RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Flemming on Friday 01 October 21 21:21 BST (UK)
-
Has anyone else got the new format for FS record searches? Another example of fixing something that wasn't broken. Absolutely impossible to find anything on it now. Most frustrating.
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=853642.0
-
I honestly don't get these complaints. Nothing has changed for me other than the up front search page which no longer has a picture of Ecuadorian people. Who searches from that page, anyway? Skip it. Go straight to the full list of collections and search from there. It hasn't changed.
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=853642.0
Thanks, Gadget. I did scroll down this forum but completely missed the thread on it. Perhaps a little less angst and a little more attention required.
-
I honestly don't get these complaints. Nothing has changed for me other than the up front search page which no longer has a picture of Ecuadorian people. Who searches from that page, anyway? Skip it. Go straight to the full list of collections and search from there. It hasn't changed.
It absolutely has changed. It is totally different and unworkable. Been using FS since way back in the day, followed their various improvements over time with much appreciation, but this latest incarnation is appalling. The link Gadget has provided has others saying the same. Instead of fiddling around with the format, perhaps they should concentrate on the accuracy of their records (plenty of other threads on this as well).
-
As Erato has suggested, try this for all:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list/
( Add - or with map https://www.familysearch.org/search/location/list )
and UK:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list/?fcs=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND&ec=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND
-
I use FamilySearch practically everyday. Nothing has changed for me. Do I want to look at Wisconsin? I go to the Wisconsin records. US births? I select US and BMD. The 1910 census? I select US, censuses, 1910. Just as I always have.
-
As Erato has suggested, try this for all:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list/
( Add - or with map https://www.familysearch.org/search/location/list )
and UK:
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list/?fcs=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND&ec=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND
That works if you're used to searching by individial record set rather than by person specific details across records, and it still brings up the results in a completely different format.
-
I use FamilySearch practically everyday. Nothing has changed for me. Do I want to look at Wisconsin? I go to the Wisconsin records. US births? I select US and BMD. The 1910 census? I select US, censuses, 1910. Just as I always have.
Trust me, it has changed beyond recognition. If you still have the old format, lucky you. You may have had the attached format for years, but it's new to me.
-
It seems to me that everyone has their own way into these sites, and some people are better at searching than others, I being one of the latter! I don't use F.S. often, but I will probably work it out.
Added -
I have just read the posts from Erato and Gadget, which prove my point - Erato and Gadget are better at searching than I am!
-
Been using FS for decades, and have managed to find records quicker than an associate at an FS centre who uses the record-specific approach. Not a brag but, as you say, we all have our own methods and FS has certainly nuked mine.
-
I just tried the main search page with an individual from my tree: David Waire, born 1791 in Maine. It worked just fine. It bought up the Waire records and also the Ware and Wire records, including the ones with no birth date. It also brought up the records for another David Ware but it is hardly FamilySearch's fault that there happened to be two men with the same name born in Maine at about the same time. As for the format of the records, it is slightly more colorful than before.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01qyy/
-
I just tried the main search page with an individual from my tree: David Waire, born 1791 in Maine. It worked just fine. It bought up the Waire records and also the Ware and Wire records, including the ones with no birth date. It also brought up the records for another David Ware but it is hardly FamilySearch's fault that there happened to be two men with the same name born in Maine at about the same time. As for the format of the records, it is slightly more colorful than before.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01qyy/
We'll have to agree to disagree. It's fundamentally different to the format I used just earlier today and is a backwards step for me.
-
I preferred the layout that I encountered early this century. I located all my ancestors pretty quickly from the film information and on the LH side of the webpage were bmd submitted by am. researchers which is where I found the contact details of those who had submitted the information. The film number information was extremely handy on the Hugh Wallis webpages.
What we have now is one higgledy piggledy list of information of a mixture taken from submissions by am. researchers (which may or may not be correct) plus official information taken from images of baptism and marriage pages in ancient church books.
-
Hi
That works if you're used to searching by individial record set rather than by person specific details across records, and it still brings up the results in a completely different format.
I always search first by person specific details and if there are too much search results in the list I search this list by individual record set. Both search methods are still possible and working.
Regards
Svenja
-
Here is the new opening page.
-
Here is the results page from that.
-
In the previous incarnation, FS would have shown records from neighbouring parishes within the same county, not just nothing. You also had the option to specify BMD or other from the front page.
If you then broaden the search to county level, you get the following.
-
If you click on the 'Birth' button, you get this. Not sure how this in any way helpful. If you've already selected Norfolk, why are you offered other countries as an option?
-
I appreciate that the old functions are actually still there, but why do they have to be hidden behind multiple clicks away from the opening page? Think I may be taking up macrame as a hobby.
-
I've never heard of Lothingland but, as far as I can tell from Wikipedia, it is not a city, county, state, province or country so it doesn't work as a place. I can't put "down east" or "northern New England" as a place either; I have to use Maine.
-
In the previous format, you could be very granular with the specified place, down to a parish as place of birth/marriage/death or residence (for census data). The only limitation to this was where FS had a different spelling of the parish name, or included the specific parish under a broader town/city name.
Lothingland is an area in Norfolk (boundary of Suffolk) but the specifics wouldn't have mattered with the old FS format; it would have provided nearby locations (e.g. Lowestoft).
You're quoting US places. Perhaps it was different for the UK.
-
"Perhaps it was different for the UK."
Maybe so. It was never possible to search for records in Maine but have it kick in New Hampshire and Vermont, too, just in case, or, at a pinch, New Brunswick.
-
it would have provided nearby locations (e.g. Lowestoft).
A while back I did a search, using Suffolk, Lothingland and it showed some records for Lowestoft
Ancestry and FindMyPast seem to bring it up for more recent records as an RD in Suffolk.
PS - I've never heard of it before but I only have one person in my tree form Norfolk/Suffolk and he was a husband of a great x3 aunt
-
I can see how to get the results I prefer by clicking "collection", however it's not in the old one view format I'm used too and I have to use extra steps to get the results I'm after
-
I was under the (misguided) impression that a Camera icon meant one could view images.
Having done as recommended and used Gadget's link
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list/?fcs=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND&ec=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND
Super excited to see so many Camera icons ...
that was until I found the following message:
Images Available
To view these images do one of the following:
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
So no images >:(
Now that is just bad form - promise one thing and deliver nothing
-
There are two different kinds of camera icons. The plain camera indicates that images are available at FamilySearch; the camera with a border around it indicates that images are available at a "partner site." At partner sites, you have to pay. The LDS struck a deal with the partner sites that gives free access to church members. Frankly, joining the LDS would be too high a price for me to pay, but some might want to consider it.
-
The camera icon with a key above it means
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
The plain one means you can access it there and then, at least I could a week ago, as I have not been on FS for a week, doing too much FindMyPast and Ancestry instead.
-
Thanks Erato & Coombs for your explanations of the Camera Icons.
Unfortunately Family Search doesn't play by the same rules ::)
From this link (as previously mentioned)
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/list/?fcs=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND&ec=region%3AUNITED_KINGDOM_IRELAND
These are a couple of MANY examples where the camera is shown but access is limited
England Essex Non-Conformists Church Records 1613 - 1971
England Hertfordshire Marriage Bonds 1682 - 1837
If anyone has the answer to how access may be gained to these databases from home, I, for one, would be thrilled to the tips of my little toes. ;D
-
Are you logged in,Lady Di?
I just clicked on your link and could look at the images.
Barbara :)
-
England Essex Non-Conformists Church Records 1613 - 1971
England Hertfordshire Marriage Bonds 1682 - 1837
I am logged in, but cannot access the images on the above listed records.
-
Thanks for checking for the images ellvera
Good point about being logged in, easy trap to fall into (Yes, I am logged in :D )
Unfortunately I have just rechecked both specific collections listed and neither are showing images for me.
Thanks for checking Neale1961 - I have no idea why some can and some can't see images. ???
Add: The Essex Non Conformists collection shows transcripts from Zambézia, Mozambique to Yorkshire ... with a few in Essex thrown in for good measure 8)
-
England Essex Non-Conformists Church Records 1613 - 1971
England Hertfordshire Marriage Bonds 1682 - 1837
I am logged in, but cannot access the images on the above listed records.
I am logged in and cannot access these images either :-\
-
Thanks for confirming that it's not only me Jool
Looks like Family search has a LOT more work to do. It will be wonderful when/if they are able to provide those images as per the listings.
-
Well, they do provide them for free but you have to go to one of their family history centers. That could be inconvenient for many people but, all in all, it is more generous than selling them for profit. As it happens, there is a family history center in Quito but I've never visited it. Probably something like "England, Essex Non-Conformist Church Records, 1613-1971" would have to be ordered on microfilm because there wouldn't be much demand for it here.
-
Thanks for your comments Erato. It's interesting to read the different interpretations of the 3 cameras - ie a plain camera, a Camera with a key and the camera with the box around it.
The camera icon with a key above it means
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
The plain one means you can access it there and then, at least I could a week ago, as I have not been on FS for a week, doing too much FindMyPast and Ancestry instead.
I do think it's amazing just how many records/films have been made freely available by LDS. I think they've done a brilliant job and I certainly appreciate the work done.
I'll look forward to any updates.
-
The camera icon with a key above it means
Access the site at a family history center.
Access the site at a FamilySearch affiliate library.
...
This weekend I was logged on to FS, saw the camera icon and when clicking on it, it took me to their image viewer which was blank and displayed the above message.
I have both FindMyPast and Ancestry too, but couldn't seem to get these pre c.1800 images for Nocton, Lincolnshire, on these subscription sites?
The other problem with the new format, I couldn't also search and tick individual boxes to search exact spellings (as before) and end up with too many unnecessary returns.
I often don't want to make everything in my search form an exact spelling request.
Mark
-
I hated the new format at first, but I have to admit I'm quickly getting to like it. I think the problem was that there were so many options that it was becoming impossible to show them all using the old format.
Regarding exact matches - what happens for me is when I select the "Show Exact Search" toggle in the bottom right corner, all the edit fields have a tick box labelled "Exact" added under them. These start off unticked and you have to tick the ones you want to be an exact match.
-
Have been using new format of FS for the last few days (no choice really) investigating lots of Danish records that I hadn't found years ago on the microfilm* or a few years earlier online.
At first it was a disaster (well when the names I'm searching for are Jensen & Christensen in Denmark it wasn't surprising). Fortunately I had lots of information to start because I think it would have been extremely difficult otherwise.
It took me a good while to figure out how the tabs now work to narrow down results** but unable to select exact matches the same as previously (or else I just haven't figured that out yet).
After spending the weekend on this bit of family I'm very pleased to have found 22 previously unknown (to us and my uncle) 1st cousins of my uncle's, 1 uncle we have only a name for, another uncle we hadn't heard of before, a third one who didn't vanish but simply changed his surname!
* saw that someone mentioned ordering specific films to local LDS library but as far as I know that was discontinued a few years earlier.
** was a comment out searching with Norfolk in the search box then having to select that for birthplace but it really does make sense as you could have a person living in Norfolk (say in 1881 census) but born elsewhere, etc.
One big concern is how very, very easy they've made it to add someone to a family tree :-\
-
One big concern is how very, very easy they've made it to add someone to a family tree :-\
But, isn't that one of the main reason for FS?
I'm sure I've told this one before - I was at our local FS research room and a lady was being assisted to upload her tree onto the site. "But, I'm not sure that I've got the correct wife for this man." The response was "It doesn't matter." :-X
-
Thanks for confirming that it's not only me Jool
Looks like Family search has a LOT more work to do. It will be wonderful when/if they are able to provide those images as per the listings.
On the whole the images that give the message that they are only viewable at an FHC, means the record holders will not grant permission for them to be publically viewable on the web. Though the agreement does include them being viewable at an FHC.
Given that Essex archives generate income via Seax from records I'd doubt they would ever supply that permission.
Boo
-
As it happens, there is a family history center in Quito but I've never visited it. Probably something like "England, Essex Non-Conformist Church Records, 1613-1971" would have to be ordered on microfilm because there wouldn't be much demand for it here.
That may have been the case years ago, but the ordering in of microfilms stopped a long while ago.
I do visit a local FHC (though they are all still closed here atm) and can confirm that the system for digitised records is that they are held on a server someone up in the ether and are accessed at the FHC via their internet connection.
I assume the 'authorisation' is their IP address at the FHC as I sometimes use their net connection on my laptop (therefore using the same IP address) and can see the all the images. Obviously as I am physically AT the FHC , neither if us are breaking any rules.
Boo
-
Anyone who finds that the new FamilySearch search format sucks, I agree with them. A month on I still find the new search totally abysmal, hence why I have not used it a quarter as much as I did previously.
-
They have made some slight tweaks, and searching gets easier with practice.
As to the Essex non-conformist records, including those from other counties, a lot of those records, certainly pre 1837, are going to be the ones held at TNA. They are not generally viewable at home on FS, but you can of course see them on other websites.
Having a quick search for later records, the first ones I looked at were in fact from Essex parish church registers, not non-conformist at all. One even had a link to the BT image.
-
Anyone who finds that the new FamilySearch search format sucks, I agree with them. A month on I still find the new search totally abysmal, hence why I have not used it a quarter as much as I did previously.
Couldn't agree with you more. It is just awful. I used to whizz around the site getting info. Now extracting anything out of it is as slow as a slow thing. A really great asset lost, and all for the sake of 'improvements' that weren't necessary. It was a great system as it was. Why is there a desire to make changes all the time? It's not just FS, it's with so many things these days. It's change for the sake of it, not because it's truly needed. Instead of messing up the format, perhaps FS would have been better off looking into the accuracy of some of its transcriptions. But that's not glammy enough, is it?
-
Just chiming in to ditto the criticisms of the New and Improved FS site. Ironically, I think this reflects the difference in coding by newer or younger folks who simply don't prioritize the level of detail potentially needed for genealogical searching. The newer approach seems to be putting emphasis on sharing photos/images and family 'stories'.
While I appreciate the fact that the Mormon Church makes data widely available and I've found extremely useful books and pamphlets in the library, I usually only consult it after striking out on Ancestry or the Internet Archive (only searching US records), etc. I'm only interested in facts and hard data. I also don't necessarily want to take my time to point out other's errors on an individual's profile.
-
I must have got it early, sometimes I'd login and get the 'New Improved Version' and sometimes the 'Old Version' and soon as the New Version appeared I would groan, and the old version would be a 'Yippee' and get loads of research done ;D ;D ;D
Anyone ever had the misfortune to look at Records from Preston, Lancashire (1851) whole families are separate entries! It was bad enough previously trying to find the complete family now just impossible!
And another oddity think its the 1871 Census, Entries I have found previously no longer there! Found one or two by putting EVERY family member in, its as though some are indexed and a lot of have been unconnected.
I've taken up using FreeCen much more but not available for every Census. But much easier to find things.
-
I'm still finding this "new search" more difficult and time consuming to use.
I've had issues with the 1871 census for a few months, many appear to have been removed.
Mick
And another oddity think its the 1871 Census, Entries I have found previously no longer there! Found one or two by putting EVERY family member in, its as though some are indexed and a lot of have been unconnected.
I've taken up using FreeCen much more but not available for every Census. But much easier to find things.