the one you asked for.
Dawn M.
-
I'm with you, Dawn. It's a rare day when I find anything I'm looking for without having to plough through pages of names which bear no resemblance to what I've asked for.
I've always thought it was my 'technique' at fault!
Christine
-
Same here---not only the dates so wide apart but also the counties. I find if I put in a county it can come up pages on. I put in a name yesterday with BOB,place and year and name in full-----found the record on about page 4. Used to come up first on fi=ront page.
I too began to think I was doing things wrongly.
Ringrose
-
Yes I'd noticed that too Carole- Ancestry thinks it has become very clever,when in fact it has become even more annoying.
If you want someone with a surname of say Parry-then you don't want hundreds of people who may at sometime in their past have been connected with a Parry. >:(
I automatically start scrolling through the pages immediately now as I know the first few hundred people are not at all relevant to my search.
Carol
-
I have also noticed the massive number of hits you get, even when you had put the parents full names and place of birth in, where as before they would come automatically to the top. I have been having trouble finding anyone that I am looking for on the first couple of pages, however one good thing to come out of this, is that I found another child for my 3rd greatgrandparents which I hadn't seen before, but I had to go throuh a couple of pages before I found it. Hope the problem gets sorted out quickly.
jericho
-
Births from 1916 - I ask for a search for George Parry - exact matches only - no mothers maiden name given
I would suggest not putting exact matches :)
Stan
-
glad its not just me. its pathetic really and another dumbing down of society
:D :D :D
-
Have you seen their new tree view? I think its horrible and tatty looking if nothing else! Is there any way to turn off their constant hints - those leaf things are so irritating >:(
-
That's one of the reasons that I don't want to upgrade my FTM2005 to a more modern version- the trees DO look tatty(that's a good word!)
Carol
-
I have not used ancestry site for 6mths and thought I must have misssed an upgrade or something. I put in details and end up with things that have no bearing to what I am searching for. I have cancelled my subscription as I do not like any of the new formats.
-
On Ancestry you now have "New Search" and "Old Search" which have been discussed at length on RootsChat. Just to add that I have never used "Exact Matches" in all the years I have subscribed to Ancestry, and I have usually found what I have been looking for.
Stan
-
iv allways used exact search first and usually find what i want. i allways use old search. they have changed it though and it stinks
-
Births from 1916 - I ask for a search for George Parry - exact matches only - no mothers maiden name given
I would suggest not putting exact matches :)
Really? I've always found that not using the exact matches on Ancestry causes you to get a huge number of irrelevant 'hits' -- as bad in this regard as the old IGI site.
I haven't particularly noticed the problem the OP mentions, and I've been doing a lot of searches in the post-1916 BMDs recently. I wonder, therefore, whether this is yet another reason not to use the 'new search'. I always use the old search, mainly because it's much better at searching for places -- if I put, say, Kinver in the birthplace box on its own, I get no matches on the new search, because it insists on having the full designation: Kinver, Staffordshire, England. The choice of Kinver is significant (other than being my birthplace) because it's in Staffordshire but within an hour's walk of Worcestershire and (post-1974) the West Midlands, and not much further from Shropshire. It therefore is a common candidate for misenumeration. I want to search for Kinver alone because there's only one place in the UK with that name, but it gets enumerated in several counties. Why Ancestry feels that such a facility is no longer worth providing, beats me.
Unfortunately, Ancestry periodically defaults the pages I've saved as Favorites to the new search, and it's getting increasingly difficult to get back to the old search (the number of pages which have the little 'Old search' link at top right is reducing).
On BMDs I always use FreeBMD out of preference, but obviously when you get outside FreeBMD's current coverage you haven't got much choice.
-
I have never used "Exact Matches" in all the years I have subscribed to Ancestry, and I have usually found what I have been looking for.
Likewise!
-
CarolW said that putting George Parry - exact matches only started with an unconnected surname in 1969. If she put George Parry without exact matches, as I suggested, then there is just a list of George Parrys - try it :)
Stan
-
Stan has a point here - I've just tried his suggestion and although you get more results - it does list all the straight "George Parry" entries first.
However - like others who have replied - I have always avoided this type of search as it throws up far too many "matches".
For dubious names, I have always used Exact matches and the wildcard option and I have had absolutely no problems in all my years with Ancestry - until now
I renewed again from 28th December having looked seriously at FindMyPast. I would have paid half the price to FindMyPast as they would have given me a large "upgrade" discount and offset the balance of my 1911 only sub.
I stayed with Ancestry using my " better the devil you know" philosophy and because FindMyPast does not have the Scottish censuses
-
Did you know that if you go through the National Trust(if you are a member)you get a biggish discount.
Ringrose
-
Hi Ringrose
Yes - I saw that offer but I am not a member of the NT so it would have been more expensive in the long run
-
I do exactly as you describe Carole - never had a problem other than people just not being there! ;)
-
It's driving me daft at the moment. All was well earlier today and now I am getting that horrid pink box for the details and know that life will be fraught!
I can't even see the 'old search' notice and thought I had read on here how to get to it. When it all changed before, it was like this but then when it did happen I just clicked 'old search' and life was fine.
Now I am getting those hundreds of names, even when the name I entered had been a mistranscription so was quite unique I was offered lots of choices from all over the place!
I am sure you can tell that I am feeling very cross at the moment.
Please can someone tell me how I get back to old search. :'(
-
I get what I am looking for though always use the old search
-
Stonechat,
So do I and earlier today everything was fine- now I can't get out of 'new search' and there is no little 'old search' in the top corner.
It is so unfriendly.
-
The option "Old Search" or "New Search" is still there for me :) It comes up when you click Search
Stan
-
Sadly, when I click 'search' it makes no difference. There is not the facility to click 'exact' or 'soundex' either.
The old search box had 'Historical records'/ Family Trees/ etc at the top to choose from. This has none.
The whole interface is changed and search facilities all seem to be different.
I bought the new Family Tree Maker the other day which upgraded to Premium membership.
I have used Anc.co,uk with no problem until this afternoon, I began to enter people into my family tree but as far as I know that is not linked to Ancestry.
-
Hi heywood
Does this page bring up the old search page for you?
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/default.aspx
KR
Maryam
-
hi,
I contacted them because the 'old search' had gone - told me it was due to me removing cookies (no changes in the way I use my computer..) anyhow told to click on Search and then the sub heading 'search all records' and the 'old search' came up on the right hand side.
Junev
-
Hm, they seem to be having a fiddle with things ???
When I click on "UK Census Collection" on the right hand side, even from the Old Search page, I'm now getting the New census search page ??? ???
Maryam
-
And now it's all changed back to the old search pages for census/bmds ;D ;D
-
Hi heywood
Does this page bring up the old search page for you?
http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/default.aspx
KR
Maryam
:D :D :D
It came up as the new page but tucked away in the corner 'old search' . I
have added it to my favourites hoping that it will help if ... >:(
Junev,
I've not removed any cookies but your suggestion has worked too ;D
Many thanks to both of you.
Kath
-
hi,
by the way it had removed my 'old' settings so I have to ensure I tick the 'exact' box otherwise it is not what I want!!
Junev
-
I certainly can't understand anyone being able to use the new search with ease - I have written to Anc. to tell them. (I think I did that when it first changed a while ago ::))
-
I emailed Ancestry at the time I raised this post and will update it when I receive their reply.
Why oh Why do they have to go fiddling around and complicate things?? Haven't they heard of the saying "If it ain't broke - don't fix it"
-
I tend to use Ancestry these days when I haven't been able to find what I am looking for with a search on Findmypast.
If I try to do a big general search on Findmypast, like Rosa born Reading 1847 +/- 3, it will usually time out. Ancestry will come up with what I think of as "fuzzy" search results, which will sometimes produce the goods although at the expense of ploughing through a lot of irrelevant stuff. It never times out!
If you want a precise search on Ancestry use the exact option - if that doesn't find what you want untick exact and be prepared to go through a lot of results. I wouldn't want to be without the fuzzy searches on Ancestry.
Anne
-
If you want a precise search on Ancestry use the exact option
This is the whole purpose of the post - it no longer works the way it should. Please see my original post
Births from 1916 - I ask for a search for George Parry - exact matches only - no mothers maiden name given
Ancestry then throws up 754 "matches" starting with an unconnected surname in 1969 whose mothers maiden name was Parry.
-
It now seems to throw up anyone who has ever kissed someone called Parry or spoken to one in the street ;D ;D ;D
Maybe that's an American's idea of logic,but it ain't mine !!!
Carol
-
It now seems to throw up anyone who has ever kissed someone called Parry or spoken to one in the street ;D ;D ;D
Maybe that's an American's idea of logic,but it ain't mine !!!
Carol
Not quite. It is limited to men named George! :-\ ;D ;D ;D
Nigel
-
Not quite. It is limited to men named George! :-\ ;D ;D ;D
Nigel
Oooops- maybe not then. :-[
Mind you I could still be right Nigel :o
My point was,that at least the first couple of pages each time seem to bear no relation to the search asked for!
Carol
-
It came up as the new page but tucked away in the corner 'old search' . I
have added it to my favourites hoping that it will help if ... >:(
Unfortunately, that doesn't work reliably. I have favorites saved for the Ancestry collections I use most often, including the UK Census Collection and post-1916 BMDs, and these were either created before the new search was introduced, or I've made sure to recreate them from the old search page. Nevertheless, they will sometimes default to the new search for no apparent reason, with no obvious change to my favorites. It seems that they're trying to force people into using the new search by dumping them in it at random and hoping they stay there, the chances of which are higher because there are so few pages on which the option to return to the old search appears.
I think the issue with leaving the exact matches box unticked on Ancestry is the very broad view the Ancestry search engine takes of what constitutes a 'relevant' link to the search terms entered. I'll often search with exact matches off on names on FindMyPast, because the search term 'Ann' will give me 'Anne', 'Annie' etc. without me having to enter these separately. It won't, however, give me 'George'. The Ancestry one may well do this because it finds someone whose date and place of birth is close to what you've entered, but whose name is George rather than Ann. I can understand the computer logic behind this, but really the programmers need to sort it out such that the absolute minimum of results are given that are extremely unlikely to be relevant. It's very unlikely, for example, for there to be a George--Ann transcription confusion, for example.
-
Remeber on Ancestry you can use soundex searches or Ann* to search for a number of variations
-
Hi Stonechat
Have you read my initial post?
I am well aware of the wildcard option having used it for years to overcome the poor transcription on Ancestry - it does not work on the BM's at the moment
Use George Parry as your "test case" - select births 1916-2005 and use the Exact search option and search using the wildcard option Geo** Parr** with nothing else to narrow the search.
Now have a look at your results - there should be 2,521 and the first "match" starts with letter A - not Parr**
Now untick the Exact search option and do the same again