RootsChat.Com

Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: Anneatki on Thursday 06 August 15 02:09 BST (UK)

Title: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Anneatki on Thursday 06 August 15 02:09 BST (UK)
I've seen things about the  "New Ancestry" when I log onto Ancestry.com.au - seems like they've rearranged everything, & it's much better now!
I'm wondering has anyone tried it yet, or should I be the first to press the "try it now" button?!  ;D
Cheers, Anne
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Christine53 on Thursday 06 August 15 09:22 BST (UK)
They don't seem to be flagging this up on the UK site but it is available , masquerading as " Improved Ancestry " and accessible from the drop down under user name. Ancestry is always changing things , not always for the better in my view. I don't think much of the life story feature and I really dislike the addition  of irrelevant " historical " details - why do I need to know that cricket matches were played in the village where an ancestor lived ? In any event we shall have to adjust to the changes as ultimately there will be no choice -  I note that on ancestry.au it says " soon New Ancestry will be the only Ancestry "

For the time being , at least , you have the option to revert to the old version so you've nothing to lose by giving it a go.

Good luck !
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: MaxD on Thursday 06 August 15 13:49 BST (UK)
Just gave it a go, no problems seen - so far.  New layout will take time to get used to but then we all got used to the new Rootschat some time ago - didn'twe?

maxD
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Deirdre784 on Thursday 06 August 15 14:22 BST (UK)
I've just had a look and quite like it (though it will take some getting used to!). I quite like the 'life story' bit, though I'd like to be able to add a 'name known by' field so it doesn't use all their names all the time ;D

I like the map view too, useful to see where places are, especially if you don't know the area.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Clarkey500 on Thursday 06 August 15 14:43 BST (UK)
It looks similar to the style of the app but I think I'll stick with it as it's going to become the only version soon, so I've got to get used to it sometime. The 'Lifestory' section does comes up with some weird facts though! :o
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Thursday 06 August 15 20:23 BST (UK)
It looks OK to me and amongst the new records it has England and Wales death Indexes from 2007-2013, which is useful.  Although there is this proviso
Quote
This collection is a compiled index that covers approximately 55% of the total deaths that occured in this time period.

This index provides death details for people in England and Wales, specifically their name, gender, date of birth or age at death, date of death, and residence place at death. However, they do not include the General Register Office (GRO) reference information.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Anneatki on Friday 07 August 15 00:37 BST (UK)
Well, thank you all - I'll take the plunge today, as you say, Clarkey500, we have to get used to it sometime!  :D Anne
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Braindead on Friday 07 August 15 13:55 BST (UK)
I've tried it and I hate it!
It took me ages to be able to find out how the "old" Ancestry works, but at least I can (for the moment) change back.
I particularly dislike the Lifestory feature, which just generalises to the point of irrelevance with the introduction of historical details - and it also puts in errors e.g. one of my relatives, is now shown as dying in a completely different continent! I know I can change it but why would I want to bother correcting something which was right before?
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Friday 07 August 15 14:07 BST (UK)
If you haven't put a country on any fact, then it seems to default to USA?!

Easy enough to change - as I just did for a Christening! ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Braindead on Friday 07 August 15 14:29 BST (UK)
I know where the places are for people in my tree and it seems more trouble than it's worth to go through changing things for everyone in my family tree so that Ancestry doesn't bring in errors. Another example is that the Lifestory now says that Clement Cafferata lived in Vancouver in October 1918, which he didn't - and nowhere in my family tree does it mention where he was living in 1918. Ancestry has made the assumption that, because he was living there in 1915, he was still there in 1918.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Jool on Friday 07 August 15 14:30 BST (UK)
At first glance I thought it looked quite interesting, but I am now finding all sorts of errors that weren't there before that I now have to correct  >:(

As KG pointed out it seems to default to USA, so my 2x great grandfather who lived in Penn, Wolverhampton, England now lived in Pennsylvania, and his son who died in Flanders in WW1 is now shown as dying in Flanders, New York.  How many more errors will I have to put right because of Ancestry's so called improvements, I will have to trawl through every entry on my tree and add the country if it wasn't added originally.  How annoying!!!!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Friday 07 August 15 14:51 BST (UK)
I haven't got a tree on Ancestry so I don't have the problem some of you are noticing.  Also because I did a specific search for England and Wales Death Indexes, it didn't default to USA.  I thought it always defaulted to USA unless you specified somewhere else.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Friday 07 August 15 14:59 BST (UK)
I make a point of ALWAYS adding the country name to any location I enter on Ancestry!

I've had far too many Somerset and Suffolk people being allocated to USA in the past!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Jool on Friday 07 August 15 15:30 BST (UK)
I usually include the country, but I have obviously missed a few  ::)  I have one ancestor born in Handsworth (the one near Birmingham) but the map has put the birth somewhere near Abbots Bromley, Staffordshire.   >:(

So far I have only checked one set of parents and their children and I am already knee deep in corrections, many which Ancestry's new system doesn't want to understand  >:(  I have gone back to old Ancestry for now and left some feedback.  It was just frustrating me having to correct what was perfectly ok before.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: angelfish58 on Friday 07 August 15 16:25 BST (UK)
I too have fallen foul of the changed place name, apparently  Conside & Knitsley, Co.Durham translates as Andorra in "improved" Ancestry. Feedback has been left. >:(
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: carolmc on Friday 07 August 15 16:40 BST (UK)
My addresses have gone global!! spoke to ancestry, told to be patient while they sort it, but they don't know how long it will take. I've over 900 profiles to alter if they don't sort it, suggest that if you haven't clicked through to the new then DON'T. Carolmc
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: jess5athome on Friday 07 August 15 16:53 BST (UK)
If you change back to the "Old Style" then you get the opportunity to leave feedback as to why you prefer the old version.

Frank  :)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Deirdre784 on Friday 07 August 15 17:18 BST (UK)
I probably won't always like the life story addition but it does give a 'whole' picture, including births / deaths of siblings / parents, which drew things to my attention that I hadn't realised before :(

I have one strange entry though... the death of a 79 year old in 1976 is followed by the birth of his brother in 1914 (I can't find out why, it clearly says 1914 in both the old and new format on the brother's profile :-\ )
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Finley 1 on Friday 07 August 15 17:55 BST (UK)
OK - going to dip my toe in and see .... oh dear... I hate paddling.


xin   ??? ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Jool on Friday 07 August 15 18:13 BST (UK)
OK - going to dip my toe in and see .... oh dear... I hate paddling.


xin   ??? ::)

I'm sure you'll dip it in and whip it back out pretty quick Xin  ;D  I will be interested to hear your opinion.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Finley 1 on Friday 07 August 15 18:32 BST (UK)
Well ---- for the last few months..... or so I have been using Ancestry almost everyday -- and am in a routine of searching name dob census marriage census etc etc as we all do...

and I hate change, cos I get confused   :-\ :-X

So tonight - I know I wont be able to do any research, without... thinking slowly and carefully... whether to check the 'Lifestory' stuff or not...
Why should we trust them to get the bloomin lifestory right... When they have great difficulty with the basic facts ... 
I often have to leave notes - regarding minstranscriptions.. and so on.

But if I ignore all that and just carry on basic searching.. it may be alright........ 

We shall see...
Cant make a joke about swimming off to Holland and not coming back.... after recent events round here not the done thing.. :'(. 

ok... will try again after tea.

Hate the colours Bright bloomin PINK and BLUE...
not gonna moan ... not gonna moan.. no I am not ... 

xin
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Jomot on Friday 07 August 15 19:33 BST (UK)
They don't seem to be flagging this up on the UK site but it is available , masquerading as " Improved Ancestry "
For the time being , at least , you have the option to revert to the old version so you've nothing to lose by giving it a go.

I've just had an email from .co.uk inviting me to "Make the Switch", so the push to the new version in the UK is definitely underway.   I generally use the .com site which switched over a little while ago, but I hate it with a passion so keep on reverting to the old one. 

Seems like another case of  'if it ain't broke, lets break it'  ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: jess5athome on Friday 07 August 15 19:47 BST (UK)

I've just had an email from .co.uk inviting me to "Make the Switch", so the push to the new version in the UK is definitely underway..............................


I've just had the same email, they're definitely trying to sell it  ::)

Frank.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Friday 07 August 15 19:53 BST (UK)
I had the same e-mail but didn't make the switch, however, when I just logged on to Ancestry I got the "New" Ancestry.  How do I switch back?

Lizzie
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: jess5athome on Friday 07 August 15 20:03 BST (UK)
I had the same e-mail but didn't make the switch, however, when I just logged on to Ancestry I got the "New" Ancestry.  How do I switch back?

Lizzie


If you "Hover" on your user name on the home page, the drop down menu appears and just click on "Old Ancestry"  ;)

Frank.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Friday 07 August 15 20:41 BST (UK)
I've switched over and like the way it has turned the tree into a "story" - much easier for others to follow when you re showing it to them.

eg At the start of one relation, on her time line it sums up her life as:

"When ALICE SMITH was born on December 17, 1865, in London, England, her father, WILLIAM, was 33 and her mother, MARY, was 34. She married THOMAS WILLIAM HOWELL on May 19, 1884, in London, England. They had seven children in 12 years. She died as a young mother on June 29, 1898, in 50 Walnut Tree Rd Woolwich, at the age of 32."

The only complaint I have, as others have said, it has transported quite a few people to America, so I need to go through and add England to bring them home!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Jomot on Friday 07 August 15 21:01 BST (UK)
On my Great Grandfathers timeline it starts:

"Thomas William Gibson was born on March 18, 1856, in Melton Mowbray, England, the child of his parents"   ::)

He was illegitimate, but it seems the timeline cant cope with that!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Friday 07 August 15 21:04 BST (UK)
Thanks Frank, I thought that's what you had to do, but I didn't count on the option to go back to Old Ancestry was at the bottom of the list, so I didn't see it.  ::)  I've clicked on Old Ancestry and got a "Sorry to see you go" box with reasons for leaving.  I just said I needed more info.  Guess what a page entitled "New Ancestry features are waiting for you" popped up.  I just logged out and when I logged back in I'd got the "old" Ancestry back.

groom - as I don't have a tree on Ancestry, what other benefits are there to make me change?

Lizzie
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Friday 07 August 15 21:08 BST (UK)
Quote
groom - as I don't have a tree on Ancestry, what other benefits are there to make me change?

None that I can see! I don't think it makes any difference to searches, although I haven't actually tried that bit yet.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Friday 07 August 15 21:15 BST (UK)
OK, thanks.  I'll wait a bit longer before I change over - no doubt everyone will have to change eventually.

Lizzie
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Braindead on Friday 07 August 15 21:17 BST (UK)


He was illegitimate, but it seems the timeline cant cope with that!

Obviously not - My great grandma and her sister were born several years before her parents were married but Ancestry says of the parents: "They had two children during their marriage."
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Finley 1 on Friday 07 August 15 23:07 BST (UK)
Uhm!!!

Why I am wondering did they do this. ...

1.  I do appreciate the 'clarity' of the New Text with these old eyes. :)
2.  But NOT the high colouring of the Tree pages....
3.  The basic Ancestry Home page is the same - but they (as others have said) have messed about with
      the Countries.. Whereas previously, if I asked for UK ... I Got UK as 1st choice... now.. NO... all over the place with countries. 

And finally what is all this Life Story ... business...
 in my mind it is an attempt to grab peoples attention.   Oh look 'meat on the bones' without hard work?!?!?!?
BUT I WANT FACTS -- not maybes... that someone has decided happened.  OK so we do know the basics of things that happened in our country at what time,etc  so that is OK..
But then to add as FACT that
Fred married twice, just cos someone typed it accidentally twice... NO .way..

Its a good idea - and I can see the VALUE -
But the old saying is ... if a jobs worth doing... DO IT RIGHT  .... there are no where near enough people to sort the bloomin MESS out that is in so many TREES on Ancestry for them to make this idea work, if they are going to be putting ... so called 'FACTS' on the Lifestory' page that THEY Ancestry have 'pulled' from these here trees, that we know are bloomin wrong ... Well lots of them have errors - lets say. 

I could go on .. and on..
LIKE I SAY its a great idea and if only it worked, but it wont cos its too messed up already,
WIPE CLEAN and start again... dont mess with whats already messed up...


I did try not to moan... but flipped back to the old Ancestry and will carry on till they ask for a .n. other years loads of dosh to enable them to mess the site up again


Xin









Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Friday 07 August 15 23:15 BST (UK)
Quote
if they are going to be putting ... so called 'FACTS' on the Lifestory' page that THEY Ancestry have 'pulled' from these here trees, that we know are bloomin wrong ... Well lots of them have errors - lets say. 

Have they actually done that? From what I can see of the people I've looked at, the facts have come from what I added to my original tree eg addresses, occupations etc. I did notice some added general fact like "During his lifetime Australia and England met in a cricket match." and a picture. I just clicked on ignore and it vanished. The only thing that is wrong are some of the POB and deaths especially when I hadn't specified England.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Finley 1 on Saturday 08 August 15 00:08 BST (UK)
Well :)  My tree is not public and I havent checked it all out yet.. cos its a lot to read.. :) 
But I glanced at one that I share and ...

this 'cousin' of mine had stated that the person married in 1922 and then the final entry for that person said Married 1922.  So the Lifestory page said they had married twice!!!  I will check it out again tomorrow, but a first day looking and checking and my head has blown.. ( I know it doesnt take much these days) 
:)

it will take a few days to actually fathom out what is happening..

xin
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Saturday 08 August 15 00:50 BST (UK)
I presume that is because it was actual entered by your "cousin" as a fact, even though it was done by mistake. All that Ancestry has done is copied over what is there - it's not clever enough to recognise it was wrong. I don't think we can expect Ancestry to start correcting mistakes like that, that is up to the owner of the tree.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Anneatki on Saturday 08 August 15 01:36 BST (UK)
Well, like Xinia, I'm having a paddle  ;D I quite like the timeline, though it gets a bit confusing if I haven't put in a death date (cos I don't know it) before the next child named John is born. Or I know that someone has died "before 1855", the timeline says they died "in 1855".
The Lifestory has one good feature - it brings up my downloaded Scottish BMD copies. The historical "generalised" facts, probably help my education, & at least I can "ignore" them & they go away!
I obviously have to go through & add country names, my Granny was born in Dunbar, Scotland, not Dunbar, Pennsylvania!  ::)
I might go back to the "old" version, so I can give some feedback, but I think Ancestry is aiming at the people who want a "story" without putting in the hard work. I just want the facts - the Story is in the Hard Copy Books I have created for my family members, & given to them for Christmas!  :-*
Anne    :D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Carybeth on Saturday 08 August 15 01:48 BST (UK)
Hi, I tried it the other night and I'm not that keen on it, it's information overload when you initially look at it, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Saturday 08 August 15 09:15 BST (UK)
One thing I did notice on the timeline, and I don't know why I hadn't picked it up before, was that my grandparents married in the March quarter 1910 and my aunt was born June 10th of that year. I know from pictures I have of their Golden Wedding that it must have been late in the quarter as there are daffodils in flower. I'm away from home at the moment, but need to check the certificate!

I've switched back to the old site so that I can change all the places to England. I've also left feedback about this. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Ancestry to assume that if you are using Ancestry UK, majority of your family would have been born, lived and died there.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Saturday 08 August 15 09:38 BST (UK)
I've mentioned this US-centric anomaly to Ancestry before.

Don't think they are interested? ::)

I've also posted many times on RC about the need to put a country on every location; and the reasons why! ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Jomot on Saturday 08 August 15 09:50 BST (UK)
I've also found that my family living in 'Bedford Street, Leicestershire' have suddenly moved to 'Bedfordshire, England' - a bit closer than the US but possibly more confusing. The Story View on the old site appears to have been 'upgraded' to include the same error  ::)

My dislike of it is the layout though, the sources down the middle just distract, but as we're all being forced onto it in a few months I'll just have to grit my teeth & get on with it. The old site is definitely looking dated so they did need to do something with it, and like the saying goes - you cant please all of the people all of the time.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Finley 1 on Saturday 08 August 15 09:54 BST (UK)
I might go back to the "old" version, so I can give some feedback, but I think Ancestry is aiming at the people who want a "story" without putting in the hard work. I just want the facts - the Story is in the Hard Copy Books I have created for my family members, & given to them for Christmas!  :-*
Anne    :D


This is it -  They have made it easier for the populus - (forgive me) that take calculators into maths exams... if you get me..

We will work it out for you and - who is it going to hurt if there are a few minor errors.

NO WAY

So I will much prefer to make MY OWN mistakes, and not use what has been copied over ....

I just wont bother with the 'Trees' on there -- I often used to compare notes - etc... but think now that is a 'No No'...

Oh dear.. I am an O.F. arent I... sorry to be moaning.  :(  ::)
One thing I did notice on the timeline, and I don't know why I hadn't picked it up before, was that my grandparents married in the March quarter 1910 and my aunt was born June 10th of that year. I know from pictures I have of their Golden Wedding that it must have been late in the quarter as there are daffodils in flower. I'm away from home at the moment, but need to check the certificate!

I've switched back to the old site so that I can change all the places to England. I've also left feedback about this. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Ancestry to assume that if you are using Ancestry UK, majority of your family would have been born, lived and died there.

If anyone knows about my John Raven Patrick... they will know that his wife Emma Taylor was NOT married to him for 45 years as it now states on my cousins tree.. Because her death has not been found.. they keep him married to her on her (Emma Taylor) page and then on his page his information is correct -
Proves it is a Robotic Machine, that cannot 'Tally Up' things like that...
:) :) Only we humans can do that .. and as you say Groom, Notice The FLOWERS to prove the quarter in the photo..

Off now... I have a pleasant day with real living people ahead of me.  :) :)

take care all 

he he he ...insanity definitely ..... hit me..

xin

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: alfietcs on Saturday 08 August 15 10:17 BST (UK)
Hi everyone

I logged into Ancestry last night to update my tree and was pretty surprised to see the new layout. Im not paying fees at the moment, so had no idea that they were changing the layout. The colours are a bit :o

I've already noticed that one of my great grandparents has been moved by ancestry from Swaledale North Yorkshire to Swaledale Iowa. Also, I have a Great Uncle who was born some where in Ireland, but he didn't know where, as his family moved around a lot. There is no birth certificate for him and in census forms he has said he was born in Ireland but he didn't know where. Well Ancestry must know something that me or indeed my great uncle himself didn't know, as now, in the new format, Ancestry have listed him as being born most definitely in Northern Ireland, as a fact on his timeline, when I haven't actually added that myself. That is pretty poor imo. Its like we have to now go round and double check everything to see if Ancestry have made any more mistakes. If you are one of those people with thousands of entries, then it will be a nightmare.

I really liked the quick edit feature on the old layout and the way you can easily switch to the family view by clicking on a family member icon. I found this very hard to do with the new layout. The old layout felt more intuitive.

Although I've had membership for 8 months and spent a lot of time on my tree, I feel for the people who have spent years on their trees and have spent a lot of money. I've read some of their comments on the ancestry site and it seems like a lot of their work has been ruined for them.

I've gone back to the old version and hope that we get to keep that option.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: joboy on Saturday 08 August 15 10:35 BST (UK)
I've mentioned this US-centric anomaly to Ancestry before.

Don't think they are interested? ::)

I've also posted many times on RC about the need to put a country on every location; and the reasons why! ;D
KG you are so right ........ I look for my unusual family surname in Kensington UK and find that they are in Kensington USA ....... makes me sick.
Joe
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: kerryb on Saturday 08 August 15 10:44 BST (UK)
Well from what I can see, it is just pure and simply trying to get me to put my tree on Ancestry, something I will never do.  So I'll stick with the old till they wrest that away from me just like they did the original before they changed it to the, what is now old!  ::) ::)

Kerry
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: panda40 on Saturday 08 August 15 11:35 BST (UK)
I have had a good look at my tree this morning on the new site after reading the comments on this topic. My uncle apparently was born in London, Canada? ;D I had not added his place of birth as he is still living just his name, as I believe in protecting individuals identity. So they have placed him in a completely different country to the rest of the family. They have handled the couples that live together very well. Some place names that did not have a county or country they have gone down a list and clicked on the first one that starts with the same first three letters. This is bad practice and should have been sorted out before migrating the information across to the new database. I will be Turning of the historical facts as they are irrelevant to the tree.
Regards panda
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Saturday 08 August 15 11:40 BST (UK)
From a reply on Facebook to comments about changes of country:

" Thanks for getting in touch. We are aware of this issue with our updated site and are working on fixing it. Please bear with us! If there is anything else I can help you with please let me know."

Sounds like a pretty standard answer to me! If they were aware of it, why release it to UK users before it was fixed?
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: dawnsh on Saturday 08 August 15 11:43 BST (UK)
It looks OK to me and amongst the new records it has England and Wales death Indexes from 2007-2013, which is useful.  Although there is this proviso
Quote
This collection is a compiled index that covers approximately 55% of the total deaths that occured in this time period.

This index provides death details for people in England and Wales, specifically their name, gender, date of birth or age at death, date of death, and residence place at death. However, they do not include the General Register Office (GRO) reference information.

The recent death information on Ancestry has been there since January 2015 and is gleaned from newspaper announcements, probate entries and other miscellaneous sources (funeral directors) and is far from complete AND does not contain the necessary registration information to order certs from the GRO.

The new England & Wales death index 2007-2013 at Ancestry claims a high 55% coverage but in 2013 it has 131000 of over 500000 deaths, less than 26%

I do quite abit of recent death searching for work and have yet to find someone in this dataset, I must just be unlucky.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Saturday 08 August 15 11:53 BST (UK)
I think it's pot luck, Dawn. I found my aunt who died in August 2008, but not her sister, my mother, who died 18 weeks later in the same place.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Saturday 08 August 15 12:31 BST (UK)
I didn't search the England and Wales Death Index 2007-13 until reading the comments from groom and dawn, but having done so there is no trace of my mother died 2007 in Gloucestershire or a family friend died 2011 in Surrey.  My mother did not have a will, so no probate and we didn't put anything in the newspapers, however the family friend did leave a will and there was probate - I bought a copy of the will.  So not that great an index.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Saturday 08 August 15 12:35 BST (UK)
I've already noticed that one of my great grandparents has been moved by ancestry from Swaledale North Yorkshire to Swaledale Iowa.

But did you put Swaledale, North Yorkshire, England?

If you missed the England bit, then the fault is yours! ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: mientajb on Saturday 08 August 15 12:37 BST (UK)
Hi there. Is anyone else having trouble dragging the screen across. We have no problems on Old Ancestry but it did not work on with either a mouse or on tablet with New. This is very annoying so we switched back quickly.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: alfietcs on Saturday 08 August 15 15:31 BST (UK)
I've already noticed that one of my great grandparents has been moved by ancestry from Swaledale North Yorkshire to Swaledale Iowa.

But did you put Swaledale, North Yorkshire, England?

If you missed the England bit, then the fault is yours! ;D

 I am slowly begining to realise  ;D Silly me!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Sunday 09 August 15 14:22 BST (UK)
This looks promising. I left a comment on Ancestry on Facebook re the fact that my ancestors had "been transported" to America unknown to them and me, this is their reply:

 
"Hi Jan, sorry for any confusion caused by this. We are aware of and working on this issue, so you shouldn't have to make the corrections manually, don't worry! Glad to hear you like the updated format otherwise, please keep us updated with any other suggestions/feedback you have.
Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 11:41"
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Lisajb on Sunday 09 August 15 14:44 BST (UK)
I got the standard response - "we're working on this and other issues."   :(
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Deirdre784 on Sunday 09 August 15 15:06 BST (UK)
I asked - on Facebook - about adding a new field for 'name known as' so that the story line doesn't repeat the whole set of Christian names each time. And why it doesn't include the surname of the person on marriage.

The response I received:
Hi Deirdre, thanks for getting in touch. Thanks for the suggestions. We're actively seeking this sort of feedback so we appreciate your thoughts. You can add other feedback directly if you like, here's a link- http://ancstry.me/1FG3xWi

They are getting loads of complaints, far more than any positives.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Braindead on Sunday 09 August 15 20:49 BST (UK)


But did you put Swaledale, North Yorkshire, England?

If you missed the England bit, then the fault is yours! ;D

I disagree. The fault is Ancestry's for deciding that any places without a country must be in America, especially when the tree owner isn't in America. Changing from North Yorkshire to Iowa is simply inaccurate.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Sunday 09 August 15 21:42 BST (UK)
Bur they've been doing that for years!

The number of links I get for my England-based family for Somerset, Kentucky or Suffolk, Virginia used to be unbelievable!

So over the past 10 years or so, I have edited as many locations as I can, to ensure a country name has been input,

Please remember - Ancestry is an American organization! ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Braindead on Monday 10 August 15 07:42 BST (UK)
Regardless of where an organisation is based, I find it hard to believe that changing information without evidence is good practice.
Regardless, I think the biggest problem with the Lifestory view is the way it presents information as fact in order to produce a narrative. I think that this will vastly increase the number of errors in people's trees, as they blindly accept the "X was born in 1833" statements as written without looking for the evidence of the event.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Monday 10 August 15 07:54 BST (UK)
 ???

But Ancestry haven't actually changed any data?! (check the profiles of your people!)
The fault lies in the interpretation of the existing data, and that assumptions are made.

But we all do it?!

If I see the town of Gillingham mentioned, I always assume it is in Dorset - because I'm a West Country lad!
Similarly, Whitchurch is the one in Bristol; Newport is in Monmouthshire; etc.

I totally agree that Ancestry are at fault here ;D
As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Monday 10 August 15 08:03 BST (UK)
Quote
     
I totally agree that Ancestry are at fault here ;D
As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.                 

Hopefully that is what they are now working on as referred to in their reply to me. However, why wasn't this problem picked up on trials of the program, or were trials just carried out in America? Or better still, why weren't the facts and records I've put on my tree just copied directly to the new site without any changes?
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Monday 10 August 15 08:05 BST (UK)
I'll repeat what I said:

???
But Ancestry haven't actually changed any data?! (check the profiles of your people!)
The fault lies in the interpretation of the existing data, and that assumptions are made.

The underlying data hasn't changed!
It's just the way it is displayed that has changed.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Braindead on Monday 10 August 15 08:14 BST (UK)

As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.

It is easy to check a user's location and Ancestry do do that - I regularly use ancestry.ca as well as ancestry.co.uk and every time I do it asks me if I really want to go to .ca and wouldn't I rather go to co.uk? So why not set locations to default to the user's country of origin?

Regarding ancestry's "assumptions", we clearly agree that they shouldn't be doing that. :)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: BumbleB on Monday 10 August 15 08:33 BST (UK)
???

If I see the town of Gillingham mentioned, I always assume it is in Dorset - because I'm a West Country lad!
Similarly, Whitchurch is the one in Bristol; Newport is in Monmouthshire; etc.

I totally agree that Ancestry are at fault here ;D
As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.

If I see Gillingham, I think of Kent, Whitchurch is in Shropshire, AND there are 12 locations for Newport plus 51 locations for Newton in Great Britain.  ::) I live in Tamworth in Staffordshire, but I know there is a Tamworth in NSW, and possibly elsewhere on the planet.  AND I'm sure that most of us have people entered into our trees who have left their native lands and settled overseas.  Surely it is up to US to make sure that our ancestors are living in the correct country, and not rely on a machine to do it for us.

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: andycand on Monday 10 August 15 09:35 BST (UK)
Hi

My tree is not on Ancestry, thank goodness, but if it was then defaulting to a users location wouldn't work. I live in Australia but most of my research is England & Scotland. Whilst I tend to put the Country in for Scotland, Canada, USA and, funnily enough, Australia, I haven't included England for many of my English relatives so many of my English place names would default to their Australian namesake.

I'm wondering if they are trying to create a standard format across the website (eg drop down menu for birthplace on Censuses) so that hints make sense. Unfortunately this won't work as the place  of an event can vary depending upon the source.

Andy
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: jon541 on Monday 10 August 15 09:35 BST (UK)
Quote
Surely it is up to US to make sure that our ancestors are living in the correct country, and not rely on a machine to do it for us.

And so it is (up to us), if you explicitly state the country.  After all, to reference some of the examples quoted above, you wouldn't just enter 23 Acacia Gardens, Gillingham on your tree as the address, you would add Dorset or Kent as appropriate to avoid possible confusion. And if you had a mix of English and Canadian ancestors, why would you assume that it would be possible to logically determine which London-dwellers in your tree lived in the town of that name in Ontario or in the English capital?

Frankly, the suggestions about defaulting to the user's login country are not well thought through:  97% of my ancestors are English but there will be a lot of people in whichever country Ancestry operates, particularly in Australia, Canada and the US with their history of immigration, who have a much less heavily-weighted provenance and where defaulting makes no sense.

Defaulting of any information is a bad idea ... it's a little like the rather clichéd axiom that to assume makes an ass of u and me.

I think a lot of the annoyance expressed arises from the fact that Ancestry have chosen to interpret and understand addresses - a very valid point and an annoyance which obviously could have been  avoided by the simple expedient of accepting addresses as entered.  However, if you are checking whether anyone else is researching SMITH in LONDON, England and you don't want your results to include a lot of hits for LONDON, Canada then you can't have it both ways!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: sunflower on Monday 10 August 15 12:32 BST (UK)
Where has the comment box disappeared to ?

Carol
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: maggbill on Monday 10 August 15 13:11 BST (UK)
I took quite a while to find the "Comments".  When you have the individuals page open there is a button towards top right hand side - "Tools" - drop down list gives option to "View Comments".  Not impressed with this at all, the comments on old version were much more obviously positioned at bottom of page - my relies who aren't as au fait with Ancestry will never find that I have put some really important information under the rather well hidden "Comments" area.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Lisajb on Monday 10 August 15 13:37 BST (UK)
But if - forgive me - you have sources for an ancestor, birth from UK BMD, all the census records English census, marriage and death UK BMD, surely then the powers that be of ancestry could see that your ancestor was a UK resident and not place them in the USA or wherever counterpart same named location?

Maybe I am over simplifying things?
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: maggbill on Monday 10 August 15 13:41 BST (UK)
Hi lisajb

The problem is that - the "powers that be" are the computer programmers, who I think have released this trial version before they really had "done their homework" lolol....
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Lisajb on Monday 10 August 15 14:04 BST (UK)
You'd think for something as big as ancestry is, they'd have a mirror site to test things on - obviously not!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: sunflower on Monday 10 August 15 14:17 BST (UK)
Thanks Maggbill

I found the comment box.  It's well hidden

Carol
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Monday 10 August 15 14:22 BST (UK)
A couple of points:

1. Ancestry is an American company, with vastly more US members than UK members. Do you really think they care about the UK? ;D

2. Ancestry are a commercial company, NOT a service provider. They have attracted you to take out membership - what you do once you are a member isn't really a priority for them?

3. I hardly think the programmers had any say in the matter. Like most big companies, there are Systems Analysts, Business Analysts, and Testers. And they are almost certainly working to impossible deadlines set by senior management, who (usually!) haven't got a clue! ;D

You would think that some of the banking sites here in the UK, would also have mirror testing sites? And look how well recent upgrades to their systems have gone!! ;D ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: jon541 on Monday 10 August 15 14:39 BST (UK)
Very well put, KGarrad.  As a fellow IT professional I appreciate the realism behind your 3 points.

Lisajb, it's not so much that you are over-simplifying - it's just that the logic behind any system being able to make that kind of assumption would be unwieldy and still wouldn't be able to cope with every exception. 

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Monday 10 August 15 14:42 BST (UK)
Very well put, KGarrad.  As a fellow IT professional I appreciate the realism behind your 3 points.

And I never even mentioned Agile methodology!! ;D ;D :-X
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Lostris on Monday 10 August 15 14:49 BST (UK)
I somehow doubt that Ancestry dont care about their UK membership (or any of our Colonial cousins ...)   .... a big investment in UK originated Data like PRs, Directories, Census et al hardly smacks of insignificance ....
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: CarolA3 on Monday 10 August 15 15:23 BST (UK)
........ the logic behind any system being able to make that kind of assumption would be unwieldy and still wouldn't be able to cope with every exception.

I imagine this would be the sort of exception you had in mind:

My OH's paternal grandparents died before he was born.  As far as he knew, they were Yorkshire born and bred.  Their son (my father-in-law, if he'd lived longer) never suggested otherwise.

We now know that OH's grandmother was born in the Tamworth area of New South Wales, Australia, to English parents who returned to England when she was about three years old.

This is the only overseas event in an otherwise British tree.  So if I enter just 'Tamworth' as a birthplace, should Ancestry assume I mean the Tamworth in Staffordshire, or should it default to NSW because we now live in Australia?

Carol
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: jon541 on Monday 10 August 15 17:27 BST (UK)
Yes, excellent Carol - I think you may just have found *the* perfect example to illustrate the point!  ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: CarolA3 on Monday 10 August 15 18:00 BST (UK)
Well bugger me, there's a Tamworth in New Hampshire USA as well :o

We're doomed ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: ThrelfallYorky on Monday 10 August 15 19:26 BST (UK)
When I spotted the "hint" to try the "New Ancestry" I posted on another area asking if anyone else had tried it. These comments have made me quite sure I'd HATE it, and may even make me decide not to renew my sub when next it falls due ... I suppose they hope we'll all forget about that..
If they want some suggestions to make the site more useful, well....
* how about a box to put other people who are not immediate family in? I found  well-hidden ancestor hiding with a married sister's family
* How about being able to input religion? That could thin the entries out a bit..
* how about being able to EXCLUDE some areas i.e.: NOT WALES, or even more usefully :
NOT U.S.A. in searches?
Really don't need fiddly-faddly "factoids" adding, nor a narrative style, anything like that sounds a bit dumbed down, and will surely lead to even more silly errors than currently becoming set in stone.
Thank you all, and thanks to CaroleA3 on the YTG thread, who pointed me here.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Stanwix England on Monday 10 August 15 22:23 BST (UK)
The other day I was given the option to transfer over to the 'new and improved' version of Ancestry.

I'm finding it a bit discombobulating at the moment but I think it will be easier to use in the long run.

Anyone else done this. What do you think? It's a pretty radical overhaul.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LisaRobinson87 on Monday 10 August 15 22:33 BST (UK)
I've Tried it and reverted back because the hint leaf at the top wouldn't work correctly on the new one but i like the new layout and the profile of people is much better its good that you can revert back and forth if you wish though!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: JenB on Monday 10 August 15 22:38 BST (UK)
There is an extensive thread on this topic here


Moderator Comment: Topics merged together now :)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: trish58 on Tuesday 11 August 15 00:32 BST (UK)
Been using it for the past couple of days no problem, I think it will be the same as other times they have changed their format, we get all the "I hate the site jargon", (Guilty as charged) but nothing is going to change it.

Enjoy it folks.

Trish
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: garywilson1 on Thursday 13 August 15 18:16 BST (UK)
It may be worth checking your Trees if you subscribe to Ancestry , the new format has changed a lot of my places in England for places in North America . For example "Albert Street" has become "Alberto , Canada" and "St Andrews (Church)" has become "St Andrews ,South Carolina" . Preston too has "moved" You can see this in the "lifestory"  of individuals , and see it on the map .

Gary. ???

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: anne_p on Thursday 13 August 15 18:48 BST (UK)
I found that happened to my tree too which is why I switched back to the old Ancestry.

Could not believe that my parents  apparently married in another continent!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: garywilson1 on Thursday 13 August 15 19:03 BST (UK)
And Ancestry seem to be saying you need to edit the facts yourself ! So far i have at least 20 in my direct ancestors , could be a long job .

How do i change back to the old site please ?

Gary
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: dowdstree on Thursday 13 August 15 19:11 BST (UK)
Hi Gary,

I had a similar problem myself and almost needed sunglasses to look at the colours.

Changed back by clicking on my name in top right hand corner and in the drop down was able to change back to the old format. Got this info after I phoned Ancestry and kicked up and told them if I was ever forced to use their "new" format I would be cancelling my subscription. Guy said they had a lot of complaints - no wonder.

Hope this works.

Dorrie
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: LizzieW on Thursday 13 August 15 19:17 BST (UK)
There's already a topic on this subject.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=727605.msg5725072#msg5725072
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: garywilson1 on Thursday 13 August 15 19:26 BST (UK)
Sorry , i had not seen the other thread. I have managed to switch back to the old site - thanks .  Ancestry need to sort this out and quick .
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: anne_p on Thursday 13 August 15 20:10 BST (UK)
Gary,
Access your Ancestry acct and there is a dropdown menu under your user name.
You will find the option to switch back here
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: coombs on Friday 14 August 15 12:36 BST (UK)
I stick to the old Ancestry. I still miss the old FamilySearch which still gives you endless US census results even when you specifically type UK into the database.

They keep "fixing" things that aren't broken.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: dowdstree on Saturday 15 August 15 11:11 BST (UK)
Morning,

If anyone feels strongly enough to sign a petition to try to save the old Ancestry format you can go to   http://www.thepetitionsite.com/600/803/575save-ancestrycom-classic/

Hope I got all that correct.

Dorrie
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: mientajb on Sunday 16 August 15 16:09 BST (UK)
I am having a go with New Ancestry. I do prefer the "facts" sheet instead of the old profile as it pulls through more information. However, I can not get the time-line to print. Has anyone else had this problem and did you fix it.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Monday 17 August 15 11:57 BST (UK)
Morning,

If anyone feels strongly enough to sign a petition to try to save the old Ancestry format you can go to   http://www.thepetitionsite.com/600/803/575save-ancestrycom-classic/

Hope I got all that correct.

Dorrie

Very unlikely to happen! It will be like everything else, people will moan but get used to it.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: dawnkaren on Tuesday 25 August 15 17:55 BST (UK)
I hated it and got it changed back immediately, particularly disliked the waffle and incorrect facts on a profile and the fact that far to much was being changed by ancestry yet I knew I had put the right facts is place, when I spoke to the girl to get it changed she said it was just a trail, well they have got an awful lot to get sorted because if that ever was forced on me then im cancelling my full subs, and going to findmypast
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: dawnkaren on Tuesday 25 August 15 17:56 BST (UK)
Morning,

If anyone feels strongly enough to sign a petition to try to save the old Ancestry format you can go to   http://www.thepetitionsite.com/600/803/575save-ancestrycom-classic/

Hope I got all that correct.

Dorrie

Very unlikely to happen! It will be like everything else, people will moan but get used to it.


I wont get used to it in any way, esp when they are changing info regardless of the reason! I worked dam hard to find that info and certainly don't need some computer programmer to loose it all
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Finley 1 on Tuesday 25 August 15 18:11 BST (UK)
What it is seriously lacking is human instinct --- !!! We do often KNOW when something just fits.  How the heck a programme can do that who knows. 

Mind you I wish they would work this latest lot of mine out for me........ so difficult.  ;)

xin
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Kevin Burrell on Tuesday 25 August 15 20:58 BST (UK)
I wouldn't be too quick to jump from Ancestry to FindMyPast - they did  a similar change about a year and a half ago and made a right mess - data went missing, there were different input screens for the same data (depending on how you got to that input screen) with relevant search fields missing, the input screens were suddenly huge so that you had to scroll to input your data, it was horrible - and it changed a week after I had renewed, so I was not particularly happy about it. - they still have not fixed all the problems. I left them when my sub run out and went to Ancestry but initially kept my tree on FindMyPast. However a couple of months ago it started to take an age to process anything keyed in (20 or 30 seconds to refresh after entering a birth date and clicking OK or save - when you have 30 or 40 fields such things to di it is frustrating -to say the least) I exported my tree , loaded it into Ancestry and have not had a problem since
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Kevin Burrell on Tuesday 25 August 15 20:58 BST (UK)
.....mind you I am not keen on the new look Ancestry - feels like new FindMyPast all over again!

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Tuesday 25 August 15 21:03 BST (UK)
I wont get used to it in any way, esp when they are changing info regardless of the reason! I worked dam hard to find that info and certainly don't need some computer programmer to loose it all

As I have said many times before - they haven't changed any data! ::)

What they have changed is the timeline feature (new) and the way that interprets the data you have entered.

If you have failed to enter a country against all place names, then it will almost certainly display them incorrectly.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Drosybont on Tuesday 25 August 15 21:39 BST (UK)
Hadn't realised that there have been changes in data on the site, not just people's trees, and 'old' Ancestry, not just 'new'.  Two people with birthplace "America" on the 1891 English census are now showing birthplace "American Samoa"! Annoying that I can't remember what it said before, but I'm sure I'd have noticed if it said that . . . one was born in Philadelphia and the other in Manhattan. 

Drosybont
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Tuesday 25 August 15 21:46 BST (UK)
Check the Facts section on the profile of your people.

And, "America" isn't the name of the country! It's USA ;D ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Drosybont on Tuesday 25 August 15 21:58 BST (UK)
I don't have a tree on Ancestry, this is in the records on the site itself.  I know the name of the country is USA but America is what it says on the original census record, now showing as American Samoa in the Ancestry transcription, but not previously.

Drosybont
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: dawnkaren on Tuesday 25 August 15 22:10 BST (UK)
I wont get used to it in any way, esp when they are changing info regardless of the reason! I worked dam hard to find that info and certainly don't need some computer programmer to loose it all

As I have said many times before - they haven't changed any data! ::)

What they have changed is the timeline feature (new) and the way that interprets the data you have entered.

If you have failed to enter a country against all place names, then it will almost certainly display them incorrectly.

I subscribe to .co.uk not .com! my bank account is a uk and the currency is sterling how would they like it if I paid the same amount as currently but in dollars! if they start that game then so can i
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Sunday 22 November 15 16:40 GMT (UK)
Have people seen this - looks as if there will be no choice in about 3 weeks.

"After 14th December, everyone who logs in will see our new look and feel. We’ve continued to work on the improved Ancestry since we first introduced it back in August, based on the feedback we’ve received, and we believe that it represents the most effective way to enjoy the Ancestry site."
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Lisajb on Sunday 22 November 15 17:12 GMT (UK)
Have people seen this - looks as if there will be no choice in about 3 weeks.

"After 14th December, everyone who logs in will see our new look and feel. We’ve continued to work on the improved Ancestry since we first introduced it back in August, based on the feedback we’ve received, and we believe that it represents the most effective way to enjoy the Ancestry site."

Oh 'eck, I'd better crack on and make sure everyone has a country. Easy on a pc, difficult on an iPad. I'm only on page 4...
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: sharonmx5 on Sunday 22 November 15 17:25 GMT (UK)
I have just seen that message.  I suppose I shall just have to get used to it :(.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Beeonthebay on Sunday 22 November 15 17:27 GMT (UK)
I just noticed this today too and I HATE the new "not improved" dumbed down big print version with pictures.  :'(
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Beeonthebay on Sunday 22 November 15 17:29 GMT (UK)
Have people seen this - looks as if there will be no choice in about 3 weeks.

"After 14th December, everyone who logs in will see our new look and feel. We’ve continued to work on the improved Ancestry since we first introduced it back in August, based on the feedback we’ve received, and we believe that it represents the most effective way to enjoy the Ancestry site."

Oh 'eck, I'd better crack on and make sure everyone has a country. Easy on a pc, difficult on an iPad. I'm only on page 4...

What's this about a country?  I better go back and check this thread from the beginning then get cracking on my countries too, of which there are only 3 England, Wales and Ireland......
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: rosie99 on Sunday 22 November 15 17:30 GMT (UK)
I also saw that message today, I had been resisting the change.   I downloaded my trees last week and deleted them on the site as I was not going to spend time checking whether I had put England on every record.  ::)

Rosie
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Sunday 22 November 15 17:34 GMT (UK)
You still have a choice?
Put up with it or migrate to a different FH website! ;D

As I've said before - I really don't know what the fuss is all about? :-\


When Ancestry now shows your various dates, if you haven't entered a country (e.g. Bristol, Gloucestershire, England) then it finds the first such city/town and uses that.
Invariably that's an American town or city!!

But for years, whenever you enter the place names, Ancestry offers you a selection from a drop-down box? And I have nearly always picked the relevant entry from that box.

If you haven't, then you need to start adding country names after all the places you have for facts. And maybe county, too?! ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Beeonthebay on Sunday 22 November 15 17:40 GMT (UK)
Well I'm only fairly new to Ancestry and uploaded a 10 year old GEDCOM file when I used the Chapman county codes, so I've slowly been going through and changing them via the drop down box.

KGarrad, you make it sound as if it's normal for everything to revert to American towns and states?  If you pay your money in the UK from a UK bank account using Ancestry.com.UK then logic would surely say the majority of people are searching for people IN the UK not America.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Sunday 22 November 15 17:57 GMT (UK)
I agree! Logic would say that.
And I've complained to Ancestry about just this point on many occasions!

The simple fact is - Ancestry is an American company! ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Sunday 22 November 15 18:05 GMT (UK)
There are probably just as many Americans complaining, as most of them are probably chasing people who emigrated from the UK.   ;D ;D

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: rosie99 on Sunday 22 November 15 18:08 GMT (UK)
No wonder people living outside the UK get confused, this is an example offered on the drop down menu

Peterborough, Northamptonshire, England
Peterboro, Northamptonshire, England
Peterborough St John the Baptist, Northamptonshire, England
Peterborough St Mary, Northamptonshire, England

Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Treetotal on Sunday 22 November 15 18:13 GMT (UK)
If you pay your subs..you should have a choice as to whether you want the new look inferior site.....don't think I will be renewing my subs ::)
Carol
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Beeonthebay on Sunday 22 November 15 18:21 GMT (UK)
I think we should have been given a bit longer for us to get used to the changeover as they should surely know that many people would be a bit shocked today to find out we only have 3 WEEKS to go!!!  EEekkk  :o
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Sunday 22 November 15 18:34 GMT (UK)
I think we should have been given a bit longer for us to get used to the changeover as they should surely know that many people would be a bit shocked today to find out we only have 3 WEEKS to go!!!  EEekkk  :o

You've had since August!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Sunday 22 November 15 18:55 GMT (UK)
No wonder people living outside the UK get confused, this is an example offered on the drop down menu

Peterborough, Northamptonshire, England
Peterboro, Northamptonshire, England
Peterborough St John the Baptist, Northamptonshire, England
Peterborough St Mary, Northamptonshire, England

Not to mention:
Peterborough, Victoria, Australia
Peterborough, South Australia
Peterborough, Ontario
Peterborough, New Hampshire   and
Peterboro, New York!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Beeonthebay on Sunday 22 November 15 19:04 GMT (UK)
I think we should have been given a bit longer for us to get used to the changeover as they should surely know that many people would be a bit shocked today to find out we only have 3 WEEKS to go!!!  EEekkk  :o

You've had since August!

I only joined in October I think it was and until today I had no idea we only had 3 weeks to make the transition with a definite cut off date.  :o
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: rosie99 on Monday 23 November 15 12:05 GMT (UK)
No wonder people living outside the UK get confused, this is an example offered on the drop down menu

Peterborough, Northamptonshire, England
Peterboro, Northamptonshire, England
Peterborough St John the Baptist, Northamptonshire, England
Peterborough St Mary, Northamptonshire, England

Not to mention:
Peterborough, Victoria, Australia
Peterborough, South Australia
Peterborough, Ontario
Peterborough, New Hampshire   and
Peterboro, New York!

 ;D   ;D   ;D   ;D

Thanks KG  -  I have enough problems with the UK one especially as it is often listed as Cambridgeshire  ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: JenB on Monday 23 November 15 12:21 GMT (UK)
  I have enough problems with the UK one especially as it is often listed as Cambridgeshire  ::)

That would be because, until it became a unitary authority, it was part of Cambridgeshire  :)

The Soke of Peterborough was traditionally regarded part of Northamptonshire.  However the Soke was merged into Huntingdonshire in the 1960's, and Huntingdonshire in turn became part of Cambridgeshire in the 1970's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough#Administration

I used to live near Peterborough and no-one ever knew which county to use on our address  ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: rosie99 on Monday 23 November 15 13:16 GMT (UK)
Thank you Jen  :)

I tend to keep to the county they started off in then it does not get confusing. 

I know what you mean about not knowing what county to use on your address, I live in Middlesex   ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: stanmapstone on Monday 23 November 15 13:28 GMT (UK)
I find the Notes for Historians and Genealogists at the Association of British Counties web site useful http://www.gazetteer.org.uk/notes.php

Stan
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: stanmapstone on Monday 23 November 15 13:33 GMT (UK)
Another useful site A Beginner's Guide to UK Geography
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/index.html

Stan
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: stanmapstone on Monday 23 November 15 13:38 GMT (UK)
You can download a map of Regions and their constituent counties and LADs in the UK as at Dec 2011 https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/Docs/Maps/Regions_and_their_constituent_counties_unitary_authorities_(UK)_Apr_2011_map.pdf

Stan
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Monday 23 November 15 14:26 GMT (UK)
I find the Notes for Historians and Genealogists at the Association of British Counties web site useful http://www.gazetteer.org.uk/notes.php

Stan

I don't like that site, Stan!
They refuse to recognise The City and County of Bristol as being distinct from Gloucestershire! ::)

And that almost caused me to have to play my sport for Gloucestershire rather than Somerset, because the Maternity Hospital I was born in was located in Bristol?!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: StevieSteve on Monday 23 November 15 15:20 GMT (UK)
Thank you Jen  :)

I know what you mean about not knowing what county to use on your address, I live in Middlesex   ;D


Middlesex, of course!!

(Ex-resident but born and bred)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: rosie99 on Monday 23 November 15 15:24 GMT (UK)
Thank you Jen  :)

I know what you mean about not knowing what county to use on your address, I live in Middlesex   ;D


Middlesex, of course!!

(Ex-resident but born and bred)

I agree but some drop down menu's deny it's existence.
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: stanmapstone on Monday 23 November 15 16:50 GMT (UK)
I find the Notes for Historians and Genealogists at the Association of British Counties web site useful http://www.gazetteer.org.uk/notes.php

Stan
I don't like that site, Stan!
They refuse to recognise The City and County of Bristol as being distinct from Gloucestershire! ::)
And that almost caused me to have to play my sport for Gloucestershire rather than Somerset, because the Maternity Hospital I was born in was located in Bristol?!

They are not the only one, from Ancestry and FamilySearch
Stan
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: KGarrad on Monday 23 November 15 16:55 GMT (UK)
I find the Notes for Historians and Genealogists at the Association of British Counties web site useful http://www.gazetteer.org.uk/notes.php

Stan
I don't like that site, Stan!
They refuse to recognise The City and County of Bristol as being distinct from Gloucestershire! ::)
And that almost caused me to have to play my sport for Gloucestershire rather than Somerset, because the Maternity Hospital I was born in was located in Bristol?!

They are not the only one, from Ancestry and FamilySearch
Stan

Thus negating over 600 hundred years of history!
I have a chess set commemorating the 600 years anniversary of Bristol's status as a City & County!
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: BumbleB on Monday 23 November 15 17:04 GMT (UK)
Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmm!!!   :o  Even our own beloved RC has Bristol ensconced in Gloucestershire  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: stanmapstone on Monday 23 November 15 19:21 GMT (UK)
BRISTOL, Gloucestershire For genealogical purposes, and specifically in the International Genealogical Index (IGI) the City of Bristol is considered as part of the County of Gloucestershire.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/GLS/Bristol/

"Bristol, city, municipal and parliamentary borough, seaport, and county of itself, chiefly in Gloucestershire but partly in Somerset," [Extract from Bartholemew's Gazetteer of the British Isles, 1887]

Stan
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: StevieSteve on Monday 23 November 15 19:37 GMT (UK)
Does anyone else ever get halfway through writing a post and then think, "Why am I writing this, I could just look it up?"


Just happened to me
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: groom on Monday 23 November 15 20:01 GMT (UK)
Does anyone else ever get halfway through writing a post and then think, "Why am I writing this, I could just look it up?"


Just happened to me

I often get halfway through reading a post and then think, "Why didn't they just Google, or use Freebmd etc?"   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?
Post by: Beeonthebay on Monday 23 November 15 20:36 GMT (UK)
Does anyone else ever get halfway through writing a post and then think, "Why am I writing this, I could just look it up?"


Just happened to me

All the time, though I do find typing queries up sometimes makes me think in a different way and sometimes I answer my own question.  ;D