The dreaded change of Ancestry

[Treetotal]

Ancestry hasn't changed your data at all! (Check the Profile of that person if you don't believe me!)

BUT when it displays the details, Ancestry defaults to North American place-names - well, Ancestry IS an American company

Leeds, Yorkshire might be OK in a UK-based FH program.
But Ancestry is worldwide! Leeds could be anywhere!!

Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be

Carol

[KGarrad]

Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be

Carol

No!
But I have worked in IT since I left school - changes to computer systems/software are part of my everyday life

Most changes to software are cosmetic; but people get frightened by the new look. (Remember the howls of anguish when RootsChat changed? Does it bother you now?!)

Sometimes the changes go wrong (FindMyPast take note!).

All I ask is that people stop and think about the changes; work out what has really changed, rather than moaning about the look and feel.

And, please remember that Ancestry is a commercial organisation, in business to make a profit.
They make changes to appease the masses.

[LizzieL]

All I ask is that people stop and think about the changes; work out what has really changed, rather than moaning about the look and feel.

This is an example of what has REALLY changed

Livermore (exact match) census list
Not even best matches first. It did NOT do that on the old version, when EXACT search really was exact. It is acting as if I had ticked similar.
So don't tell me what I'm saying "simply isn't true"

My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.

Sorry?
That's simply not true!

The "new" Ancestry (i.e. as of today) has NOT changed the search functionality one iota.
Use the sliders if necessary to increase the exactness.

[groom]

.       Do you work for Ancestry KG?...or are you on commission...if not..then you should be
             

I was wondering that as well. 

I think they have tweaked it a bit since I first saw it back in August, there certainly aren't so many people who have been whisked overseas to die etc. It seems to be a case of fiddling around with settings until it suits you, for instance I've turned off the historical fact bits that told me, " xxxxx was born during the coldest winter of the decade."

[dowdstree]

I suppose its like all technological changes there will be teething problems to sort out, eventually.

Am finding my way around ok. I think now that you cannot jump back and forward from old to new
its better, for me at least.

I stick to "facts" as this suits me best and the rest is unnecessary in my opinion.

My only real criticism is the COLOUR - its sore on the eyes and the dark background makes my old eyes water

Dorrie

[locksmith]

This is an example of what has REALLY changed

Livermore (exact match) census list
Not even best matches first. It did NOT do that on the old version, when EXACT search really was exact. It is acting as if I had ticked similar.
So don't tell me what I'm saying "simply isn't true"

My big problem is the way the search has changed. With old Ancestry search if you ticked the box for exact match on a surname, that is what you got. Now if I tick "exact match" it is totally ignored and I get thousands of hits, some nothing like the name.

Sorry?
That's simply not true!

The "new" Ancestry (i.e. as of today) has NOT changed the search functionality one iota.
Use the sliders if necessary to increase the exactness.

I'm with KGarrard on this, the search does not seem to have changed with the latest 'new' ancestry. What you are showing for Livermore is no different than before. The alternatives put in by other ancestry members have always come up as have the alternative name Ancestry has always put in for say a daughter in law. All 702 records shown in your example do give exact matches to the records held.

Simon

[LizzieL]

Exact should mean EXACT and I certainly did not get all these additional other names previously.

[Willow 4873]

Why cant I access the census information? I have a subscription and its telling me to subscribe again!?

Willow x

[groom]

Probably silly but you are logged in aren't you?