Posted by on May 29, 2008 in Family Trees

We’re excited today to be rolling a long-awaited and much-requested feature for family trees.

Many of our historical records on Ancestry have information in them about other members of the family—not just the one person.Previously when you saved a record, you could only save it to one person at a time, and if the record had information about other family members, you would have to find each of their individual records and save them one at a time.

Starting today when you find a record with family information, you can save and merge that record to multiple members of the household.

Is there a way to go back to hints you have previously accepted and re-merge those?Yes—last week we added a section to the list of hints for a person which now shows hints that have previously been accepted.

Merging responsibly

Now before you go off merging family information all willy nilly, please merge responsibly.The default selection on this new merge feature does NOT include the extra family members.This is so you can review them individually and be certain that they are a right match before you add them to your tree.As smart as our system is, it can still make mistakes and can occasionally recommend a merge of two wrongly matched people, or perhaps a merge that results in duplicate names in your family tree.

Give us your Feedback

So, how do you like this feature?Does it work well for you?What recommendations do you have?Please let us know how you like it.You can post a comment here, or if you prefer, feel free to send me an email directly (kfreestone at tgn.com).

1,370 Comments

Linda Katalenich 

That sounds great – how about fixing the site so I can view the actual documents (census, military records, etc.)again.

May 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Nancy Jordan 

Great idea – I’m looking forward to the time saving benefits. Right now, the website is moving so slowly. Hope this is temporary.

May 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Linda Katalenich 

It just gets worse – now nothing works but the search. Can’t get to help, can’t download the viewer. This has been going on for more than a week – what’s happening?

May 29, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Kenny Freestone 

In response to comment #2…

We’ve found with the roll of this new feature we’ve introduced a bug that has gummed up the works a bit. We’re working to get this cleared up quickly, and apologize for the sluggishness.

Kenny

May 29, 2008 at 3:21 pm
E. A. Davis 

3 1/2 hours to try and input ONE name with a source. Each time I get this message: “Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected” What gives?

May 29, 2008 at 3:25 pm
David Johnson 

The extra time spent “Loading” is really a drag. Also hitting enter in a text field to start the search no longer works — either have to tab to the button or move the mouse. Hitting the button is hard because it’s nearly off the screen. It would be nice to keep another button top/right or top/left as other screens sometimes do. I really dislike having to scroll to find the enter button. But on the other hand, thanks for the “search for records” button when there are no hints on the “People” page! — ddj

May 29, 2008 at 4:52 pm
David Johnson 

The enter button gripe is particular to the “add record to someone in your tree” screen.

May 29, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Linda Moffitt 

I like a lot of the new features however, site is running very slow today. This evening I am finding the census info on left side in hints is written in German. Not good! It would be helpful to add family from census to tree without having to type in – same as in Family Tree Maker.

May 29, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Jim Hubbard 

This new method is much too slow and requires more selecting & clicking. I must select who is added to my tree by data from census which is not allways new. Now I have about 5 more clicks to make and it is slower. This sucks.

Jim Hubbard

May 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Ursula Hultgren 

The information I found for Howard W. Hultgren was incorrect. His Mother is Josephina Carlson Hultgren, while Hilma Carlson was an Aunt that he lived with when his Mother was killed in the 1905 tornado in Marquette, Kansas

May 29, 2008 at 6:22 pm
PR McCullough 

This is a wonderful addition but needs to be tweaked to allow mergers with existing people in the tree whose names are spelled slightly differently than the index(an “e” rather than and “a”). I wound up with many duplicate people whom I had to remove one by one.

Expanded tips about discretion and understanding the limitations would make this a more useful tool. prmc

May 29, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Julie Byram 

Love it, love it, love it! What a time saver.

May 29, 2008 at 6:40 pm
kayrisher 

Hated to ask for this feature but had gotten totally spoiled using it on familytreemaker program.. absolutely wonderful to have it online now!!!

May 29, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Tom Vought 

Just popped in to mention that I’m getting German on the update screen, but see that it’s already been noted and posted by another.

I too noticed the sluggishness today, then saw new input screens popping up and figured the upgrade was gumming things up for a while.

May 29, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Anne Philbrick 

I am very disappointed in the upgrade. Not only is everything much slower, but I no longer have the ability to delete people or events. The merging capacity is poor, so that multiple duplicate people and events are created. Therefore, the loss of ability to delete people or events leaves everything a mess. I have canceled my subscription for the time being, despite having enjoyed Ancestry after subscribing last month and creating a family tree of hundreds of people and sources.

May 29, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Allison Lassen 

I like the idea of the change in adding everyone on a Census page at once except I keep getting a page error message and it won’t update.

May 29, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Andrea 

I’m really frustrated tonight becaue the merge function is not working for me. I get up to the point where I want to add soemthing to my family member and when I click on the “ADD” button, nothing happens. I’ve tried it using several different accesses, one on the Foxfire browser and one directly through my interet carrier page. Nothing seems to work tonight and I am pretty frustrated as I’d like to keep going but I’m going to hae to shut it down and see if it works better tomorrow. Haven’t had this problem before and I’ve added many, many items. Hope you can fix this. Andrea

May 29, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Janet Zimmerman 

Terrific! Works like a charm. Thank you very much Kenny.

May 29, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Mildred Jones Meadows 

This site matches ours almost perfectly. I am happy about this.

May 29, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Brian M. Law 

The new feature that allows the additional family member selection is nice. However, if the person in an ancestry member tree is not spelled very similar to what appears on a particular Census record for example – the “Record Merge” forces you to add a new person in your tree in order to attach the record. For example, I located a Census record that has the name of “Maggie Shaffer”, but in my tree she is “Margaret Pearl Shaffer” and so, Ancestry wants to add a new person. For this reason, it would be great if there was a way to select the person to attach to if Ancestry doesn’t automatically find a match. Please let me know if this is feasible. Thank you.

May 29, 2008 at 9:55 pm
BROOMIE 

IT’S ABOUT TIME FOR THIS IDEA TO COME WILL MAKE SEARCHING AND ADDING CHILDREN SO MUCH EASIER

May 29, 2008 at 10:01 pm
PATRICIA BURROWS 

THANKYOU THANKYOU THANKYOU!!!!!!!!
new feature including rels on census fantastic, cuts work, crossed eyes, mistakes and headaches, specially when you get to the prolific families!!

May 30, 2008 at 1:53 am
Margaret Walton Allen 

I think this is brilliant but is there any way dates can be altered? because branches of my tree goes back as do many others to 1200 and earlier I find in many instances contributors put birthdates in as born in USA 1400 as an example because when people emigrated to America they took the names of the places they lived in England so I consistantly find… born Durham, North Carolina USA when it should be Durham UK.I know you can’t supply history lessons but if people knew the date Christopher Columbus discovered America it would wipe out all the misinformation that pops up constantly.

May 30, 2008 at 2:37 am
Vail Reno 

Very neat, time is saved by adding the family.

May 30, 2008 at 4:42 am
Madeline Brasel 

I do NOT like the new way to add census records to people in my tree…when adding the record I type in the persons name, but now I can no longer just hit enter, I must stop and click on search with the mouse…next, after attaching the record I am taken to that person in the tree rather than back to census in order to attach others in my family, again and again! and NO, I do not like attaching the record willy-nilly to the whole group at once, lets face it, the transcribers and I do not alway agree on a persons name and how do I know the right name got attached to the right person?

May 30, 2008 at 5:28 am
Joanne/Sam Wallendal 

I like this feature very much, BUT..a problem that I’m running into is the spelling of the names of the other family members. Often different sources have different spellings or use nicknames, i.e., Mae, May, Mary; or Kate, Catherine, Kathryn. So the feature sees it as a different person, where in reality it depends on the experience of the person recording the information, such as census takers, or perhaps a different nickname is used at different times. Is there any way that we can edit the information?

May 30, 2008 at 6:25 am
Ruth Johnson 

I do not like the many of the new features. there are too many loading, check and recheck, with a Loading in between. While I set and wait. Also sometimes when I finally get to a hint, sometimes it is in a foriegn language. What gives here??? also, help doesn’t work. Seemes like Ancestry just goes from bad to worse. I sure wish there was another site we could use but seems like Ancestry has a monoply.

May 30, 2008 at 7:02 am
Misty 

This isn’t working for me at all. Dang it.

I can no longer attach sources (census records, birth records, etc.) to anyone in my tree. I get to the “Review and save changes” screen, but all it does is show me a “Loading….” message. Nothing ever pops up. I MUCH preferred the old way – it was so much easier, and actually worked!

May 30, 2008 at 7:18 am
Tracey 

I love the new merge feature. It saves loads of time in attaching information to family members. I did encounter a problem with a person who was widowed and remarried. The merge wanted to put the marriage date on the wrong bride. Otherwise, I love it.

May 30, 2008 at 7:22 am
Stuart Gourd 

Seems like it is back to one person rather than the whole family again. However, there is an issue with what page it returns you after you add the information. It used to return you to the person’s family page, but i could hit the “back” button on my browser to get to the census record with the whole family, and then after I had added the first person, it would go back to the census record with the rest of the family members. But now, it returns you to the hints page, even after the first person is entered. For a while it returned you to the person’s page (even after the first family member was entered), but that seems to have shifted sometime today to the “hints” page.

May 30, 2008 at 8:05 am
Stuart Gourd 

Never mind–I can get it to do the whole family now. But the rest of my comment on where it returns you is still applicable.

May 30, 2008 at 8:07 am
paul wooldridge 

This new system is rubbish. Every time you get a census to add to a family you now have to keep finding the census to add to the rest of the family,why change something that works!

May 30, 2008 at 8:14 am
Don Monaghan 

Since yesterday Processing Image Request” almost everytime I try to access any type of image, but only after waiting 30-60 seconds for the response. The problem seemed less frequent in the evening so maybe it’s related to load on the system. Whatever the cause, it’s very frustrating and is really limiting the usefulness of the system.

May 30, 2008 at 9:39 am
Don Monaghan 

Trying again – Part of my entry disappeared:

Since yesterday I get a message “Error Processing Image Request” almost everytime I try to access any type of image, but only after waiting 30-60 seconds for the response. The problem seemed less frequent in the evening so maybe it’s related to load on the system. Whatever the cause, it’s very frustrating and is really limiting the usefulness of the system.

May 30, 2008 at 9:41 am
Rev. Barbara J Silk 

I noticed you new “add” format but
it looks like you missed something
important. With the old format if
you wanted to add/attach someone you would be directed to the list of the
people in your tree. If this person
was not already on the list, there
was a place to click that said
something like “add John Doe as a
new member of your tree”. You’d
click it and a screen would pop up
to enter the info. That system is
not available on the new format. I
now have to go back to a parent or
a spouse enter the name of the new
person and then go back to whatever
record I found the person on and try
to attach it. Yes, I got in, but it
was through the backdoor. Can you
fix this?

Please call me 518-348-6478 if you
have questions.

Yours,
Rev. Barbara J. Silk

May 30, 2008 at 10:28 am
Madeline Brasel 

This is getting very frustrating, what used to be enjoyable has now become a chore. Attaching records before was simple and to the point, now I must take several steps and end up in timbucktoo to attach records and return to same record! Please tell me this change is not permanent!

May 30, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Glenda Wade 

Lets say there is 10 kids and all in a roll. On each record that comes up, it shows all 10 kids well now I have 3 of the same person and I hit saved. It doesn’t put the record under the main person it just adds another person with the same name. It would of been nice if all the 3 of the records went under each child that was listed. Now I have to go in delete 2 of each of the same child.

May 30, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Paul Hart 

I am having problems adding stuff from the 1880 New York census. I am constantly getting Invalid Input errors. Plus, I have members of my family that have foriegn letters in their names (ie. è) This is also “invalid” and no records can be connected with them.

May 30, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Kenny Freestone 

In response to comment 37…

Hi Madeline,

I’m not sure I understand your frustration. We tried to set this new merge up so there would be as few changes as possible. When you see the merge page it should look and act the same as before, but also give the option to add more family members.

I would love to have some more details on the problem you are describing.

Kenny

kfreestone at tgn.com

May 30, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Delores Vega 

I absolutely love all the new things you have made available on Ancestry. It is slower than it used to be but then there is much more information loading. You have come a long way since I first discovered your website. Keep it up.

May 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Debbi Brown 

I love this feature! Saves going back and forth adding sources to siblings!

May 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Charlene 

Now I can’t save records to my tree. Thanks a lot. Charlene

May 30, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jana 

Great feature. Love it. Have been waiting for this for a long time. One question. Could we see the record image on the page where we are selecting who to attach it to? Then we could compare who is on the record with who Ancestry has suggested is on the record.

May 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Pete Mohle 

Several issues:
1.Was this product in beta for any time before being released for general availability?
2.I also am intermittently getting German headings . . .
3.I’ve learned not to use your feature that allows for adding marriage data when a marriage record is found. It doesn’t matter whether I have the spouse’s name already on the target person record or not – the software will add “Marriage to Unknown”. The only solution I’ve found is, as others have said, to delete in edit mode.
4.Frustratingly slow.

Other than that, I’m retired so I have lots of time to sit here and re-do things, so no worries. And there’s really not much German to learn to survive ;)

~Pete

May 30, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Jana 

Another question/comment. I figured out that if I have already accepted a record as a hint, I can go to “Accepted Hints” for that person and then merge it to people on their tree. But, what about records I attached but didn’t get through a hint? Something I found on my own. Could you please make it so that if I go to a historical record attached to someone on my tree, from their person page, that I can then attach that record to everyone in the family at once?

May 30, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Cindy Acton 

I like the new feature. One other thing I’d like is the ability to add notes (such as occupation, etc.) like those found in census records, without having to save the record first and then reopen it.

May 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Kenny Freestone 

In response to comments about GERMAN…

I’d like to get some more information to help us resolve this issue where some of you are seeing German characters in the merge process.

If this is the case for you, please send me an email (kfreestone at tgn.com) with some info:

–ancestry username
–Tree name
–Person you are merging from
–record you are merging

Thanks,

Kenny

May 30, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Eleanor 

I like some of your new site. I am finding that the info from hints are just in different order (like the dates). but I usually have more info than what I get. I often wish I give give you what I have.
Thanks!

May 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Vicky 

LOVE IT

May 30, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Lin Durand 

I like all of the features of the upgrade with the exception of the profile on the ‘List View of People in xxxxxxxx’ (tree). I am administrating a tree of over 4500 individuals and am going through the name list one by one. With the old profile, I could see a difference in the shading of the print on each name and could tell which people I had edited and which still needed work. Now I am having a hard time determining which names I have worked on.

May 30, 2008 at 7:31 pm
klaxon 

Just found the new option to add possible relatives at the same time as an individual’s record is located in a census return. This will be a great time saver but, as you say, needs to be used with care. Neverthe less a great advancement.

May 30, 2008 at 10:28 pm
klaxon 

Having just entered a comment I was directed to the site where other people had contributed. Crikey some people want to be spoon fed. The system gives a HINT you decide whether it is valid and wish to use it. If the spelling is slightly different then “show detail”, accept the hint and then change it or add whatever you like. Your current members are shown in the right hand panel so if you get a duplicate there is only one person to blame and it’s not Kenny.
I am over the moon with it!

May 30, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Lisa 

I am more excited everyday with all the added features!!! I only wish that I could do this as a full time job :)
The appearance of the list with the option to click on who has hints is awesome too. This feature of adding other people from records is so cool. I can’t begin to tell you…..I was just enjoying playing with layouts etc. for the custom printing – basically so that I could print the image of a census and add all the other information more easily – and then I stumbled on this. I truly am an amateur – but I’ll get there! There is so much to learn here. Thank you so much for the service that you provide as well as constant advancement and progress!

May 30, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Tammy 

Look forward to using it. It should work great as I use to go back into the record and click on each member separately to add the record. This will make that effort sooo much easier.

May 31, 2008 at 3:04 am
R. Riemann 

Dear Mr. Freestone,
Your new merging has interupted my ability to add information to my family tree. I keep getting the message that I am not authorized to enter the data. I have a lot of work to do and would like this corrected as soon as possible.
Thank You

May 31, 2008 at 5:25 am
Martin Berry 

This is a wonderful new addition for adding addtional family members, where it fails is that if a persons name is spelled differently, the merge suggests that it is a new person or if the person cannot be found automatically, it does not allow you to correct this by selecting the correct person from your family tree.

Also for those users who have a low band width connection, there should be an option to select a cut down version like the old style merge that was perviously used.

I have seen a hint only to find that when i select it, it comes up with page not found and when i go back, the hint has gone

May 31, 2008 at 5:45 am
Louis Schmidt 

Happy to see you are working on this problem. I havn’t tried your new system yet, but saw the opening to talk to someone. The old days there was a merge possibility which dissapeared. I have Caroline Mueller who married William Willmann. He died, then she married his brother Friedrich Willmann. The double name problem would not go away. Thank you Louis Schmidt.

May 31, 2008 at 6:17 am
fred dawson 

Some of the information is scrambled and It could be dangerous to newer eye (person who is up on their extended tree) It is very slow even at night. I have the very old family tree converted from windows 95 and it does not work.

May 31, 2008 at 7:35 am
Lin Durand 

Am having difficulty deleting people from my tree. I remove the relationships and then attempt to delete the individual (they are duplicate people) but it does not work. Is anyone else having this issue?

May 31, 2008 at 10:36 am
Jane McClure 

This is a wonderful feature! Of course, because the census is so full of misspellings, it has its limitations. If only you could make it so we can type in the correct name to match up with the wrong name, then have the record attach to that person. I hope that makes sense.

May 31, 2008 at 11:40 am
Madeline Brasel 

The new layout is very nice, easy on the eyes…but

In simple terms: I work on one head of household, find him in every census possibly, with wife/wives, children, military, birth, death, etc. After I verify if I have any of his family already in my tree I then add any wife, children, etc. Having done so, I then attach each census to each family member in order not to have to search for it again [some are spelled way off...my all time favorite was when I finally found Zachariah Taylor under Lachariah Laylor!].

Before, I could go down the list in the census record, attach each family member and be taken right back to the same census to finish attaching each family member.

Now, I attach another family member from the census and I am taken to that family member…say a child of head of house. Now, I must scroll down to whatever census it was and go back to attach another sibling, then again and again.

I learned my lesson some time ago about attaching records en masse…I am still cleaning up duplicate people and deleting people born 450BC in Canada who died in 1960 in France…or some such nonsense.

So for those of us who do not care for the mass attaching of census records, is there any way to simply have us return to the census after attaching records rather than bouncing us around the family?

Allowing the enter button to work rather than clicking on the search button again, would not hurt my feelings a bit.

May 31, 2008 at 11:40 am
Robin Mina 

Some nice features with the new system attaching records, but I agree that when attaching relatives to existing people (and the record has permutations in the spelling), creating a new person is totally awful.

Worst immediate problem….I’m also getting “Invalid or unauthorized input has been detected” when trying to attach censuses. Why hasn’t this issue been addressed here? Would love to have a datapoint to know it will be fixed.

May 31, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Jennifer 

AWSOME! This could save me a lot of time in adding new people and records to my tree. You all do a great job at ancestry.com. Sometimes, it seems like you are reading my mind. Thanks a bunch.

May 31, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Joan (Mrs. Robert E.) Stone 

In looking at the tree info for my mother (Jennie Jaquith Solsby) and her father William Henry Solsby, I find the last name as DOLSBY. This is totally incorrect and am sure is the reason that I have been unable to locate any information on my grandpa William Henry Solsby, born 1852 and married to Emma Elizabeth Heideman on July 23, 1883 (WEDDING CERTIFICATE on my wall)Please make these changes or corrections. I do not know how.

May 31, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Helen 

Love this, really good tool.
Would love something along these lines for BMD for informants, witnesses etc

Not too sure about the new search too many names are not showing up just a link which needs clicking, but all new things take time to be tweeked.
Keep up the great work

May 31, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Robin Melissa Reininger 

Love it! Love the changes!

May 31, 2008 at 3:27 pm
James Taylor 

This merge feature is fantastic. Way to go.

May 31, 2008 at 3:57 pm
June A. Rettig 

I am impressed so far.

It was help both you and myself if you could
get my E-mail straightened out. It has not been
correct for about two years and you keep telling
me it is wrong.

I am sorry to bring this up here. Erase it if you
must.

May 31, 2008 at 4:00 pm
debra harris 

When I accessed a birth record and used the “show relatives” feature it gave Augustin W Higdon’s wife as his daughter. Her birth was also on the same record. It was the Kentucky birth record for 1852 – 1910 for Mclean County. I have also ran into a lot of transcription errors. They will be recorded appropriatly on the original records but wrong on the transcribed version. When searching for someone and the transcribed version is what is used to access results, this makes it very difficult. Thanks for listening. Debra Harris

May 31, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Donna Purcell 

Love being able to merge several family members at once, it has cut the amount of time I spend looking for historical records. I love looking for the records but hated attaching them to all the relatives involved because I got confused who was done and who wasn’t. It was a waste of precious time that I would rather be looking through the records and reading about my families. I like to visual how it must have been for them then. Thank you Ancestry.com for all your updates, so we have more time to spend with our families, no matter how we spend that time with them.

May 31, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Kimberly Hogan-Morley 

I like the new features in theory, but the reality is that it is not a little bug- there are some major problems with the new software. In two days, I have had two people in my tree assigned to new parents, and the system will not allow me to delete anything. I have tried deleting events, relationships, and the individual. Nothing works. I am going to wait to work on anything until the bug is fixed. I think that ancestry should give a rebate on fees for the inconvenience caused by errors and several days of wasting my time. My e-mail received a high volume /delayed response answer.

May 31, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Rick Cwiakala 

This merge feature still doesn’t work. Can you let me know when it will be fixed so I can try it then? Thanks.

May 31, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Robin Mina 

Regarding the “INVALID OR UNAUTHORIZED INPUT HAS BEEN DETECTED” error message that occurs when a record fails to attach, could it be related to spelling permutations of names? I tried repeatedly attaching an 1850 census to a person I’d already named “Betsy.” After I changed the spelling of the person’s name in my index to match the record, which was “Betsey,” then the record attached. Haven’t tried to duplicate it yet, though.

I’d really like to see answers to posts 6, 18, 29, 39, 43, 56, & 63 that reference the error message and inability to attach records; and answers to posts 12, 21, 27, 38, 57 & 63 that reference the problem that creates an unwanted new person when attaching relatives’ records with name permutations.

Thanks.

May 31, 2008 at 7:34 pm
L 

This is such a time saver!!! It’s great!!!

May 31, 2008 at 7:50 pm
James Cooper 

I have been having problems for the past two days trying to add information in one of your ancestry hints, such as a census record. When I try to add it to my tree I get the following message on screen.

“Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected ”
There is a problem servicing your request—it contains invalid or unauthorized data. The details of the problem have been automatically logged to our servers.

If you feel that you have reached this page in error, use your browser’s Back button to identify the page and data that caused the problem. Then re-enter the information.

It does no good to re-enter the information I still get no where. This is very frustrating! Can you fix this problem ASAP?

May 31, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Jessica West 

I have used the new feature several times already and love it. It really saves time and is incredibly useful. I like that it can be used for various documents.

May 31, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Alison (greysky148) 

Now the bugs seem to have been shaken out the new features on the site are great. The new way to link all the relatives on a census report in one hit is great and being able to see a list off all ancestors with ancestry hints I’ve found really helpful.

June 1, 2008 at 2:22 am
vhiddai 

BUG BUG BUG

INVALID OR UNAUTHORISED INPUT HAS BEEN DETECTED

Simply tried to attach a census record without any editing or adjustment

June 1, 2008 at 4:17 am
vhiddai 

Was the input invalid or was it unauthorised? In what way was it invalid or why was it unauthorised? Simply to be told to go back and redo it is not helpful. Error messages should DETECT the type of error, LOCATE where it lies and INSTRUCT how to correct. I learned this as a programmer in the 1960s !

June 1, 2008 at 4:27 am
RAMONA JOYCE SHEARD 

This is an absolutley brilliant idea, it helps with all the confusion and it doesn’t take too much time., as well it helps with our arthritic fingers and hands.keep up the great progress.Thanks for keeping us occupied and for so much information.You have really made it so much easier, and cuts down all that extra time ,when we can easily ,and quickly find more family. i don’t know what i would’ve done without the Ancestry.MANY THANKS

June 1, 2008 at 5:29 am
Omar Arnason 

This new merging feature has worked like a dream when I´m not using Canadians of Icelandic descent. Then this invariably happens:

Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected
There is a problem servicing your request—it contains invalid or unauthorized data. The details of the problem have been automatically logged to our servers.

If you feel that you have reached this page in error, use your browser’s Back button to identify the page and data that caused the problem. Then re-enter the information.

June 1, 2008 at 6:00 am
RAMONA JOYCE SHEARD 

i don’t know why every-one is complaining about, this is a wonderful concept.,could you also add family information on FAMILY HEREDITRY ILLNESSES that people have died from.this i’m sure will be very beneficual to any FAMILY.it will be great for any living relatives and particularly for each generation to come. I’m having a ball on ANCESTRY,and it also helps one to get to know other family tree members ,even if they are not quite the ones you are looking for .,but with the INVITES ,one can get to know other people.,who maybe in some slight chanse might know them.plus one can get to become friends, in ones own STATE or OVERSEAS by EMAIL. There is so much to GAIN by ANCESTRY. So stop and think how grateful one has to gain by just being calm and collected. I’m still trying to find out if my dad has any BROTHERS AND SISTERS but remember GOOD THINGS COMES TO THOSE WHO WAIT. i don’t mind waiting.The FAMILY LINKS WILL SOON COME TOGETHER AND ITS WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD WHEN YOU FINALY FIND YOUR MISSING RELATIVES.So people just relax -have FUN, and be very grateful to ANCESTRY for their most wonderful their GIFT to everyone.,for without them we would’nt be were we are TODAY.MANY, MANY THANKS FOR THIS WONDERFUL SITE. You are to be CONMENDABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR EVERY-ONE, PAST AND PRESENT.

June 1, 2008 at 6:29 am
RAMONA JOYCE SHEARD 

i don’t know why every-one is complaining about, this is a wonderful concept.,could you also add family information on FAMILY HEREDITRY ILLNESSES that people have died from.this i’m sure will be very beneficual to any FAMILY.it will be great for any living relatives and particularly for each generation to come. I’m having a ball on ANCESTRY,and it also helps one to get to know other family tree members ,even if they are not quite the ones you are looking for .,but with the INVITES ,one can get to know other people.,who maybe in some slight chanse might know them.plus one can get to become friends, in ones own STATE or OVERSEAS by EMAIL. There is so much to GAIN by ANCESTRY. So stop and think how grateful one has to gain by just being cool, calm and collected. I’m still trying to find out if my dad has any BROTHERS AND SISTERS but remember GOOD THINGS COMES TO THOSE WHO WAIT. i don’t mind waiting.The FAMILY LINKS WILL SOON COME TOGETHER AND ITS WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD WHEN YOU FINALY FIND YOUR MISSING RELATIVES.So people just relax -have FUN, and be very grateful to ANCESTRY for their most wonderful .,their GIFT to everyone.,for without them we would’nt be were we are TODAY.MANY, MANY THANKS FOR THIS WONDERFUL SITE. You are to be CONMENDABLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR EVERY-ONE, PAST AND PRESENT.

June 1, 2008 at 6:36 am
Charles Powell 

Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected: Reproduce as follows:

Ancestry user: cepowell53
Tree: Charles Emmitt Powell 1953
Census person: 1910 US Federal Census Lee W Venable, b abt 1884, residence White Bread, Caddo, Oklahoma
Tree person: William Lee VENABLE, born 08 Mar 1885

What may be odd: this census record is in my shoebox

Click add (residence) as an Alternate Fact > Click Add to Your Tree.

Response is: Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected
There is a problem servicing your request—it contains invalid or unauthorized data. The details of the problem have been automatically logged to our servers.

Delete the census record from the shoebox. > try again clicking Name Add as Alternate Fact > Residence add as alternate fact > Add to your tree.

Response is the same: Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected

I’ve tried 1900 and 1910 census on this person with same error.

June 1, 2008 at 6:59 am
Carol 

I LOVE being able to add family members from census records! It’s a great timesaver! Good Job!

June 1, 2008 at 8:07 am
Matthew 

I can’t figure out how this works at all – I don’t see any indication of it in the interface. Will someone please explain on what screen and where I should see something different along these lines? I’ve looked and looked, and I can’t figure out what’s changed…

Thanks,

Matthew

June 1, 2008 at 9:15 am
brenda wilkinson 

help!!! i can not attatch any records it hasn’ t made any difference what record i”m trying to attach, just like comments 43 and 73. in theory if it would attach it seems that it would be a timesaver.
i also have been having trouble with viewing the pedigree chart in the family view page any help would be appreciated. thanks

June 1, 2008 at 9:17 am
James Morris 

This merge enhancement is fantastic. I find it especially useful when I encounter another child. I can add the child, the source AND the record at one time – and put the child directly into the family.
Thanks for the constant updates. I also like the list of persons in the tree with hits – all in one place.
I guess I have not noticed the slow down since I moved to high speed access about the same time. I must be lucky. I think I would have been crazy by now if I were still on dial up!

June 1, 2008 at 9:33 am
lynn seamark 

This is a great time saving feature. However the relationships don’t seem to always make sense.
I’m linking a husband – the wife shows up fine – but none of the kids? though they are already in my tree and the names match closely with the ones in the census. It doesn’t pick up step parents or step children.

June 1, 2008 at 10:16 am
Robin Mina 

Post #85 about “INVALID OR UNAUTHORIZED INPUT HAS BEEN DETECTED”

Charles:

I’ve tried several ways as well. None of my records were shoeboxed, and clicking on alternate facts didn’t help me either. I thought it might be name permutations, but no longer.

Here are some other records that won’t attach:

Ancestry user: robinjoamanda
Tree: Huber Family Tree
Census person: Augustus E McEwen, 1880 US Federal Census, residence Lawrence, Saint Lawrence, New York, age 46, abt 1834
Tree person: AUGUSTUS E McEwen, born 17 Jan 1834

Ancestry user: robinjoamanda
Tree: Huber Family Tree
Census person: Otto Kammerer, 1900 US Federal Census, residence Mankato Ward 1, Blue Earth, Minnesota, age 23, abt 1877
Tree Person: OTTO LOUIS FERDINAND Kammerer, born 10 Jun 1876

Robin

June 1, 2008 at 10:48 am
vhiddai 

URGENT REPAIR NEEDED

See #6,#39,#56,#63,#74,#76,#82,#85

While the trick suggested in #74 may work, it is timeconsuming and we all want to get on with attaching records.

Do you detect a note of irritation?

June 1, 2008 at 11:01 am
Robin Mina 

About the error attaching records, here are two more if this helps any–they’re occurring on the same profile page:

Ancestry user: robinjoamanda
Tree: Huber Family Tree
Census person: Henry Uber, 1900 US Federal Census, residence Reading Ward 9, Berks, Pennsylvania, born abt 1842 [Record is shoeboxed]
Tree person: HENRY Huber, born Jul 1841

Ancestry user: robinjoamanda
Tree: Huber Family Tree
Census person: Henry Huber, 1880 US Federal Census, residence Reading, Berks, Pennsylvania, born abt 1842 [Record is in hints]
Tree person: HENRY Huber, born Jul 1841

June 1, 2008 at 11:15 am
Yvonne Savage 

Why won’t the “new improved program” let me save census information to the names I select???

June 1, 2008 at 11:45 am
Linda Doorbar 

Wonderful feature, I’ve been pointed in the right direction for quite a few new names. Many thanks. Linda.

June 1, 2008 at 12:00 pm
michelle harte 

Regarding Lucy Lem – was this not in fact Hannah Goate’s granddaughter.

Lucy Fulcher married Charles lefoy Leni.

June 1, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Penny McKenzie 

I really love this feature. It saves so much time. I would like to see an option to “choose all” instead of having to choose each person separately to save even more time. Thank you so much for this new feature. Looking forward to other new things. Would certainly love to see a descendancy tree.

June 1, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Robert Malay 

I’ve tried to attach both a 1920 US Census entry and an immigration manifest to an existing individual – neither work, I get the “INVALID OR UNAUTHORIZED INPUT HAS BEEN DETECTED” for every attempt.

This really, really stinks – put things back the way they were – given the varying name permutations and birth dates on census records and manifests your “solution” only makes the process even harder now.

June 1, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Karen B Kontrath 

I do not like this merge at all. I thought it was a good idea and that it would attach the census to all the children in that census that went the parents. Instead it has added them so now I have two sets of children that are actually the same people with just different spellings. I think a little more work needs to be done or this. I understand my lack of knowledge about this feature didnt exactly help, but now I have to figure out how to delete the extra kids and get the census attached to kids as I have them spelled.

June 1, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Evelyn 

I am trying to save a document from 1920 census to my tree and I keep getting the following message: “Invalid or Unauthorized Input has been detected” etc. I tried my other computers just incase it was a certain pc but the problem continues. What can I do?

June 1, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Jane McClure 

This is working well for me most of the time. Next, it would be great to be able to correct the misspelled family name of an entire family at once.

June 1, 2008 at 7:31 pm
hilary wood 

love this feature !
it does create quite a few duplicates though, even when everything seems in order and i am being careful. i didnt mind that until i suddenly lost the ability to delete people this week, so for now i am stuck with my duplicates.( brand new mac with safari browser)

June 2, 2008 at 12:58 am
hilary wood 

having just said that, i now find delete is working again today – many thanks for quick fix !

June 2, 2008 at 2:08 am
jeri mork 

If I merge a name of a relative, will this add an extra name even if they are already in my tree and I only want to add the fact that they are on this particular census?

jeri

June 2, 2008 at 2:47 am
vhiddai 

URGENT BUGFIX NEEDED URGENT

Problem first reported in #6, May 29.

No sign of an answer or action.

Would appreciate a response about the E.T.A. of the fix as it is presently impossible to attach census records and sources.

June 2, 2008 at 2:57 am
Karen Wisler 

Great time saver. Just used it this past week and was thrilled how much time was saved in merging the census to family members.

June 2, 2008 at 4:15 am
Cathy Strickland 

Thank you for this new search engine. It saves me a lot of time and typing. It makes it so much easier to add family members all in one record.

June 2, 2008 at 4:46 am
Robin Mina 

Two small problems:
1. When locating people in the index to attach records to, please allow “enter” to work rather than having to click on SEARCH.

2. In the event description line, typing quotation marks suddenly turns up as "….So if I enter quotation marks around a name ["Augustus"], it will show up in the description line as "Augustus"

The two large problems:
Now that it’s Monday, hope you will address 1) the INVALID OR UNAUTHORIZED INPUT HAS BEEN DETECTED problem and 2) the problem merging records of relatives that creates a duplicate person.

Thanks!
Robin

June 2, 2008 at 5:47 am
Kenny Freestone 

RE: comments about “Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected”

Thanks to all who have posted comments about this bug. We believe we have a fix for it, and hope to roll it to the site soon.

Basically it has to do with certain characters (such as ]/[#%) in your family tree which may be misinterpreted by our servers as javascript code. Our servers are a persnickity lot and won’t allow that, so we’re working to resolve this in a way our servers can handle politely.

We apologize for the frustration this has caused.

Kenny

June 2, 2008 at 7:51 am
Patricia 

I really like the ‘idea’ of this feature but it’s not very ‘user friendly’ yet. I think it needs to be tweeked a bit more.
For example – This time around, I am attempting to add the wife, which it allows me to do but there are 9 children that appear in the record but only the 3rd child appears below to select and THEN when I attempt to select the one child that DOES show, it gives an error and doesn’t allow me to add that child.
On other occasions, I want to add children and because there is a variation of some sort in the record, it adds the children as OTHER Children from another marriage. I didn’t realize it had done this so I had to go back and delete said added children – instead of it merging them into the children that were already there.
It is a nice thought but it needs to be worked out so there are perhaps more options for saving and not so much automation which just seems to end up creating MORE busy work and time spent trying to keep things straight instead of searching through the records.

June 2, 2008 at 8:15 am
Robin Mina 

Kenny, thanks very much. It’s good to know.

June 2, 2008 at 8:30 am
Janie Walker 

I love the new feature where you can add additional info from the Census records. It makes things so much faster. Before you would have to take all this other info down and then add it to the other person’s family. Thanks so much for this new feature. Janie Walker

June 2, 2008 at 8:57 am
Robert Malay 

RE: comments about “Invalid or Unauthorized Input Has Been Detected”

Basically it has to do with certain characters (such as ]/[#%) in your family tree which may be misinterpreted by our servers as javascript code.

The other characters that may be causing issues are the Unicode characters – i.e., Eastern European, Slovak, etc

June 2, 2008 at 9:21 am
Liz 

This new merge feature is brilliant – it is saving me so much time. As you rightly point at it needs to be handled with care, but it is excellent. thasnk you!

June 2, 2008 at 9:41 am
vhiddai 

re #109 & #113

The explanation is OK but we didn’t have this problem before, even if those characters were there!

So this has happened as a result of your changes to the record merge.

Looking forward to your fix.

June 2, 2008 at 10:35 am
carolyn 

I was corresponding with someone who merged a name in my tree. can he do that without my permission/knowledge?
Can I remove it and associated names?carolyn

June 2, 2008 at 11:03 am
Kenny Freestone 

In response to comment 116…

Another user can merge a name FROM your tree if your tree is public and the name is not of a person we believe to be living.

Another user cannot add a name IN or TO your tree unless that user is invited by you to be an editor in your tree.

Kenny

June 2, 2008 at 11:31 am
vhiddai 

re: #113

A further thought about the comment concerning UNICODE characters –

Remember that this character set is designed to facilitate the globalisation of software !!

‘Nuf said.

June 2, 2008 at 11:36 am
Dale Frank 

Since this new feature was implemented, I can no longer merge information, family trees or otherwise, without receiving an error that the data is invalid or unauthorized.

June 2, 2008 at 11:38 am
Susan Curley 

This is SUCH a timesaver!! THANKS!!! My only problem is that when there are family members with other surnames, they aren’t listed as possible relatives, so you have to go to those persons & pull the file up for them. Hoping this will soon be fixed as well! :)

June 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
vhiddai 

re #119

Dale – welcome to the club. This has been going on since 29 may.

June 2, 2008 at 12:41 pm
stan walker 

the hints are great!! but messy it puts two three and sometimes more listings of the same person. when i try to clean up this mess it will sometimes remove all listings of the one i remove. how about under “relationships” or someweres a “MERGE” to get rid of duplicate entries

June 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Larry Preston 

When pulling information from 1905 census the family feature didnot pull the family but someother person from the census. It did pull the mother and one out of four sons.

June 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Pat Dickey 

Much frustration — multiple Hints display on the person page, but the link loads in the new GUI page without any hints displayed -also, loading docs with the image viewer used to just cause Firefox to crash – now it’s IE browser as well.

You folks also have a major conflict (read browser crash) issue with Norton 360 2008 version 2.0 that causes Firefox (and now possibly IE) to bomb whenever a records image is launched — I’ve seen this issued listed in here before..when will a fix be coming? Norton points to Ancestry content scripting as the issue.

I agree that a BETA issue was needed before unleashing this nasty beast of an “upgrade” on the paying public. I am hamstrung and this takes all the fun away, folks.

June 2, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Craig 

I absolutely hate the upgrade! Each time I add a name from the census records, the screen then jumps to that person, instead of staying on the census record so I can add the other people.

Also, when adding locations from the main person page, the “auto” tab doesn’t pop-up underneath to let me pick a place I’ve typed in before.

June 2, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Dale Frank 

Sorry but I am not impressed with the new merge function – primarily because I have yet to do it successfully! I receive the message ‘invalid or unauthorized data’ and a Vista indication that the Ancestry security is corrupted. Please put the old software back so that I can get on with my family tree—that or consider refunding my annual dues.

June 2, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Mary Edwards 

I really like this feature. The only thing that I would like to see is like the family tree, where you can select all members at one time, then only have to review them and uncheck what you don’t want.

June 2, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Dale Frank 

There was a comment made in a previous comment that the invalid data error was caused by the presence of a special character or Eastern European character. My attempted merge couldn’t be more ‘vanilla’. It is a single line census record and there are no characters other than a-z and .,
The failure is consistent. I have spent the last 40 years in software design and development and as a development manager, I would have terminated anyone who signed off any alpha or beta test report of a piece of software that is this dirty!!

June 2, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Judy Weiss 

I love the new record merge feature where you can add all family members at one time. When people have several children with them, it is a real time saver

June 2, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Carl Taylor 

This new feature is great. It makes it so mch easier to add sources to multiple faily members.
Thanks so much.

June 2, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Viv Emnott 

Looking forward to advancements but finding myself disappointed when I’m in the middle of merging and then finding myself at this moment as I’m asked to comment on something I cannot download!!
In these precious moments before bedtime I feel I’ve been robbed!!

June 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Pippa Cain 

Fantastic – this new feature will save me hours of tedious inputting! Many thanks! Am now watching out for the problems other people have been commenting on… so far so good for me though!

June 3, 2008 at 2:03 am
Terry Morgan 

Hi A postive comment!
Thanks for the additional merge facility. It’s excellent and very helpful in compiling the information to “cement” some facts together and corroborate information.
My only slightly negative comment (sorry) would be in relation to the home page of the Ancestry site…it does seem to take time to fully load even with Broadband at 5Mb.

June 3, 2008 at 4:39 am
Angela Webendorfer 

Love it! Please add a feature where you can choose someone already existing on your tree to attach the record to – lots of people use nicknames or middle names on the census records that this feature currently doesn’t recognize! Once you can choose the person this will be perfect!!!!!!

June 3, 2008 at 7:10 am
Patricia Olson 

I love the feature, but it does take using with care. Could you possibly move the link For Seeing the List of Relatives away from the Add to Tree button? Several times I have clicked the add to tree when I really wanted to see who else was possible. They are just too close.

June 3, 2008 at 8:41 am
Deborah Head 

Brilliant tool thanks

June 3, 2008 at 10:42 am
vhiddai 

Re #128

Dale, I couldn’t agree with you more.

What is worse is the comment mentioning UNICODE characters. The way it was written by Robert Malay it looks like an excuse. For one thing, such technicalities will mean nothing to many people.

More important, this character set is designed to facilitate globalisation of software – maybe the designers forgot that.

June 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Carrie Marc 

Love it!!

June 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm
jean 

designers is that what they are i had the idea that they were just

‘A BUNCH OF COWBOYS’

thats how we would refer to a group (or person) here in the uk who says they are able to do a job. but when they do it you find they use the cheepest method and more to the point they have no knowlage of how to do the job in the first place and in the end it all falls apart and this causes a bigger problem than when they started. thats if they have not distroyed it first. the end result what they do is worthless.

June 4, 2008 at 3:47 am
llwoodbury 

I love this feature and would be thrilled if there was a way to confirm presence of information.
“Warning, this person has a record “1910 Census” attached.” or “Warning, this name is in your Family Tree”
That way the flag can be reviewed before going further.

Thank you!

June 4, 2008 at 7:04 am
angela 

I absolutely !!!LOVE!!! this new feature. When new family members are found on records this way, you don’t have to enter every one by hand. FABULOUS!!!!
I only wish that in “SEARCH” you could narrow down to a particular county of the state THEN search for name within the county.

June 4, 2008 at 10:35 am
Cindy Richards 

Why can’t I attach census records to my tree? Worked fine before. That’s part of the reason I pay for this site. It helps build my family Tree. HELP!!!!!

June 4, 2008 at 10:52 am
Suzanne Hunter 

1. When I have a census record of the first qife the merge has on occasion brought up only the second wife and I cannot merge the information for the first wife. There should be a way to scroll through spouses in the merge.

Another problem I have run into that may have a way around it, is to add a child of one of the children. It will not let me merge the information because I have no way to designate the parent.

Can you help me with these at all?

Thanks

Suzanne Hunter

June 4, 2008 at 11:16 am
Eleanor 

Can not add the children on this hint.

June 4, 2008 at 3:41 pm
shirley sinclair 

Why is it when you ignore hints that the green leaf still appears on that person’s name apart from that the new merge page is come into the 21st century

June 4, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Donna Dallman 

I really like the new feature. I see a lot of people with negative comments, but I do not agree with most of them. I work with this every day, all day, and this will help speed up my progress.
Yes, the website has been slow – real slow.
One thing I would like for you to add, is the “select all relatives” or “unselect all relatives”. I know you are trying to keep people from just adding “all”, but everyone must take responsibility for their own tree. To be able to “select all relatives” would be better than checking each box all the way down the line.
I DO like the new feature!
Now, if you would just make the “merge two individuals” possible, I would be delirious!!!!!
Thanks
Donna

June 4, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Carole 

All of you people who love the merge feature are careless.

You don’t even know if you are merging correct information into your tree.

I have written before about my family tree that has been compiled by another family member with wrong people in it, and this tree is now being copied over and over by people like you, who are merging freaks.

I just found another tree in the new AMT system, put together by someone who merged hints carelessly. They have my great great grandmother being born in 1829 with the wrong name. The person they merged into their tree was my great great grandmother’s grandmother’s sister. It’s insane. I wrote to the tree owner and of course there was no response. Where did this person merge that wrong person from?

Why from the One World Tree of course!

And guess what? People like you are merging this insanely wrong person into your very own trees because the merge feature is so darn wonderful.

None of you know what you are doing.

June 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Carole 

To Post #146 —

You work all day, every day, merging people into your tree?

Do you back up the information you are taking with documentation?

Do you order birth, death and marriage information?

Do you check cemteries for burials and find out what other family members are buried near that particular person?

Do you obtain military information?

Do you go through the school enumermation records and verify dates, locations and how many children were in that family.

Do you verify that the children you are taking from someone else’s tree are actually the children of those parents?

I have books for counties that have guardian and foster parent information in them, and many of those children that are listed with parents are actually children from other families, listed on censuses with the wrong last names.

School records also list the correct last names.

Do you check court records for divorces? There are marriages and children that are unaccounted for and not in Ancestry.com’s records. You have to go to the County and go through the records.

You have to source your information and back it up with documentation.

Working frantically all day every day merging people into your tree is sloppy and I’ll bet a large majority of the information you are taking is wrong.

June 4, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Anita 

Its a good idea, but someone thinks its funny to change place of birth, marriage, death and so instead of hampshire, england they change it to hampshire, USA………….

June 5, 2008 at 2:15 am
lynn seamark 

I truely love this new feature, but I see some hangups that are consistant. If the spelling of a name in the database is different than that in my tree – it doesn’t find the relative. I am working on one family now that the son is listed by a middle name and the linking to relatives wants to add a new child. It also doesn’t allow a choice – if a second spouse has a similar name to the first. I’m finding that I rarely can link to an entire family, some in the census just don’t get matched up with the tree.

June 5, 2008 at 9:23 am
Donna Dallman 

This feedback area is to report what customers think of the new software features = not what the customers think of each other.
I must say to #147 and #148 – that both of you are pretty CONCEITED to ASSUME that you know what I am doing with my tree. I am NOT “working frantically” all day “MERGING” names into my tree. I work ALL DAY, EVERY DAY, searching and researching names to put in my tree. I do NOT just slap in a bunch of names from One World Tree!
What you two need to do, is just answer the question that Kenny asked you about the SOFTWARE features – and let the rest of us take care of our own trees, even though as #147 said = “None of us know what we are doing.”

June 5, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ken Weaver 

Hints that are incorrect ones persist even after I’ve checked them out. Is there a way to deactivate a single particular hint that you’ve figured out doesn’t apply?

June 5, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Clare Short 11 

Please when I merge I some to have duplicate people on my Ancestry.com listing. SO I have gone back to delete them, Then have deleted some that I needed to keep: Is there anyway to merge those duplcate people on my family listing.

June 5, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Karen Gmyr 

I love the feature (though I’m still unsure how to use it fully) but I can’t seem to find the previously accepted hints for people who don’t show new hints. How do I access these?

Also, I was going to use this for a 1930 census record, but since the extracted names did not match the family names I have (and if you look at the record you can see that my names are actually correct) it tried adding the children as new individuals. Is there a way to request that the merge family records search for possible matches based on parents and ages or allow you to select someone from your existing tree without having to go through the old fashioned way of adding each individual? And once someone is added is there a way to flag the record with the “alternate” name without having to submit a separate report?

June 5, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Marilyn 

I hate the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a FIX for the viewer, I’ve done everything, resetting the security, tried to go to C: Prompt to type it in…before a new item comes along they need to get the bugs out of this one, without us getting so frustrated. I’m ready to just throw in the towel.

June 5, 2008 at 2:55 pm
George 

After merging an item, that needs to indicate that it has been merged. And/or mark it to check later.

George

June 5, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Chris 

Would love to be able to save an entire set of census records instead of having to save each page seperately (i.e. one click to save all pages for the 1900 US Fed Census for District X, City, County, State). Many of the older records have my family members on every single page. Becomes a pain to save each page.

June 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Laura A Bunyard 

Hello,

Good idea if the record has been transcribed correctly. If it has, it saves time. If not, then I have to go back to the actual copy and dig the information up. Not very time saving, eh?

June 5, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Laura A Bunyard 

Hmmmmmmmm. German, eh? I knew it weren’t Spanish or French. That aside, I am quite perplexed by the bad adding of family members as in people under 10 having children or the child being merged into a family 200 years older. People born and died on the same day and giving birth after that. Parents born in another country and the children born in at least two or three different states in the USA or the country. In the 17th,18th and 19th century people travelled by ship to the new world. They didn’t go back and forth from England to the new world. I have two more months on my subscription and I am spending too much time on correcting the bad information I run across or dealing with the merge feature when it tells me it can’t do what I’m asking it to do and then I go back and enter all the people on the record manually and go to the spouse and it works fine and I have two of everyone to weed out. What’s going on?

June 5, 2008 at 9:17 pm
rose sewell 

I love this new feature, appreciate your words of caution, but this is beautiful…thank you, thank you. I found it quick and easy to link this to my existing people. I discovered a while back that it helps to review the original document, add any new people and then attach the record. I will have to test this new feature for creating new people and then attaching the record. But I love the time savings and less effort in double checking the facts to ensure all members on a record have the same updated comments/details I add.

I am also pleased to see the feedback of others, I feel less alone as I see I was not the only one with an issue and can save time spent second guessing my difficulty. Another good move.

As for the latest changes to searches, it is taking some time to adjust to the new process and it has been slower but only because I have to adjust my search approach. I appreciate your upgrade efforts and opportunity to test and provide feedback.

June 5, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Cindy Acton 

I have a problem with this new feature. If I try adding all family for a census record when the family is already in my family tree, it will find the father and children but not the wife. If I add the whole family, I’ll end up with the children listed again with an unknown mother or two entries for the wife. There doesn’t seem to be a way to add a census record for the whole family and assign the wife’s info to her maiden name.

June 5, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Dorothy M Lewis 

Being able to add data to an entire family at the same time is absolutely AWESOME… Thank You!

Now, if only you could add another merge feature so that I could check for duplicate individuals. As careful as I try to be, duplicates occasionally happen, since it’s hard remembering everything about 5,000+ individuals.

June 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Katy 

This is great!

It would be wonderful if you could add the ‘Select Someone Already in Your Tree’ link for those entries with initials or misspellings.

June 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Carol Van Cleef 

This is a wonderful feature. So far it has worked great. The only ‘problem’ I see so far, is not being given the option to attach the record to children that Ancestry doesn’t automatically match up, like “Molly B.” on the record not automatically pulling “Mollie Belle” out of my tree. I am amazed at how well it does, but would like the option of making manual matches for ones you miss. Thanks for the cool new tool! And I must say, after looking at some of the other comments, there are a lot of impatient people out there! No news there, but I didn’t think genealogists were among them! Remember the days of searching indexes by hand and writing the courthouses, praying for a sympathetic clerk?? Relax!

June 6, 2008 at 5:25 am
Mary Jane Cook 

Perhaps you can address two questions for me. Is there someplace to enter Significant Other as opposed to Married? Also, I used to be able to search for Duplicate individuals but now it seems like you have to KNOW the duplicates before merging (specific individuals). Thanks

June 6, 2008 at 5:29 am
Lucy Feckner 

I would like to see a merge option for duplicate people… is there such a think like on family tree maker… Lucy

June 6, 2008 at 5:51 am
Bob 

Kenny How do you use this new Merge feature and were is it?, I must be dumb(can I get a job at Ancestry?)

June 6, 2008 at 6:21 am
Carole 

#151 Donna -

I see that you have been designated the Blog Police for this particular Blog. Thank you for your attempt to put me in my place.

However, you need to be aware that the subject of this particular blog line has nothing to do with software, but is about the new record merge feature, of which I commented about. I am on subject.

THE RECORD MERGE FEATURE IS FLAWED in that the thousands of people using it do not know if they are taking correct information, yet these incorrect records are being merged over and over again into thousands of trees, being printed out into family books, so on and so forth.

What I wrote obviously went right over your head.

June 6, 2008 at 8:11 am
Gill Holmes 

The new merge feature is excellent and saves a lot of time. Two things that would improve it (if it is possible in the future – I’m not complaining!):
The spouse’s (mother’s) name shows as the married name on the merge – I have to be careful to go to hide options and remove the married name before it records it. It would be very helpful if the surname appeared as a blank for married women.

I have already accidentally duplicated children when the name differed slightly – it would help if other children of the couple who do not appear on that census appeared in the right hand column – it would be immediately be apparent if there were duplicates then.

Thanks and keep up the good work

June 6, 2008 at 8:20 am
Cynthia Harp 

Your new search still stinks. The person I just checked never lived outside the U.S.A. but the majority of things for Birth, Marriage and Death are for the U.K., four out of five. This is a well documented person and her birth and death places are present in my database. I’ve always thought the search needed improvements. When I enter a persons name I expect info on a person of that name in the various spelling, not people totally unrelated. If I search for a Rebecca X I don’t want to scan through names such as David X. I’ll look up David later. At that moment all I want is Rebecca. I waste time that could be used finding actual info going through page after page of people often times in different countries let alone different names. If I want stuff on children and spouses I’ll look them up. It would take less time than it does now. If I do the more detailed search it never turns up anything, says no records found. Then in the general search there might be several things right off the bat. It’s frustrating to say the least. I hope this makes some sense, I get rilled up when I try to explain it to others. Otherwise I’ve found many records and useful things here. I have so many people in my database and hate to waste time.

June 6, 2008 at 8:27 am
Jeff 

This option saves a lot of time I really appreciate the thought you have put into it. I have 2000 people in my tree and adding all the time, so this is a big benefit.

June 6, 2008 at 9:09 am
Cindy Jones 

I haven’t used this new feature yet, but judging from the comments posted here, a person can truely benefit from the time saved; IF one is careful. No amount of “soft-ware” is going to replace the accuracy of a live, human person. I’ve been a subscriber for over a year now. The amount of information I have gotten through all the records is awesome. But, the most dear and most accurate information has come from Ancestry members that I have met. I’m talking about all of the relatives I have met—AND NEVER KNEW I HAD! So, although this “ancestry thing” ( as my daughter puts it ) can get a bit frustrating, I can’t think of a better way to spend a rainy afternoon. Thank you Kenny, and everyone at Ancestry.com!!

June 6, 2008 at 9:33 am
Lynn 

Thanks for this wonderful new software feature. Thanks to Kenny and the ancestry team for listening to the members regarding new AMT software features.

I hope that you can improve it one step further so that when the software is not able to match to someone already in the family group, that we could manually select the person from the tree that needs to have the historical record attached to. This new feature will be a big help also when the 1940 census comes out.

And #148 and #168 Carole,
We are getting a little tired of you.
Do you think you are the ONLY person who knows what they are doing? You sound like it.
Most of us know our families very well, and we are using this new software feature to attach the historical record sources and citations to our family already in the tree. You apparantly are only posting on this blog to complain and ridicule. You direct your posts directly to members you KNOW NOTHING about. If someone dares post something positive in these blogs, there you are posting how we all know nothing.

June 6, 2008 at 10:19 am
Robert 

I would like FTM 2008 to include the feature of syncing my software with online tree account. It’s a pain to try to keep both trees updated.

June 6, 2008 at 11:25 am
Jimmie L. Phillips 

I am having problems getting census records to open when I access them. I have the newest download feature but it just keeps blinking and want let me open the census file.
Thanks
Jimmie

June 6, 2008 at 11:50 am
Jimmie L. Phillips 

I really enjoy the new merging system it helps me grow my tree faster, and sure you can make mistakes so you have to be sure you have the right people.
Also I wish you would come up with a merge system, that will merge people I already have in my tree with the exact same new person if they match. My home tree has this capability so you don’t get to many of the same people.
Thanks
Jimmie

June 6, 2008 at 11:54 am
vhiddai 

re: #147, #148, #151, #168, #171

First, please will you ladies stop getting personal and retract your claws or go somewhere else to do it.

Second – the new merge feature which now seems to be bugfree (thank you Kenny.)

I learned long ago not to trust, blindly, automatic offerings generated by software. But then, I’ve been working with computers since 1966 when I was a programmer. (Yes. There were computers even then!)

I check the ANCESTRY offerings as best I can (#148 !) When, and only if, I am satisfied I either attach the suggestions ONE AT A TIME or enter the info by hand. A methodology that is old-fashioned, long-winded and very safe. I don’t get any of the problems that many of you are suffering; there are no duplications (as far as I know) in my tree and all of the names are consistent. Alternative spellings are no problem – the human brain is quite good at detecting them.

It’s up to you what you choose to merge into your family tree, using this software. Kenny is right in his advice. If the software offers nonsense and you merge it blindly into your tree, not only is it your own fault but also nobody else has the right to criticise you or blame you for perpetuating nonsense. The fact that perhaps the nonsense came from someone equally careless as you is irrelevant. And if you’ve done it through inexperience, you’ve learned the hard way. At least – hopefully you will have learned after having spent the time to correct the nonsense.

If you want to build a complete family tree without real research effort, ANCESTRY will help you to do it and quite painlessly, too. Don’t complain later or request / suggest even more automatic features to overcome the difficulties you then experience. In this blog, it seems that many of you are doing just that!

Reflect! ANCESTRY (i.m.h.o.) is about connecting people. And that really works. But it is NOT a good genealogy system; there are much better ones. Instead, use it to find the reliable info that is out there and then be selective.

Finally – I find it odd to see people describe this new merge as ‘awesome’. It does not at all fill me with awe. (Maybe I’m cynical or perhaps my vocabulary comes from an earlier, British generation?)

June 6, 2008 at 11:59 am
Rachel Dawkins 

Very pleased to see info on the Oakleys who are my direct desendents. Edward Oakley was married to LAVINIA Smith.They were married on December 26th 1876 at St Mary’s church Luton. Her brother was Rodney Smith a famous traveling evangelist. I do have more information if you are interested.

June 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Amy Drake 

I love the merge, the only thing that I feel is missing is the link to select all relatives like you have when you link a family tree.

June 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Virginia Ullrich-Serna 

The new merge is great but I wish that it would allow for misspelling of names either on the census or in the transcription.

I wish you had an undo feature.

Keep up the good work. Even WOW has an update or fix a week. May be you should consider their tact and have a few hours a week in which you do site maintenance. They close down from 1am to 11am PST every Tuesday.

:0 Virginia

June 6, 2008 at 12:52 pm
vhiddai 

#181

UNDO is the one thing that is missing throughout ANCESTRY but one can understand he difficulty of implementing it !!

June 6, 2008 at 1:29 pm
vhiddai 

Sorry. Meant that to be #180

June 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm
vhiddai 

As for updates and fixes you have to reckon with times that are convenient world wide. Which they are not !

For me, ANCESTRY is appallingly slow between 16:00 and 18:00 GMT and you can work that out for yourself, whichever time-zone you are in.

I’ve long since stopped being frustrated except that I sometimes wish that Americans would recognise that Europe exists.

June 6, 2008 at 1:34 pm
vhiddai 

For me it is now around 9:40 pm !

June 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm
vhiddai 

And for those who are just about to load http://www.ancestry.co.au it is now just before 7:00 am on Saturday.

You cannot win !

June 6, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Alice Hornbeck 

I think it is great. I’m out of time to fill in everything I wish. Why do I have such a hard time adding marriage dates and places? I just joined ancestry a week ago so it is new to me. I do see mistakes or unproven or questionable stuff. I add as alternative. It’s all great!

June 6, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Cindy 

Like the ability to add records to all relatives and the new header showing parents, spouse and children of the person being searched.

It would be even better if…
– there was a ‘manual match’ option for times when I have the person in my tree but the record has spelled their name differently.
– it seems to require selecting a spouse even if my info is a perfect match when adding any children; if the spouse is unselected, the children get added as “parent unknown”.
– and in a really idealized world, the system would signal when the record is already attached for an individual.

Keep up the good work!

June 6, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Jonathan Davidson 

The U.S. Federal Census Record on 5 April 1920 City of Chicago, Cook Illinois, Donald P. Jacobs Male Age 2 M the Information on Ancestry.com is not Correct Says born 1910 age 10 on this Census Record

June 6, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Sue Reed 

Actually, it seems to me like a step has been added. Previously once I found the census record of the person being searched for and saved it to him, I would have to click on that record to get back to it. But then for each subsequent person in the census once it was saved to them, it would automatically go back to that record and I could click on the next person and save to that person. Now I have to click on the record each time to go back to the entire record so that I can get to the next person. Unless I’m missing something about the way you say to “merge to multiple members of a household.” I don’t really find any option that makes it as easy as you make it sound.

June 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Becki Steward 

I love this new feature. It is a real time saver! Thanks for the innovation! I wish it went a step further to include in-laws with immediate family members. Sometimes widowed parents are living with their children and are listed on the census records, but they do not show up on the add family members feature.

I wish you had some sort of feature that allowed corrections across records. Sometimes I find errors in place names and such and it would be nice to correct it once and have it go wherever it needs to like with the find/replace feature in Microsoft Word. That’s it, we need a text editor feature for all the text in the file. Thanks

June 6, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Patricia JH 

Great idea, but OH SO BUGGY. Say I’m workingon Ebenezer Moody. Up comes a birth record of his daughter Miriam Moody’s birth. Great! That documents Ebenezer. Except then a form about Ebenezer shows up side-by-side with a form filled in Miraim’s information — presented as if Miriam’s info is changed info about Ebenezer. Miriam doesn’t show up as a “view other relative”, nor does her mother, even though they’re both on Miriam’s birth record (of course). In fact, the only relative who shows up is Ebenezer’s son

Next, I find Ebenezer’s own birth record, which of course includes his parents. But *they* don’t show up under “view other relatives”. The only one that shows up is son Jonathan again.

Same thing with Ebenezer’s marriage — his wife doesn’t show up under “show other relatives”. Nope, it’s son Jonathan again.

Some of this looks like alpha software, frankly, not even beta. Not that I mind doing product testing for a good product, but I can’t help wonder, where’s your QA team? Are they part of product planning? Scheduling? Do they sign off on releases before code goes live? You’re product manager, dude; QA should be your best buddies. They’re the ones who keep the egg off your face.

June 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Sue Reed 

My previous comment may not be valid because after reading some of the other comments I’m thinking that this merge feature must be related to Family Tree Maker trees and not to “My Ancestry” trees. I was working in “My Ancestry” at the time I read this and that is what was on my mind. And although I’ve gone back and reread the comment by Kenny Freestone, it doesn’t say which one it refers to, so . . . I should have kept my comment to myself until I was sure! :)

June 6, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Carole 

#173 Lynn must be Donna.

Sorry, I am here to stay.

#177 vhiddai – Thank you for your post. You are right on the money.
Sourcing the information you are merging is what I am trying to say to these people.

Unfortunately, from what I have read on most of these blogs is that a great majority of the new members of Ancestry are blindly merging people into their trees and not sourcing them.

These people are interested in building a tree as quickly as they can without doing any research beyond merging.

Through the merge feature, people are also taking information from the One World Tree which is overloaded with errors.

This is the danger of the merge feature.

And you peole who are “tired” of me, then don’t read my posts. Skip them.
The option is yours.

I do not speak with negativity, I speak with common sense.

Source your work people. Just because you can save a census to your tree, and add those people on that census does not always mean you have the correct family members.

Families named their children the same names and birthdates were very close. Brothers that married and had children named their children basically the same names. It is not uncommon to find 6 Andrew Jackson Smiths or George Washington Browns all born within a very few years of each other and living in the same general area. Pick up one of the wrong George Washington Browns from someone elses tree without sourcing that George or his family is your George, and you errors in your tree that you will pass on to other mergers.

Adios and happy merging.

June 6, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Alga Livingston 

Some of this data needs correcting so how do I do it?

June 6, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Shelley Murray 

I really like the new feature. It saves me alot of time. I use slooow dial up. I had been having some problems and called your support on the phone, a very nice young man sent me step by step instuctions via email and everything seems to be running more smoothly now. However, I came across a mistake in one of the census. The site had the Grandmother listed as the Mother. (I submitted a user comment.) So I will have to access the page again and save the info. Maybe it would help if there were check boxes to id the person as Mother, Father, etc.
You may even want to include same sex partner afterall, it is 2008.
Thanks

June 6, 2008 at 8:37 pm
lynn seamark 

For some reason – sometimes the children (relatives) listed appear twice on the screen to attached the record to them as well as the parents. When it does, it lists them the second time as ” unknown mother”

June 6, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Kelly Polston 

AWESOME FEATURE!!!

June 6, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Madeline Brasel 

3 comments:
1: please [again, I ask] make the search button work with enter key as it used to
2: please have the screen return to the census I have just saved a person from [so I don't have to keep getting bogged down waiting for the automatic search to finish in order to manually go back to the census!]
3: ever since this ‘upgrade’ after only a few hours the census records ‘view original’ freezes and refuses to load

I have no use for mass attachments, you can keep it or leave it, I suspect what I ask should not affect that

June 6, 2008 at 11:18 pm
James Crouch 

Faulty hints. Misspelled last names like “Botten” that is clearly “Bottin” on the document. The result is duplicated hints with one being an incorrect spelling of the last name. This will also take up extra storage space making your service more expensive! Every bit adds to the whole. I know last names are purposely altered. However, there should be a link supporting this if the spelling has changed.

June 7, 2008 at 2:36 am
Sherry Hall 

Page says to add other family members shown on this record (census) but none of the other members are available.

June 7, 2008 at 2:50 am
vhiddai 

re: #194 Carole

Dear Carole, you want to stop the spread of bad family tree information. Sorry for you, you won’t do it no matter what you say, just as you can’t stop the spread of computer viruses. Instead, you can advise about procedures (like “don’t open e-mail attachments from unknown people”) to reduce their proliferation. One experience with a computer virus is sufficient for most people.

In any case, this blog is about the merge feature, not about genealogical research. My startpoint – there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this new merge feature. It’s not the knife’s fault if you cut yourself. Nor is it the fault of the manufacturer. And the first time, it’s not your fault either.

In the old days, apprentices learned through experience how to use their tools. Many of the people posting in this blog are novices. Look at what they post. It is mostly a cry for help. To chastise is not always the best way to teach. No matter how much advice momma gives the baby will still touch something hot: hopefully, only once.

The novices extract info from others’ trees quite freely. The reasons:- lack of knowledge and experience about where and how to search, a heap of ‘free’ info for the taking, and the desire to create a complete family tree quickly. This new merge feature is a god-send. Just think what an enormous heap of people one can add: parents, spouses, children, dates – you name it.

Then they start to discover that census returns contain transcription errors, spelling mistakes and even deliberate original misinformation. Others’ family trees have people married before they were born or hopping backwards and forwards across the Atlantic to be baptised, married, buried. And the IGI contains all sorts of oddities and inconsistencies. In the meantime, they have placed all this stuff in their family tree.

I’ve been down that path. In the end I deleted everything and started again. That’s the first and last time! I don’t trust the trees of others further than I can throw them and I check everything. But every baby has to learn to walk.

The novices simply post requests for more automatic ‘bells and whistles’ on the tool; I hope Kenny will resist. The present automatic features are creating sufficient difficulties.

SO WHAT IS NEEDED?

The newcomers need (public) advice and guidance about what to do, what not to do and how to use the tool to best advantage. Then they need help on how to recover from mistakes. This blog is not the best place for it and, indeed, many won’t see it.

[imho] The ‘merge page’ should contain an amount of basic advice on how to use the tool, a pointer to where more can be found and not just a cryptic comment that you can review and select relatives. So you can! [imho] Somebody has to write the handbook.

However, dear Carole, I have horses and I have long since given up trying to force them to drink.

June 7, 2008 at 4:49 am
Judith A Robinson 

The ability to add relatives that show up on a hint, e.g., in my case right now a Census, is really convenient, but – I can’t do it because the individual is widowed and her children who show up here are the children of her deceased husband. If I use this convenient feature, they will be added again as children of an unknown father. I’d like somehow to be able to pick the parent if I choose to click on children of the primary individual.

June 7, 2008 at 5:20 am
vhiddai 

re: #196 Shelley

ANCESTRY has no consistent way of handling partnerships and the idea of same-sex partnerships hasn’t yet caught on.

I have provided Kenny with a test-case tree based on reality in which there is a same-sex marriage. One of the partners is the natural mother of a baby conceived with a donor after the marriage, the other adopted the child for legal reasons.

In one place the child has an ‘unknown father’, in another the donor appears as ‘father’, in another the natural mother does not have a child although she has the female partner (labelled ‘husband’) who adopted the child.

Such a mess arises in a system that has grown simply by having bits added on rather than being a coherent design.

However, this blog isn’t the place for this discussion which is why I contacted Kenny by e-mail.

June 7, 2008 at 5:32 am
DMCCUNEO 

I have been adding updates and now find that it tells me I have to select one parent before I can add relatives. What’s that all about? Why can’t I add relatives?

June 7, 2008 at 6:19 am
judy adams 

Too all

i dont want this to be taken the wrong way. but every one of us have a right to an opinion and a place to vent as long as it does not become personal (eg so and so is an idiot would be unwelcome and totaly out of order.) the fact is carole , others and i feel strongly that the merge feature is helping to premote SLOPPY RESEARCH and perpetuating FALSE ANCESTRAL TREE DATA. When you see as carole and i have your data which in my case i have worked on for 8 years using accepted geneological resores (eg parish records) screwed up by this in our opinion defective feature which alows merging from ALL SORCES on ancestry. i sure we are aloud to moan and yell and try to point out that care should be taken. unfortunetly we are not all Shakespears when it comes to the writen laugage just one look at my writen english which i have dilibetly not crorect (i’m dyslexic) should show you this. all carole and i are trying to say is hey this merge feature is not a very good idea for ancestry to aplie to all sorces.

personally being able to merge records such as census and parish indexes and such like as a sorce citation is ok if you like to build a tree in the AMT, as long as care is taken (that i belive is what carole is saying too) but for ancestry to alow the merging from none offical sorces such as submitted trees especially the error riden OWT should be re thought by ancestry and those that are not very experinced should be warned by our selves if we feel it appropriate (those of us who are cearful know not too i am sure). As we are talking about the merge feature and this blog is entitled
New Record Merge Feature
So this is where OPINION AND RANTS should be aired by ALL in regard to the merge feature. if it was about the tree system then of course we should write there but at times our opinion/rant will cross over into more than one blog heading.

I am so disappointed and not happy when I see my work I have done on one bit of my family corrupted because of the blanket merge feature from ancestry as I was almost the first to sort it out I now keep getting the blame for the erronouse data that OWT infact created so yes I am ANGREY with the ability to merge but more so with ancestry and will take every opportunity to shout this from the roof tops

June 7, 2008 at 6:48 am
vhiddai 

re: #206 Judy

You have every right to vent your feelings in this blog. But what is your problem?

You say “I am so disappointed and not happy when I see my work I have done on one bit of my family corrupted because of the blanket merge feature from ancestry as I was almost the first to sort it out I now keep getting the blame for the erronouse data that OWT infact created”

Is your family tree corrupted by somebody? I doubt it unless you gave editing permissions.

Why do people contact you, blaming you for erroneous data? “I now keep getting the blame……” You know how to answer.

Do you want recognition that you were “almost the first to sort it out…”?

Is it only now that someone can pick up and add info from OWT to their own tree? No. It is simply quicker and easier.

Do you own the info in your tree? No.

Have you published your tree? If so, others can extract info from it.

By banning the merge, do you want to stop them from doing it? Simpler not to publish your tree.

As I see it your problem is “that the merge feature is helping to premote SLOPPY RESEARCH and perpetuating FALSE ANCESTRAL TREE DATA.” How do you know that your own ancestral tree data is not false? (I find the word a little extreme.) Were you there when someone was supposedly born in 1803 or do you just take someone’s word for it? There were no birth registrations in those days!

To save me repeating my further thoughts, please look at post #202.

June 7, 2008 at 8:11 am
vhiddai 

To Carole and Judy

I will probably keep on getting afterthoughts on this topic and posting a PS but here are some more questions for both of you. They are based on your worries bout ‘correct’ research. Not only that, I’ve looked at some of your posts in other ANCESTRY blogs and can only agree with the substance of what you said there.

If you want to build your family database, why not use a specialised genealogical database package instead of ANCESTRY? I do.

Why don’t you keep your careful research to yourself and perhaps your immediate family? In other words, quarantine.

Why do you publish your family tree anyway and who is your target audience?

If you need to publish, couldn’t you do it some other way than by using ANCESTRY? (There are far superior methods, including building your own website, which I did.)

imho, ANCESTRY is excellent for searching census records but not much else other than the chance of making contact with family members you never knew existed. I now correspond and share information (like copies of BMD and other certificates) and researches with a 4th cousin in Australia, found through ANCESTRY.

imho, It is too slow, too cumbersome with too much emphasis on the cosmetics (Ok there are reasons) and looks something like “the house that Jack built”. I spend ages watching the “waiting for………” message while it loads all of its goodies.

OWT contains unreliable nonsense. Others’ trees provide occasional pointers to possible relationships, provided you take them with a pinch of salt. I only built an ANCESTRY tree so that I can pick up such pointers.

You just have to learn to live with the warts on this particular (mostly free) software, use to your own advantage the bits that work and ignore the other irritating bits just like you do with W******

Complaining about what others do with it is as productive as complaining that kids nowadays can’t do mental arithmatic so pocket calculators ought to be banned.

With all best wishes and commiserations…

June 7, 2008 at 9:52 am
Valita Randolph 

Overall, I am very pleased with the improvements here. I agree with some of the others about coming up with duplicate entries if the name isn’t spelled exactly the same. And if I have a spouse named Mary E Maiden Name, it won’t recognized that Mary E Married Name is the same person! That’s frustrating.

I hadn’t noticed any slowing down of the system–guess I was one of the lucky ones!

Thanks for the update!

June 7, 2008 at 10:27 am
judy adams 

vhiddai
And once again we are not all Shakespeare when it comes to expressing ourselves in the write word
You say “I am so disappointed and not happy when I see my work I have done on one bit of my family corrupted because of the blanket merge feature from ancestry as I was almost the first to sort it out I now keep getting the blame for the erroneous data that OWT infact created”
Is your family tree corrupted by somebody? I doubt it unless you gave editing permissions.
I quite clearly lay the blame in the above to being the merge being aloud in OWT and have not blamed anyone BUT ancestry

Why do people contact you, blaming you for erroneous data? “I now keep getting the blame
Do you want recognition that you were “almost the first to sort it out…”?
Because I was the one who researched the data first WITHIN ORIGINAL PARISH RECORDS until then some of it had been taken only from the familysearch site by others and there were mistakes
I then put my corrected version up for all to see and everyone knows this now by word of mouth (email). it’s a bit like Chinese whispers if ‘a’ tells’ b’ then ‘b’ tells ‘c’ that ‘a’ was told by ‘me’ but ‘c’ then goes to OWT and adds data that has been created there by MERGING my original work with anther completely unrelated tree that I seem to be missing then ‘c’ passes this on to ‘d’ citing me as researcher ‘d’ pass it on and so on I am bound to get contacted by some one eventually and if that person is using the details ‘c’ has passed on with my name and they then discover the details are wrong they have my name and I get contacted asking me how I arrived at the erroneous detail which ‘c’ added YES THIS HAS HAPPENED and to make it worse I was contacted via another site by that person who uses the site exclusively and never used ancestry. When I checked both here on ancestry and several other sites I found the data I had supplied to be used by ANY PERSON that was interested with out any form of copyright notions on my part had in SOME trees been taken and shown correctly but there were ones which now showed the erroneous details also. I have then had to TRY to inform these people with the details taken that OWT had created by merging that the data is wrong. Now that anyone can add data to their trees in AMT from OWT extra the problem is going to get worse by the ability to MERGE FROM TREES

Is it only now that someone can pick up and add info from OWT to their own tree?

I never said it was

By banning the merge, do you want to stop them from doing it? Simpler not to publish your tree

I NEVER said that merging should be band totally on the contrary I said

personally being able to merge records such as census and parish indexes and such like as a source citation is ok if you like to build a tree in the AMT, as long as care is taken (that I believe is what Carole is saying too) but for ancestry to allow the merging from none official sources such as submitted trees especially the error ridden OWT should be re thought by ancestry and those that are not very experienced should be warned by our selves

Have you published your tree? If so, others can extract info from it.

THAT’S WHY I PUBLISH MY TREE we have a little thing here in UK giving us ‘the right to information’ as far as I am concerned if the info I use is free in the first place in parish records (which it is) then I don’t have the right to put copy right on my work . if I get it for free I will shear it for free so others can join in the research and more info is then likely to be found .

How do you know that your own ancestral tree data is not false? (I find the word a little extreme.) Were you there when someone was supposedly born in 1803 or do you just take someone’s word for it? There were no birth registrations in those days!

Firstly others who have now joined in the hunt for the ancestors I talk about above have also checked the details and I do say they should check it out. I use not only parish records but transcriptions by places like IGI too for the same person. Why simple I was checking out a parish record and too me the ‘t’ in winter looked like an ‘s’ and seemed to read winser / winsor a name which did also appear in the same records when I checked the transcripts by the official genealogical society for the county they had winter so I ASKED THE ARCHIVEST his opinion which he gave as being winter so I do not assume and try to use more than one source

There were no birth registrations in those days!

I BEG TO DIFFER while it is true that the General Reg Office records here in the UK date only from sep 1837 THERE ARE OFFICIAL PARISH RECORDS HERE IN THE UK SOME OF WHICH GO AS FAR BACK AS 1539ISH A FEW GO BACK EVEN FERTHER THAN THAT.

YOU SAY IN POST 177
First, please will you ladies stop getting personal and retract your claws or go somewhere else to do it.
AND IN POST201
Dear Carole, you want to stop the spread of bad family tree information. Sorry for you, you won’t do it no matter what you say, just as you can’t stop the spread of computer viruses. Instead, you can advise about procedures (like “don’t open e-mail attachments from unknown people”) to reduce their proliferation. One experience with a computer virus is sufficient for most people.
AND IN POST206 to me
You have every right to vent your feelings in this blog. But what is your problem?
You have I feel become personal a little bit too much yourself. I at least did not tear into anyone persons single post as you have done. when I made post 205. I tried to keep it impersonal and pass my opinion on the subject but if I failed I am sorry for any offence caused to you or anyone else in that post. This time I have defended myself because you decided to make my post personal and answer me in the same way you asked others in post 177 to stop!
At the end of the day

I still stand by what I said ; note the word helping

“that the merge feature is helping to promote SLOPPY RESEARCH and perpetuating FALSE ANCESTRAL TREE DATA.”

This will continue to happen while ancestry continues to allow merging across all fields instead of just official records only

June 7, 2008 at 11:37 am
judy adams 

vhiddai

i am not whole against your thorts on the subject as i said my tree is up so others can join the hunt and as the info is free anyway why not shear it. i am luck in that i live close to the county the screwed up rellies come from and can see the regs fairly regally OTHERS CANT DO SO.
I RELIE ON OTHERS CHARITY TOO SOME TIMES to point me in the right direction wheen i check the data i use it saves long hunts in the records if you know where to look roughthly in the first place from
others research

as for building my tree here in AMT

forget it i have expressedmy reasons in the blosg post else wher i like you use a home based reliable system

June 7, 2008 at 11:48 am
vhiddai 

To Judy

Goodness! I really opened the floodgates!

Sorry that you took it as an attack (was not intended) but now not only do I understand your concerns and what underlies them but also I have every sympathy. Furthermore I agree that you have every right to be irritated. I would be, too, in the situation you describe. I have been part way along the same path myself, but not to the same extent.

So what can we do about these things? For one thing you mention that we should warn those who are not very experienced. Agreed. We should and can. Next step is to plan how to do it in a positive way so that one doesn’t look as though one is simply blowing off steam.

After that, how can one persuade the novices, plagiarisers and quick tree-builders to heed the warnings? V.difficult to impossible when you think about the easy paths that ANCESTRY provides.

So there must be pressure on ANCESTRY to get their act together? This is what I can see that you are trying to do. What sanctions, other than public opinion, can be brought to bear? Not a lot, I think. How can we find others who agree and are prepared to club together? While a vociferous pressure-group might have some effect you have to reckon with the fact that ANCESTRY is primarily a money-spinner and only secondarily is a provider of a service.

Ideas…?

June 7, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Barbara Erickson 

After merging from a census record the additional family member it created a duplicate with a different spelling of the first name and another person it shows 2 mothers now – and neither of these duplicates can be deleted. Before the rollout of the new features I was able to remove family members without any problem.

June 7, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Barbara Franks 

I wish you would come up with someway to merge indiviual names…When adding some spouses, I have found that it will make a new name in the list of individuals. The only way to fix it is delete that second name. But when doing so it breaks the tie to the correct family. Therefore, I end up with two of the same families, or double the information. Need to be able to merge certain people and certain family members……

June 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm
judy adams 

vhiddai

comments accepted.
at the moment i dont see many avenues open to address the problem other than too take the oppotunity to vent on here when an entry gives us the oppertunity to. if we the bloggers keep the subject open as often as the comments warent more people will be told each time. it might be one per year who has not seen the blog per year but it could be hundreds. if ALL OF US keep protesting when we feel apropiate to do so the word will get out eventurely NOT THAT I WOULD EVER BELIVE THAT ANCESTRY WILL TAKE THEIR BLINKERS OFF they are stuck in their own little world of money making.

i have seen recently that one person in eroupe i think its anna in
sweeden with out navigating out now i cant be sure sorry if i am wrong has been so concerned that she contacted her geneological society and they too were concerned

i recently answered a letter in one of our genealogical mags on the subject and the mag did say they plan to print if possible. i have also done so on the verious mags blogs (6 issued here but not all
have blogs) but make sure i dont open the debate (not that brave)

it is only in these ways will we get the message out

SO EVERYONE DONT BE SHY IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN RE THE MERGING OF RECORDS FROM TREES NOT THE MERGER OF OFFICAL RECORDS shout at ancestry when the opertunity is there as long as it is warented that is with in the blogg subject no which hunts as this will not get us anywhere.

June 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm
vhiddai 

Laugh at me if you like.

Laugh at me if you dare.

The only way I know to get in to this blog is from that merge page “provide feedback”. I can then poke around for other blogs – only initiated by ANCESTRY staff.

It seems to me that if ANCESTRY.COM is at all interested in what we think, it should provide an easily-entered and properly administered forum as in so many other websites. We ought to be able to start our own threads provided we have a login account.

If you look at the “Community” tab you find nothing except member connections and message boards, all based on surnames!

Is it that they do not dare to have such a forum? Didn’t it occur to them? Don’t they want to spend the effort? Or are they not really that interested in what we think?

imho It is a pressing necessity.

June 7, 2008 at 2:20 pm
vhiddai 

Judy

Posted the above before I saw your reply. Thanks for your comments.

I am pleased about the reactions for other genealogical societies. I am horrified about the implications.

June 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Cindy 

The other day, there was a neat feature that didn’t last — here’s a plea for making it permanent!

When linking in a parent from the list of people who already exist in your tree, there was a shortcut showing the spouse(s) of the existing parent and allowing you to select one of them. This was really great, esp. for my Scottish ancestors who used the same forenames many times. Without the feature, I have to go through dozens of identical names to find the one with the correct birthdate.

A small improvement would be to fix the inconsistency in the selecting a person from the list of names in your tree. After entering the name in the search fields, hitting enter should start the search. Instead, it requires taking your hands off the keyboard and using the mouse to click ‘Search’. In most other contexts, Enter will launch a search.

I also would love to have a quick way to print my family group sheets (with birth, marriage and death info) from the main pgm. Having to to to the press page, set up a new ‘book’, select which type of page, which person, which spouse, etc. is too time consuming for an operation I bet many of us would use.

Thanks!

June 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Cathy McCormick 

It’s working well, I can see it once in a while, not always even though I’m on the family view. I’ve used it several times today as I am picking up stragglers (in the family lines) and I’m testing this out.

I think it is a GREAT tool and if some of you don’t understand the feature and have not merged other family trees responsibly into your trees, you might not understand it. I have done it all, even started over with one tree due to my errors of not knowing what I was doing with merging another set of family files in.

I would suggest you make a Test tree, put in a few names then see what you can do until you get familiar with it, then when you are confident, merge carefully.

Remember when you merge if you see NEW by the Family Member name it will create another record. If it is not what you want but the others are, uncheck that persons record, copy what info you want to put into your existing person and then merge.

Other than that, you will see the word new to the fields that it will be adding to you existing members names.

Hope that helps someone out. I’ve been asking for this feature and am very happy to see it in action.

Now as for the New searching techniques on ancestry (another feature) I am not keen on that …yet.
I keep reverting back to my old view, then later testing out the new again, but I just don’t get the results that I can get or perhaps I’m just not comfortable with it, yet.

June 7, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Donna Dallman 

To all of you who think we should not be allowed to use this new merge feature = = I just wonder why you think that ALL of US out here (meaning everyone except YOU TWO OR THREE PEOPLE) = are so stupid that we cannot decipher anything on our own?
You think that just because something is offered, that we feel compelled to take it.
Well, you are wrong!
I go through many steps, searching and researching and checking and rechecking each name, before I put it in my tree. When looking over the Ancestry Hints and rarely – the One World Tree – I go back and forth many times – and I HAVE EVEN FIGURED OUT HOW TO CHECK OR UNCHECK A NAME – TO EITHER PUT IT IN – OR KEEP IT OUT of my tree!
Imagine my stretched intelligence = figuring all of this out on my own = with no “restrictions” or “regulations” to PROTECT ME FROM MYSELF!!!
And SHAME on Ancestry.com to offer a service that I want and that I pay for every month.
Come on – all you people that are talking down to us = because we want this new merge feature = just let us wallow in our ignorance, and please drop the superior attitude and the lectures. Just let us enjoy our trees and the building thereof.
Let’s call a truce = and everyone just return to your own tree = OK?

June 7, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Joyce Norris 

This is GREAT!!!! I have often wished that I could take the census information on the family and add it all at once instead of piecemeal. Thanks.

June 7, 2008 at 4:27 pm
James Taylor 

Sweet!

June 7, 2008 at 9:29 pm
vhiddai 

Thank you, Donna

In the defence of those you mention, I would only say that I think they are genuinely concerned about the integrity of the information in ANCESTRY. I just think they could do something more positive with their concern than protesting with such hyperbole (“the thousands of people” – see #168).

For example (and see post #219) simple guidance and well-written advice for newcomers who have had an ANCESTRY subscription for one week and have just come across this merge and the One World Tree. Perhaps a few succint (but not cryptic) hints on the merge page. Nothing more and no talking down.

Personally, I don’t care about the integrity of the information – it has none anyway and I learned to work exactly the way that you do. I wouldn’t expect that ANCESTRY can or will do anything to improve information integrity – it’s far too late for that – although it would be a pity if the whole operation fell into disrepute because of it.

Take to absurdity the complaint about permitting the merge feature to merge the ‘non-official’ information from others’ trees. Then logically you must also remove the ability of it to display census records (which are actually official) as they are sometimes badly transcribed and contain wrong spellings, inconsistent addresses, erroneous relationships and mis-stated ages which people will copy and spread.

The merge feature itself is not flawed. Perhaps those thousands of people who were counted merging incorrect records into thousands of trees will also work out how use it sensibly.

Still I think we need a general forum accessible from the homepage.

June 8, 2008 at 5:24 am
Donna Dallman 

To vhiddai

THANK YOU

June 8, 2008 at 7:25 am
N Hookham 

Great idea – makes life easier

June 8, 2008 at 9:29 am
bjw 

help!!!! This merge feature didn’t work at all and then worked for a day and now it is still not working it will not attach any records at all I have waited for several days and it hasn’t came back. please fix
soon!!!!!!!! and to others please keep comments limited to web site bugs so web site bugs can be identified easily and fixed!! thanks

June 8, 2008 at 10:00 am
vhiddai 

That’s why we need a proper forum where we can develop our own threads.

June 8, 2008 at 10:13 am
vhiddai 

To everyone—

Please take a moment to send an e-mail supporting the idea of a real forum. It is very necessary and can only be of benefit to us all, including ANCESTRY.

The more people that support it, the more likely it will happen.

June 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Carla Bailey 

I was adding a Social Security death record and it offered me “the rest of the family” and showed a sister. How would this be on a SS death record? Also, I had a sibling that showed up as “rest of the family” for some time on various different unrelated records.

Generally speaking, I love being able to add the rest of the family. Just bugs to iron out and perhaps the need to better understand some of the documents and what they do and don’t contain.

June 8, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Cathy McCormick 

Response to #217 by Cindy

I hadn’t noticed the auto fill type of feature box upper right side “Find a person in tree” or “See full list of people”. As you type it would generate a list of possibilities of family names, like an auto fill feature.

Today, however after reading your comment, I stopped and watched the circle go round and round and saw that it was working, checking my list of names for possible matches as I typed. I really like that, so I’m with you in regards to enjoying that new feature.

long post, sorry…

As for some people that are complaining about the errors in names, ages, etc, I’m with you, they need to be fixed.

I’ve found many “Man married to Man” files in the Missouri Marriage Records, 1805-2002 data base,

IF I send in a Add Correction, I will get a generic email back, stating that ancestry does not have control over others people’s information and they are just passing along what was entered by that organization. I’m thinking What, it’s in your system! How can you not have control? Then I realize that this is a Missouri based information bank and I can see that they do not have control.

It’s still kind of funny to add a marriage where the record purports the wrong information being a Man married to a Man, I have 2 or 3 of these records in my family tree from this same database.

Example:
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=momarriages&h=501928354&ti=0&indiv=try

Missouri Marriage Records, 1805-2002
NAME: James L Wilbourn
Marriage Date: Jul 1898
Marriage Location: New Madrid, Missouri
Marriage County: New Madrid
SPOUSE Name: George Carmody
Father’s Name: James L Wilbourn

This is apparently an error and it’s suppose to be Jennie Lee Wilbourn. I learned today that her last name is most likely spelled Wilbourn not Wilburn, another alternative to address.

The image is too light to read, but it’s the one on the right. If I didn’t know who I was looking for I would not have found it. Some of these things are taking me years to track down due to transcription errors.

I reported the Unreadable image issue, but it takes a while for them to get back to that database during their quarterly maintence, info provided to me via emails from them.

I can send a blank-it type of letter to ancestry support but then I get the generic letter back reporting that they have no control over others’ databases.

Ok that’s fine, but what about support for us? I’ve identified 3 such marriages in the last few days of family members where Man is married to Man. There is no place to go to get it corrected. I can include a comment and hope that helps others out, but as for ancestry, I get stuck in the perverbial loop ….we can’t control other’s information. I give up reporting some issues, I’m learning.

I’d love for them to address the wrong Age and estimated year of birth issue since that is another main way of searching. I am constantly adding corrections as I go along and I’m getting tired of doing it…but then when I run across one that someone else supplied that helps me and I gain steam again.

YES We do need a Blog!

I’ve been with ancestry for about 6 years. I just started using Family Tree online. Unless I have documents to support the addition to the family, I am not comfortable with the new family names that come in via One World Tree feature.

While I’m researching, at times I’ve added in a couple of possibilities, although they contradict each other, ie: 2 census records for 1870. Am I confusing the facts, well, possibly. But it’s my Tree, My Work and until I see them in a census or other “official” form, I just don’t believe what is stated without proof.

That’s where the merge comes in from the Census. That’s helping me out a lot, I really like that because we are working from official docs, minus the transcriprtion errors. I don’t have to rely on someone else’s info and bring in their errors in my database.

As for others trees, I use them as tips and go into their trees, check their census records, click the Add Family, then on that next page before you hit continue, you can right click on the family tree name or right click on the person that you are researching, open in new window, then browse around. That will get into their records.

You will be able to see what census they have attached for whomever, marriages, if sourced, etc. I do what you might call a “preview” and let them help me with my research. That’s what I’m doing on the Wells in my family right now (branchced off of Carmody mentioned above). It’s working rather well.

I don’t like bringing over some records from some trees, if you do that, you won’t be able to edit your information correctly.

I have a Ernest Everett Mills in Missouri. I brought in someone elses info and now he is not fully mine. Therefore, I created a 2nd one and am digging into this persons records to see if it fits in with mine. Afterward I will delete their person and get free of their tree…I hope. ;)

I’ll hush now,
Cathy

June 9, 2008 at 3:10 am
Peg 

Okay, so I’ve been using the new feature for about a month, tad slower, but I like it. Time saved when dealing with families of say 14, all get sourced in one shot. Love that!!! One very maddening feature of this new merge feature is: Have a name to merge and the family comes up. Great! The only “family” offered are siblings. Go to check the box and whoa – no, so sorry, can’t do that unless you first click the parents (who aren’t even there!). So, how about freeing this up a bit so that I CAN click on the siblings. Yes, in some cases, have figured out who the sibs are and am still looking for their parents. Just a suggestion, but it’d sure be a big (& faster) help!

June 9, 2008 at 7:53 am
Kenny Freestone 

In response to comment 215…

Hi Vhiddai,

We do host an excellent forum for user-initiated threads on a host of topics:

http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry/mb.ashx

It is true that most of our message boards are surname or research-focused, but the ones at the above URL are centered primarily around Ancestry.com.

Let me know how you like it.

Kenny

June 9, 2008 at 8:57 am
Sue Reed 

I love it.

June 9, 2008 at 11:00 am
nellkiddywalker 

It is a good feature, but it offered only one of Joel and Elsie Berry’s three children shown on the 1910 Census

June 9, 2008 at 11:21 am
vhiddai 

Re answer#232

Huge!

Kenny thanks very much, indeed.

Suggestion: For those who didn’t know about it, put this link at the top of this and all other pages where you invite feedback. Tell people like me to put their irrelevant comments in that place and not here.

Further suggestions are in a direct e-mail to you. They are irrelevant to this page!

June 9, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Kendra Jones 

I LOVE this merge feature, however there are a few bugs in it. It doesn’t always recognize children or spouses as current family but as “other unknown” This can cause you to duplicate the children in a family unless you watch very carefully.

Thanks for keeping up todate on features!!!

June 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Henry Bowen 

I have 2 Henry Bowens, one 1720 -1784, who’s parents are Moses Bowen 1674-1760 and Rebecca Reece 1676-1780. The other Henry Bowen 1678-1755 , show parents to be Moses Bowen 1674-1760 and Margaret Levisa Smith bn. 1741. Henry Bowen 1720-1784 was married to Lily McLlhaney and Jane Carter 1683-1702. Both Henry Bowen show to be married to Jane Carter 1683-1702. I need some help sorting this out. I have children that are mixed up. Thank you , Ann B.

June 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Rick Schroeder 

This is HUGE time saver! I wish I had noticed it when you first rolled it out.

June 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Cindy 

I really love this new merging feature. Just remember that the female spouse has her married name not maiden or unknown. So you need to change it. Otherwise, I love that you can add children you don’t have just by clicking on them.

June 9, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Harrison 

Excellent idea. I’m having a problem selecting a sibling because it says “must select at least one parent” but the sibling is the only person available for selection.

June 10, 2008 at 8:34 am
Brenda Goldy 

I love this new feature! The only thing I would change is to be able to select people from your tree instead of only getting the matches supplied. Sometimes it selects the wrong person from the tree and I don’t see a way to change it.

June 10, 2008 at 10:26 am
bjw 

again it’s been ten days since this started and i still can’t attach records. is it being fixed? what is the status? I can’t be they only one out there, Is there another way to get help?!!!!!!

June 10, 2008 at 11:22 am
DAN MURRAY 

This is a great time-saving feature-I had hoped for this but thought it would be a long time coming. GREAT WORK!!!

June 10, 2008 at 11:34 am
lynn seamark 

I’m still having difficulty with spellings when trying to link family members. Something as simple as Lula instead of Lulu can prompt a new family member. Maybe if there was an option to link to members in your tree as an alternate. Family tree maker allows you to scroll through the children and match them that way.

Otherwise – this feature is really nice.

June 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm
DON THIBODEAUX 

I HAVE BEEN USING THIS PROGRAM FOR 15+ YEARS . THE MERGE FOR 2 PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A JOKE. WHEN U MERGE U SHOULD HAVE THE 2 PERSONS TO BE MERGED AND A BLANK PROFILE SO U CAN TAKE THE INFO FROM PERSON 1 AND PERSON 2 AND DRAG THE INFO U WANT TO THE FINAL PERSON PROFILE. THAT WAY U CAN PICK AND CHOOSE THE INFO U WANT.
I DO NOT KNOW WHY THIS CONCEPT IS NOT LOOKED AT AND EVALUATED
THANKS FOR LOOKING

June 10, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Heather Francis 

I like this feature. I agree with comments 12 and 21 about a way to spouses or children whose names are slightly different. Also, you cannot add another sibling unless you add a parent. This makes a duplicate on the parent’s information. I really love this feature, though.

June 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm
A Frank 

Wonderful addition, when attaching records to a person, to be able to see the relatives and attach records to them at the same time. What a time saver! Thank you.

June 10, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Carole J Chauncey 

LOVE the merge! It’s so nice not to have to type that info in. Especially for relatives in the 1900′s between the SSDI and the 3 censuses, you can pretty much eventually get accurate info. Has been very handy for the wedding and graduation family tree poster gifts I’ve been creating. I remember when I with great anticipation was waiting for the 1930 Census, and now the 1940 census is just around the corner. As always an endlessly fascinating obsession!

June 11, 2008 at 1:59 am
Maureen Baker 

I like this feature, however I have hit a few snags. Let’s say I know one or two children of a couple, find the census record that lists all twelve-I merge, and up with 14. It would be nice to be able to weed out the duplicates, or maybe somehow flag there is a duplicate name. It’s great if you don’t know the person’s spouse or children, but a headache if you know a few. It’s complicated to go back and read each name if you are not that familiar with the family. I’m also having to undo about 20 hours of duplicates my daughter did to try and “help” me-she is only 11 and wasn’t aware of the duplicate factor. So, I will use this feature but only if I don’t have any info on the person. Thanks!

June 11, 2008 at 12:36 pm
bjw 

worked great this am and pedigree view showed back up. 2 hours later pedigree view disappered along with ability to attach records to existing people.

June 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Randi Welhaven 

I love it! I do have a request, however – as censuses (censi??) are notorious for misspelled names, would it be possible to attach a family member’s information to someone that already exists on my tree?

That way, I won’t have to delete the second, third and fourth wives because the census taker couldn’t spell BERTHA.

Many thanks!

June 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Susie Edwards 

When pulling up relatives, it pulled up the wife by the married name, and did not pull up her 3 children listed in the census.

June 11, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Sherrie Wieland 

I am hoping any kind dear soul will take pity on me and translate my family tree maker file into a GEDCOM file. I am trying to help someone with their genealogy. One of their ancestors sent me a Family Tree Maker file — I’m sure full of great relevant information. However, I don’t have Family Tree Maker, I use PAF. If you could convert this file into a GEDCOM, I would be eternally grateful!
Many Thanks in advance,
Sherrie Wieland

June 11, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Karen Mason 

I love being able to merge from other trees. It just pops the info that I was needing for family members so much faster than normally searching, HOWEVER, I am finding that it is hard to get back to my tree from this page. It seems like a dead end unless I back up page by page and refresh on my tree. I have only been a member and doing genealogy for a few months and maybe I just haven’t got the hang of it yet, but you provided a feedback link and I jumped in with mine. Thanks.

June 11, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Amanda 

Not sure where the discrepancy lies. Kate/Kathryn Hawkins seems to have two possible fathers both at same address. No mother for father #2, so I have added neither until further reseach is available.

June 11, 2008 at 10:28 pm
diedra hyatt 

I am having trouble deleting the multiple entries of the same person. i tried following instructions to delete the extra entries,but have had no success. Any explanations as to why this is not working would be appreciated. Thanks, Diedra Hyatt.

June 12, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Audrey Miller Hastings 

This is not a comment about your website, but rather a correction on someone’s reading of the 1920 Census attached to Mollie A Beasley, MILLER tree. It shows her as Mollie Wall, but age 5 or something? This is Mollie Beasley Wall with her two children now living at home with her father William Shadrach Beasley. Please pass along this information. William Shadrach Beasley was one of my great-grandfathers & I know that Mollie A (a sister to my grandmother) was born in 1893 & married to L C Wall earlier.

June 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Ruth Crook 

This is GREAT!!! It will save a whole lot of time and effort.

June 12, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Kathleen Whitlow 

So here’s what I think. First of all, I have been at this for 1 year exactly and consider myself a novice. I have seen a number of changes on the site, mostly good I guess. What I’ve noticed with the new record merging is that I am not as comfortable with the accuracy of what I end up adding to my tree as I used to be. It seems my new motto is, “I’ll clean it up later”. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t get to it. Cleaning up merging errors is multifaceted an can be a nightmare. My tree is public so if I don’t get to clean up the errors then everyone can see them and someone may think it’s accurate information. A potential vicious cycle.
For a short time there was a merging feature where my tree remained where I could always see it on one side of the screen and my choices of what was available to merge was on the other side. I scrolled down and made my own choices as to what to merge. The only feature (or maybe you would call this a tool) missing for me was the ability to have the information just chosen then added to the other side of the screen where the tree is so it can be seen at all times. That way before I hit DONE I could make very important corrections and delete the extra ancestors or non-ancestors before it becomes that nightmare I was talking about earlier. I certainly can’t remember what name scrolled by a moment ago, particularly when there are 4 versions of it and I’m looking at hundreds of names. I bet most of us can’t and why should we have to remember in this day and age of computers.
My trees have always been public and in the past did not understand why anyone would have a private tree. Well, my tune has changed and so have the private vs public status on most of my tree’s as of yesterday. I’m not comfortable having them public until I can correct my work. What a shame.
So, in a nutshell, my feedback for ancestry.com regarding the merging of records is:
1. Yes, it’s handy BUT it’s creating alot of clean up and deleting work. Sometimes this work is quick and easy. Sometimes it makes me want to throw my computer out the window. Because of the need to delete and clean up it created a nightmarish potential for inaccurate information to run amok.
2. Make it simple. I don’t mean simple so your clients don’t have to think, I mean make it user friendly with the potential for the client to make choices as to what to merge and give them the tools to make accurate choices. (see above regarding split screen).

That’s all for now. Probably I’ll think of more later.
Kathleen

June 12, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Mary Barrow 

THANK YOU!!!

Since my ancestors mostly seem to have had LARGE families, this is extremely helpful to me!!!

June 12, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Jane McClure 

I’ve had some success with this strategy. When trying to merge a family from the census, it often won’t accept the wife, therefore if you go ahead, all the children get added to Unknown Mother. Try this: instead of starting with the father, start with the mother. Attach the census record to her tree, then when relatives are added, the father’s name will usually be accepted. This still doesn’t always work with all the children, but it’s worth trying.

June 12, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Mark Jones 

Nice feature but it would be best if you could tell whether you’ve already added that particular census information to the additional relatives. If you already have, you end up with duplicates.

June 13, 2008 at 4:26 am
Elizabeth Barnes 

Love the new merge but for a few glitches. When the year is out by a year(ie 1856 the next census 1855) the system put in a new person. When the name is spelt incorrectly the system add the family as new people even if i manually correct the spelling

June 13, 2008 at 4:37 am
Sandra Whittier 

What is a website? I don’t think I have one. I have been using the newest features until today. I sure did miss them. When I saw the feed back button I just had to tell you I was really missing the new feature.
Is this what you are talking about in the merge feature?
I noticed that you are keeping tabs on if I don’t accept hints. Sometimes I already have better than you are giving me and I’d rather not accept the chance of a mess-up or they are not the right people. Will I not receive any more hints if I don’t use all that you give me? Where can I go to get help when I need it? Sure have enjoyed giving my in put. Thank You

June 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm
David Bogle 

I love the new merge option, but would ask if it’s possible to allow me to select an individual for those records that don’t quite match my existing and therefore try to create a new record in my tree – can we have an option to allow me to select the individual on “new record” options?

June 14, 2008 at 4:12 am
Jeanne Renshaw 

Brilliant, it saves so much going backwards and forwards.

June 14, 2008 at 9:14 am
Deborah Drew 

I find this new relative features fantastic. It is so much easier to see if I have the right information and then at it to my tree. It makes growing my tree so much easier and faster, so I don’t have to retype information ovr again.
Great Job Ancestry, Love your site
Regards
Deborah
Outer SE Melbourne
Australia

June 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Bobbie 

I love the new feature – being able to merge several family members at one time, from census records. That brings up my problem. Because of variations in spelling, etc. I ended up with several duplicates in one family. It will not allow me to delete these individuals, nor can I find a way to merge the duplicate individuals. How do I go about removing these extras? One is a wife & others are extra children with same names. I know I must have done something without paying attention. I would appreciate your help. Thanks
Bobbie

June 14, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Herman Cummings 

I have the largest database on your site with about 36,000 people. If the name or dates don’t exactly match it don’t show the people so I can merged.Like the 1910 census of John Perry Branscum.

June 14, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Elizabeth Prince 

I like this new featture. If only you could ad the link that lets you add everyone from that list to the tree. Instead of checking each name.

June 15, 2008 at 1:09 am
Pat Dreisbach 

How do you merge info of people whose names are spelled different but are the same person or family???

June 15, 2008 at 7:16 am
John Blaine 

We cannot add any records to our tree. All I get is a spinning wheel saying “loading”

June 15, 2008 at 11:18 am
Christine Fleming 

Brilliant – saves loads of time and prevents transcription errors

June 15, 2008 at 11:43 am
Kathleen Whitlow 

Hi Kenny,
I am trying to be positive and watch carefully what I do before I choose to merge. I began a brand new tree yesterday so the slate was clean. Today I have so many duplicates I don’t know if it’s really a time saver or waster for me. I am reading all of the positive comments and wonder what they are doing that I am not. Before the new merge I got very familiar with whatever family I was working on. I would almost always open the actual census and look it over because it helped with the hunt. There might be family living next door you had not been able to find the traditional way, etc. Also it’s not uncommon that names and dates are transcribed incorrectly and looking at the census yourself is a big help. I find I don’t tend to look at the actual census much with the new merge function and I’ve been thinking about why my ‘hunting’ style has changed and I think its because there’s a sense I don’t need to since the merge function has given me all of the family names etc. It is not as satisfying for me, it’s like an assembly line work. I feel more confused about who belongs where and I would rather add the correct people to start with than to figure out who to delete. If the merge function were accurate or at least much more accurate I would like it and use it. For now I am going back to my old way of ‘hunting’.
I anyone has any tips or hints for me or if I am missing the big picture here please let me know.
Thank you
Kathleen

June 15, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Deena Herod 

I really appreciate this new merging feature. Even better,the caution to “merge responsibly” and to be able to review the record person by person (with some genealogy sites, it’s merge all or nothing!).

I do seriously believe that ancestry.com is the best genealogy site because you give us all these records to review, other public trees to peruse, plus access to stories and photographs others are willing to share (bless them one and all!).

And to top it off, everything on an individual’s tree is added ONLY if and when they wish.

Thanks for continuing to update and improve ancestry.com

Deena Herod

June 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Melissa 

This is a great feature!

June 15, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Sheila 

This is absolutely my favorite option. Before I had to hand write other information in order to show it on my tree. Either that or print each page. Anyway, my hands Thank You Very Much!!
Sheila

June 16, 2008 at 8:51 am
suzanne baul 

What a marvellous improvement you have made to the retrieval of data,now instead of laboriously typing in information on each member of each generation; it is there at the click of a mouse!

Well done!

June 16, 2008 at 10:22 am
Steph 

I am new to Ancestry ~ 1 week, so all of this is new to me – UNTIL I came to #124! I thought it was just because I was doing something wrong that the notice kept popping up about `~error…has to close…send report…’. This occurred when I was loading census pages and pressing the arrow to go forward. I just got used to clicking “Close” and then immediately reopening from my desktop. I am not super computer savvy, so I appreciate the information posted here. It has been helpful.
I have no recollection of what the site was like before when I tried it in Aug 2005 for 2 months.
I am amazed at how much I’ve been able to do in one week. When I think of what my GGGGmother had to do to make the paper tree she made…
I think that I have to use the language of the country I am looking in in order for the information to come up. I would be looking in Germany, born & died there and would have a US Census list with “possible hints” show up. And I have seen a few ancestors with similar names living for more than 100 yrs – i.e. 1625 – 1733. I think this really unlikely.
Using the computer to research certainly has a steep learning curve. I thank all of you who post helpful hints for beginners like me.
Blessings on you and yours,
Steph

June 16, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Steph 

Type your comment here.

June 16, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Heather Russell 

This site is fantastic! Thanks for the merge feature. It really speeds things up. I think I’ve done about three or four years worth of research and tree building in the last two weeks for a fraction of the cost of a professional resercher.

I would like to see a manual override matching system because sometimes I know the family members match but the name spelling (or some other detail) is just different enough that the people don’t match up automatically. I can still attach the record by searching it again for the unmatched people, but it is less confusing to do it all at one time.

In addition, I would like to be able to manually add information from the census pages (like the street address written on the side, the dd/mm of the census, occupation, etc.) that does not automatically transfer. The detailed info helps me compare information for individuals to ensure I have selected the right record.

Thanks for making genealogy for the masses!

June 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm
June A. Rettig 

I am having a hard time trying to get the Adam
Hahn relationship prior to his marriage to Anna E.
Rettig straightened out. I give up at times. This is
in Indiana.

June 16, 2008 at 3:23 pm
C. T. Shuttleworth 

I have all this information on my Family Tree Maker but don’t know how to merge that with Ancestry. Do you know any shortcuts??

June 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Jean M Cliett 

Type your comment here.

June 16, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Jean M Cliett 

I absolute LOVE the new merge feature. This saves me a lot of typing and a lot of going back and forth to add this record to each family member. Thanks!!! This is one of your best. !

June 16, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Bobbie 

I love this feature! I had been thinking about suggesting it but never got a round-to-it!

Thanks much!

I might comment more after I have used it for awhile.

June 16, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Barbara Taylor 

You have provided me with a hitherto unknown sibling for g.grandfather. Now I will have to find out what became of her!

June 17, 2008 at 12:47 am
Lorraine 

I think this is realy helpful. Absolutely wonderful if I am just finding and adding new people. The only down fall is that if I already have this person, it’ll make a duplicate. So if I find someone in 1910, 1920, 1930 census, I now have them listed 3 times. Any suggestions?

June 17, 2008 at 10:36 am
Charles 

Regarding #287, my basic rule is “Merge, do not Add”. Until Ancestry.com can merge two individuals like Family Tree Maker 2008, the pain of duplicates is just to much to risk uncareful adding.

June 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Catheron Upson 

I found the new system confusing- example my ancestor is Lucian Bland
then it lists himself as a parent (no way I could see to change this)and his true father was also listed- then his sister was listed as his mother.???
Maybee I’m just not understanding what you are trying to tell me- I’m open to new ideas and appreciate any help I can get..Catheron

June 17, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Pricilla "Pat" Washer 

I absolutely love this new feature of saving census information to all family members mentioned … with the choice to “responsibly” merge that information. What a time save for us!

June 17, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Rita Arnold 

hello, this is one of the features that I have enjoyed on the offline Family Tree Maker 2006 for a while..but a glitch that someone else may have already commented on is that when you merge people with a name that is transcribed incorrectly (for whatever reason, sometimes through no falt of the transcriber..)it still makes them a new person, and how are we supposed to merge the two individuals after the addition of family info…this is also a feature I truly enjoy on the FTM 2006..will wait for a response..and thanks for all your hard work on making this program so flexible…

June 17, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Julie 

Very diappointed. While it looks great, I’ve spent too much time having to delete duplicate “other members of the family” because the program failed to recognizet them as the same person. It is much faster to just attach each person individually.

It’s a great idea, too bad it doesn’t work better.

June 17, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Christine 

Great feature. I’m finding it very helpful. It saves the laborious task of entering the same data to family members. There are still glitches with merging this data to another person on another tree. The selection drop down does not change to the tree selected. The software merely picks up the next tree in alpha sequence. Wish you could fix that as I want to merge data from one person to the same person on another tree. Also wish you would allow for merging descriptions.

June 17, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Jackie Marriott 

Ref: New adding and merging of family members from Census records:
If one parent is not included on the census listing, i.e. they are away from home, in hospital, visiting or even dead, then the children are added as having unknown parent and even duplicate themselves if already listed from prior censuses. Very time consuming then to delete them all and start again.
Otherwise, I love it.

June 18, 2008 at 10:44 am
John Blaine 

I will attempt to answer my own question ( 271 ).
After doing all the many things that support told me, clearing catche, deleting cookies, etc., I turn my firewall off and that did the trick. If you are running XP turn the XP firewall on for some protection while you merge records. Now that I got it working, on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best, I rate it a 9.

June 18, 2008 at 11:43 am
Cheryl Bills 

Thank you for this great new feature! I was pleased and surprised at how well it worked.
I would also like to comment on the Iowa State Census information–which is GREAT with one exception. When it appears as a location, only the town shows up on the record, no county or state unless I type it in. Please check this out and see if it can be adjusted.
Thanks for all you do to help make our family history better.

June 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Angela Eisert 

Ken,
Thank you so much, especially the things you said about responsible merging. The progress here is meaningful.
Again,
Angela

June 18, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Bill Bernardy 

Love this feature — it realy speeds things up in adding records to multiple family members. It’s especially useful when discovering new people for the first time.

Here’s a problem though — sometimes the record has a name wrong (misspelling or nickname), but you know who it refers to. The feature wants to create a new person, not recognizing that it’s really someone already in your tree. There should be a way to override the creation of a “new person” and connect the record to an existing person.

Hope you can add that functionality. Right now, you have to leave the wrong item unchecked and go back and manually connect the record to the right person.

Thanks,
Bill Bernardy

June 18, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Mike VanBlaricom 

The merge facility works well as long as the names to be merged from the database are nearly identical to those in my tree. It appears to be keying only on the name, which can be varied and even wrongly transcribed. It would help if it also considered birth dates and places and, as in FTM 16, offered the option to attach a record to any name.

June 18, 2008 at 8:51 pm
vhiddai 

I read the comments about how easy it now is to make one’s tree grow, with some amusement at the implicit naïvety.

Years ago in England there was a TV series entitled “Never mind the quality, feel the width.”

June 19, 2008 at 6:39 am
Carole J Chauncey 

1850 Merge doesn’t seem to be working. Charles is 1 and it’s bringing up his children..and no one on the 1850 census record.

June 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Dana 

Kenny, I can’t tell you what a difference this makes…well i’m sure you know. It takes very little time to look at the important information without having to toggle back and forth to double check dates, names, etc. I love researching but i don’t have a lot of time on my hands.and i haven’t even used it to its full potential yet.
Thank you so much for the improved site. Its awsome.

June 19, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Ganemede 

I like the fact that it was designed to save time, however there are still a few bug that drive me crazy. Due to the fact that I am usually merging census data, the names can be inaccurate/incomplete and therefore do not link up with the members in my tree. Perhaps the problem is it’s too automatic. If I choose the people myself from the family list, I wouldn’t have this problem.

June 19, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Shari Peavy 

I think I am still a bit over-whelmed with all the new options, but even so I have found family that was “lost” for years. I am really in a fog sbout merging the same people into one person; but I will figure it out! Thanks, to me the site is vastly improved and I like it.

June 19, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Gail Braswell 

AWESOME!!

June 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm
TamaraHendricks52 

This search is awesome!

June 19, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Melody 

I am pleased with the new search. Sure it’s a wee bit annoying to have to click on search and it’s a wee bit annoying to be taken back to the person I did the merge on but…

I like being able to merge many people from the same family at one time. Lots less clicking (more than making up for the having to click the search button when choosing a person or when getting back to the screen I was on).

I can copy and paste between many people at a time. I alter the formatting of places. Now instead of having to type the new format on everyone of the 12 children Mr. Fertility, I format once for him, and then copy and paste to all of his children for the same census record.

I especially like being able to merge info from one of my trees to another. I keep two copies of my trees – a private one where all the info needs to be sourced (as opposed to coming from public trees) and a speculative one where I put best guesses and info from public trees. I use the speculative one to “try out” different info I’ve found. It’s been very helpful in making connections and furthering my research. When something has been confirmed in my speculative tree, I merge it back into my strict tree. When my strict tree proves something wrong in my speculative tree, I merge from my strict tree to my speculative tree.

I like the new merge Very Much.

June 20, 2008 at 3:25 am
Kate 

New record merge feature – brilliant idea. Makes adding new people/families so much easier. Makes you want to search more. More like this please!!!

June 20, 2008 at 11:48 am
lynn seamark 

If the name in the census record is poorly transcribed – attaching the rest of the family is not possible because it thinks they are all new. You must link each member seperately. It would be nice for the linking to be smarter and allow you to pick from the existing family.

June 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Amy J Fielding 

The merge feature is great when it works, but it seems to operate erratically. Today, for instance, I wanted to save a census record to the head of family. Although there were a wife and six children listed, only one child was offered for merging. Often, the merging of relatives is not available at all. I cannot figure out why the feature works some times and not others.

June 20, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Fiona Allen 

Good when it works, but not this time.

June 20, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Andrea Messenger 

I am finding this new facility extremely useful. It can sometimes save hours of searching. Adding parents, siblings, husband/wife and children, then attaching the source to each person is great.
I always make sure that the info is correct first.
Thanks.

June 21, 2008 at 5:08 am
Isobell Millsap 

On this page why can’t I keep the death date and place.
I always consult the census documents and they are a bit difficult to get to.
ceim2634

June 21, 2008 at 6:45 am
Cathy 

I am using the merge feature, it’s really wonderful, when it’s available. It seems to not like the 1850-1870 census. It would be wonderful if we had an option when merging to choose the family members name.
Example: I am merging Noah Ganner and his family. During the 1920 merge it was flawless.
In this 1910 merge it is not picking up Emma Doyel as the wife, so I have to uncheck her, it’s seeing her as a new person. If I had an option here to add her in, then I could merge the family record to the correct person.

This is where people get frustrated, this is the error made normally. As I’ve pointed out before, watch for that word NEW Person if you see that, stop what you’re doing. You can always go back and pick up that individual after you get the rest of the fam added in.

It would be nice though to have an option there to choose the family member name when the record is off like that. It might cut down some of the confusion of people adding in extra people.
Thanks for listening. I’m enjoying this very much when its available on the page!!

June 21, 2008 at 11:08 am
Amy 

What a great feature. Awesome, makes easy work of adding relatives that otherwise may not have been entered!

June 21, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Kathleen Keefe 

I like the merge feature, but I’m dismayed to find that the transcriptions of the census records are often so wrong. For example, the 1930 census shows my grandfather’s place of birth as Finland when he was really born in Ireland – and the actual document clearly says “Irish Free State”. And that’s just one error I’ve seen. How can I go about getting the transcriptions fixed?

June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
Robert Lowe 

Hello Kenny,
Any idea if Ancestry are planning to re-link all my sources that were previously linked, before some sort of bug or an intentional decision was made to break all the records, I have spend many hours enhancing my family history by ensuring everything is sourced, in a very short time Ancestry has undone this.

Regards
Robert Lowe

June 22, 2008 at 4:04 am
Becky 

I think it works nicely. In fact I was so tired of looking someone up and getting this multitude of people that had been randomly added to that person without a thought or a bit of research. I’m happy with that change. :)

June 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Michel Bryson 

It would be helpful if, when adding family members from a record, we could select someone already in our tree. For example, my grandfather was John Edward McDermott. Sometimes he’s referred to as Eddy – which the system adds as a new person. And sometimes the census has a space in the name (Mc Dermott). So I add all the records I can find, then re-open them and manually attach them to the correct names, then go back and delete the duplicate people.

June 22, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Jane Weaver 

I like it. It works good until it gets all mixed up and adds the wrong people because of family trees with maiden names of mothers name isn’t the same as one it recognizes and I end up deleting children and reoganizing, losing more time than I saved–but it is a really good start.

June 22, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Kimberly Finley 

I really like this new feature. It saves me the time of adding every family member, one at a time, then going back and attaching their sources. I do believe that attaching the sources should be done responsibly, but I really wish every person could be added, instead of the website choosing who it thinks should be added. Sometimes it doesn’t catch that there are 2 different people, but their ages are just close (or sometimes twins). It would also be good to allow the user to decide whether a person in a family was ‘new’ or not. Misspellings of names doesn’t constitute a new person, so it would be helpful if that could be another option that a user could decide to use or not. Also, it would be great if family members on censuses older than 1880 could be added/merged the same way. It’s true that not every person living in the home was a child or parent, etc., but the genealogists who strive for accuracy would check into that before adding them into a tree anyway. The other variety can still do it the wrong way, too. Just a couple thoughts on possible improvements or options, but overall I really like this new feature!

June 22, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Ginger Beatty 

Great addition to the census records. It sure makes the input of family data much faster and efficient. thanks

June 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm
harley cassan 

The year of William Henry’s birth is recorded incorrectly. He was born in 1879 and was 32 years of age at the time of this census – 1911

June 24, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Pat Robertson 

Love it, it saves so much time and effort.

June 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm
judith whitehead 

Merge feature not working…unable to
Save to Tree.

June 24, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Lisa Kasper 

I love the fact that you can attach a historical document to several family members at one time; however, there’s always the issue of transcription errors. For example, I attach a historical document to John Puzo and then want to attach it to his wife Domenica and daughter Rosanna, but the names on the census are “Manuel” for “Domenica” and “Rose” for “Rosanna”. As a result, it prompts me to “Add a wife” for “Manuel” and a child for “Rose” . . . how do I override??

June 24, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Justine Bachman 

Love this new feature, much easier to track sources and link family members.

June 25, 2008 at 1:44 am
ReneeTS 

MY TREES ONLY FAMILY. SOMETIMES PARENTS HAVE DIFERENT NAMES – LIKE:
TATAM,TATUM,TATHAIN,TATHAM, ETC; VAN VORCE,VAN,VAN DYKE,ETC; ROYSE,ROYCE.RICE,RHYS,ETC. SOMEONE DELETED MY ENGLAND ANCESTORS! WHY?
THANKS, REN

June 25, 2008 at 2:24 am
Bonnie Baumann 

On this particular record, it is showing the parents backwards… with the mother’s name connected with the father’s and vice versa. So there are still a few kinks in it; however, I LOVE this new feature!

June 25, 2008 at 5:52 am
Wendy Davies 

Love the addition to link family, only problem is if the name is spelt slightly differently or family name reverses from one census to another eg. Elizabeth Hepzibah Gregory then Hepzibah Elizabeth Gregory, it shows up as a new person and there is no way of being able to connect them except by going back to the original record. Find it brilliant otherwise.

June 25, 2008 at 6:32 am
Lisa Trodden 

Adding the census records to the other family members listed saves a lot of times. Thanks

June 25, 2008 at 8:37 am
thomas miller 

so far-so good, i’ve just started today!

June 25, 2008 at 11:26 am
alwyn leverton 

This feature has enabled me to find lots more relatives very quickly.

June 25, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Liz Ford 

Great idea to be able to merge family members at the same time as you do the 1st but there isn’t enough flexibility. It won’t allow you to chose to associate a nickname to a given name so names on both records must be exact spelling. Same with marriages and children, exact names and spellings as well.

June 25, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Nancy Hampton 

I love merging the census records to family members. It helps save a lot of time. Thank you,
Nancy

June 25, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Terrell Thompson 

Great! I must have used this feature a thousand times the old way. You know, add the people to your tree one at a time, going back over the same steps back and forth and back and forth.

This is the most efficent change you have ever made. I Love it.

June 26, 2008 at 3:29 am
Drew 

I love the Record Merge feature. The biggest issue I have with it, however, is that if a name is spelled differently, you only get an option to add a new person. You should be able to merge that data with an existing relative, also.

June 26, 2008 at 5:52 am
Terrell Thompson 

While merging the 1870 census of John Thomas Ransdell I was offered the option of merging his son, Vere Ransdell who was not born until 1895. There is a glich somewhere.

June 26, 2008 at 6:17 am
jacnrg 

I love the new search features! One suggestion, keep the 5 star ranking to enable us to whittle down thousands of possibilities into dozens. Also, if we put in NY as birthplace, only return births in NY, not other places.

Thanks.

June 26, 2008 at 11:09 am
Isobell Millsap 

Right now I am still confused. I need easier access to my list of people. I am not sure I am doing it right also.

June 26, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Lisa 

I think this feature is incredible….but why is it that it appears sometimes and other times it doesn’t?

June 26, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Elizabeth Engel 

Since the installation of the Enhanced Image Viewer I have had problems attaching the census record to an individual in my tree.I have had to save them to my shoe box until hopefully I am able to attach them to my ancestor.Is anyone else experiencing this or a similar problem? Before the installation of the viewer I had no problems at all.I have had a computer technician look at my computer he said the problem is with the website.I would appreciate any thoughts on this issue so I can move forward.

June 27, 2008 at 4:46 am
Julie Leeds 

When one of the parents has passed away, it lists the children as being from and unknown spouse when merging them. Is there a way around this?

June 27, 2008 at 4:59 am
Isobell Millsap 

The more I work with this new software the wearier I become of it.
ceim

June 27, 2008 at 9:42 am
Diane Brown 

I cannot merge the 1930 US Fed Census for Amelia Mollie Busch. I get a page error and it continually shows that it is loading, but never completes the action. I was trying to load her and the rest of the family.

June 28, 2008 at 11:53 am
Walter Gallant 

The idea is good. However, it needs to be more versatile. Users should be able to see all of the possible matches in their trees, and they should then be able to match the found records to the correct tree members. The ancestry.com match makes too many wrong assumptions about who matches with whom, and it can’t yet figure out that variations (even simple ones) might be the same person. So most of the time I can’t use the feature, because it dumps too many unnecessary duplicates into my tree, and I have not yet been able to find a graceful way to merge duplicate persons in my tree. But please, keep working on it, ‘cuz when the kinks are out of it, it will be a useful feature.

June 28, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Donna 

Love this option before I would have to go to each individual and connect them to the document. This is such a time saver. Please keep up the great ideas.

Thank you

June 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Adrian 

I can’t tell you how much I LOVE THE NEW MERGE FEATURE!

Since I started building my tree one week ago, I have been able to add hundreds of people to my family, and don’t have to do hardly any work at all!

I just sit here at my computer and accept the hints. Ancestry has made it so easy! Thank you!

Since there are so many trees with the same information in them, I just KNOW the information is correct, so I don’t even have to do anything at all except keep on building my tree. I can’t believe how much royalty is in the family. I’ve gone as far back as 542 AD already.

I can’t wait. I figure I should be done with my family next week, and then I’ll start on my wife’s family.

With the new Ancestry book printing thing, I plan to print out several copies of the trees and give them to my family members for Christmas.

Thank you Ancestry for offering your “Family Trees for Idiots” program to all your new subscribers.

I love it!!!!

June 28, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Elizabeth 

LOVE IT! Now, if only it would recognize duplicates and alert us to that .. it would move up to AWESOME!! Looking forward to that being a feature in the future…Please? :) Also, unless I just haven’t found it yet, a way to easily and quickly compare/merge duplicated individuals… so far, I’m doing that checking manually, and being much more careful in checking before entering…which can be a bit cumbersome sometimes. Nothing is perfect, but this program does keep getting better and better! YEA

June 28, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Sherry Hightower 

The option to add the individual FAMILY members (via Census) does not always appear. Just now, the system showed 1 out of about 12 children, did not open for the parents so I could not merge the one available child, since I could not select “at least one parent”.

Thanks
Sherry

June 29, 2008 at 2:29 am
Stephanie Pires 

I am so impressed at so many new things. I haven’t been a member for about 6 years. What does bother me, is that I know that the system is adding someone as new, when they are just a variation of the spelling. It would be great to either save the info, or add it to the correct person.
But I am not complaining! I love this site.
What happens is that I sometimes get multiple spellings added and people. It would be nice to be able to merge these entries as one would merge with other people’s trees.

June 29, 2008 at 3:43 am
Vivian 

This is very exciting and much needed. I see the progress you are making and see so much more that needs to be made. With this option, can you also include a comment for error correction instead of going to the census page itself to do this. I’ve submitted several corrects already.

June 29, 2008 at 8:20 am
Louise 

thanks, this is a great addition, certainly makes my life alot easier
x

June 29, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Jane 

When adding persons attached to the record, it would be helpful if there were categories other than “spouse” and “child”….for example, “mother-in-law”, “brother”. Thanks.

June 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm
rod foster 

great tool time saving

June 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Carole J Chauncey 

Show relatives doesn’t seem to work for the 1860 census, just shows the family member you were working on last.

June 30, 2008 at 1:27 am
Sheri Crawford 

I find this is a valuale tool for merging large families. This merges the family quickly all at one time. When I come across a file that doesn’t have this feature, I have to go into each person to merge.
I urge everyone to us this tool when available.

June 30, 2008 at 1:11 pm
jane probst 

The features are great if the information transcribed is correct…..

June 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Richard 

Great Tool, But When Names are spelled wrong. I get extra spouse`s and children.I need option to change spelling of names to stop new persons from being added and stop new spouse`s from being added I need to uncheck new person name and enter correct Information. Great when It works but lots of work when not.when I have Missed spelled Info.I just do one at a time. Thank`s Kenny

June 30, 2008 at 6:41 pm
kay risher 

re this comment..
This is a wonderful addition but needs to be tweaked to allow mergers with existing people in the tree whose names are spelled slightly differently than the index(an “e” rather than and “a”). I wound up with many duplicate people whom I had to remove one by one. —
so did I and would suggest that existing family be displayed so you could skip some potential Dups .. but more than that -existing spouse should be displayed with option to merge or create new spouse ..
otherwise you have to go back to your tree and add correct parent should spelling or even maiden/Married name keep the present spouse from being displayed.

July 1, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Cheryl 

Some of the new features will be great when the bugs are worked out….in the mean time, it stinks! I’m paying for a service I can’t use because I do not know where the information is going to end up within my tree. It is extremely frustrating!

I have valid duplicates in my tree–brothers of one family marry sisters of another family. I would like to see the system point to the duplicates—there is no way to differentiate which line you are in when you save information. The documentation does not always end up in the line you were searching.

The merge function I have found to be a total pain….I end up with children of “unknown parentage” and duplicate entries. All time consuming to go back in and correct.

Some documentation I have saved to an individual works fine one day, the next day— it’s gone. Like it was never there. I add it back in and 3-4 days later the original set of documention mysteriously reappears, creating duplicate information and wasting time.

What was once an enjoyable passtime has become a nightmare—you don’t get much research done for correcting errors or tracking down where the information ended up. Until this site is fixed, I am seriously considering canceling the subscription. I certainly have better things to do with my money than pay for frustration—I can get that for free

July 2, 2008 at 3:24 am
dstark 

I believe that the name of this person is Florence Richards.

July 2, 2008 at 7:59 am
Cathleen Strabala 

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this feature!!! Time saving, easy to use; I couldn’t have designed it better myself!

July 2, 2008 at 8:58 am
Sandra Harris 

How do I avoid duplicating sources in the census attachments? I find I end up with duplicate citations on a person if I attach from the child’s census record. Sandra

July 2, 2008 at 9:44 am
Carla 

I like this feature alot. It is very helpful with large families.

Please add it to 1850-1870 censuses.

Thanks

July 2, 2008 at 9:49 am
Helen.Hiner 

I am enjoying all the advancesments you are making. I also need to review the information befor recording it. If you would write a place were we can keep your information for review.

I am not a computer programer. I maynot be expressing what I would like in proper turms. Please Advise.
helen.hiner@mchsi.com

July 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Cheryl Moslowitz 

I love the new features. It makes working on my family tree so much easier and exciting. I don’t get frustrated wondering if I missed someone or not. In fact, I haven’t been able to work on getting my website up because I enjoy working on this site so much. If I were going to add anything, it would be some sort of alert when a date is obviously wrong – such as a parent’s birthdate being before their children’s. When I find one, I will try and research it further and correct it, but when you get into the “G” zone you tend to get overly excited and assume that the dates are correct. I wouldn’t make it so you can’t continue without correcting it, but some sort of little note popping up would be helpful.

July 3, 2008 at 3:31 am
Curtis Felts 

I think this is a great feature but I think it needs to come a bit farther along. Merging the info to match the person/family. What is missing is a way to merge info or names that are not exactly as listed in the record hint… for example: I have a relative named Margaret in my tree and when I get these hints they never work out because she is often listed as “Maggie”, the merging feature should allow for us to choose from a list of names to merge with to allow for slight name differences but which we know are the same people. Also sometimes the names have spelling errors in the hints/records but we know its the right person.

July 3, 2008 at 7:14 am
Moira 

Love this new feature. It speeds up the building of the family tree and allows a double check of facts as you build

July 3, 2008 at 7:48 am
Kay Ralston 

Like the ability to include relatives, BUT, in adding the information sometimes an individual who is already in my database is duplicated. Example Harvey Faust married Ella Faust. No maiden name shown. In adding his wife, she was duplicated because she was already in my data base as Ella Horn, her maiden name. Is there a way to merge duplicate individuals? I know I can delete, but it can be very time consuming, especially if there are a lot of children.

July 3, 2008 at 8:44 am
Lorraine 

As with all changes, we sometimes have to give something up. So to be able to view, merge and add other family members on the same census, is wonderful. I do believe the problem we are having is that we are compelled to accept the name as listed in order to “attach” the document in whole or in part. If there was a way to merge and “edit” the names so that it would not add a new person by default, this would help. I read several of the messages and it appears that because the “name” may not be spelled the same way on the “hint/doc/or other tree, by default it will add an entirely new person. Thus making us now have to go back, delete the unwanted additional person, and then search again for what we just deleted in order to get it attached correctly. I have faith you will fix it. Until then, We should all use with caution. Or at least two tylenols. LOL

July 3, 2008 at 11:03 am
D Robert Dunn 

The merge lists siblings, but will not let me merge their infor… says I have to select at least one parent, but there’s nowhere to do that either. ARGHH!

July 3, 2008 at 11:04 am
Norma Roper 

These new changes are driving me crazy….it’s taking me so much longer to find anything. Also, I have other trees…now I can’t find them. What ever happened to “My Ancestry”. Your efforts to improve your system is killing me. Norma

July 3, 2008 at 11:57 am
Larry Jolley 

My second year wit Ancertory.com. You and your staff are doing a real Great Job.
Thank You for the hard work all you put in to make this happen

Larry Jolley

July 3, 2008 at 11:30 pm
sarah 

Hi you have a record in the 1901 english census that has been transcribed incorrectly. It relates to the Hotheuls family at richmond st. I can say without a doubt that this should be the wheals family. the 1st record should be charles h wheals not charles hotheuls. I know this because they are my great grandparents, great uncles.

July 4, 2008 at 1:48 am
Sue 

Terrific feature. Someone is really thinking out there. Really appreciate the efforts.

July 4, 2008 at 7:10 am
Noma Foltz 

I like the new way of doing hints with the list of all the people. I also like the new addition of showing the whole family on Census hints. Only problem is some hints don’t show the whole family…why? Maybe it needs some tweeking!!!

July 4, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Jeannie Phifer 

When I add a record to someone, and it allows me to add relatives, it often doesnt find that person is already in my tree. It would be very helpful if we could “choose” the person it should be attached to.

THANKS!

July 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Larry Jolley 

This is my 2nd day working on the update Ancestry.Com
Kenny the program is a credit.
I read the message section and feel that I am comfortable with this program.
The older program was a pain, the newer program helps you along as you go.
Thank to your Staff and You
Larry
PS
I do not have a web or Ancestry email having problem understand that is my problem I have TBI.

July 5, 2008 at 1:41 am
Susan Epple 

I REALLY like the “add relatives” in the census feature, but it doesn’t work in some census years and for some reason in the years where the feature did work a couple of days ago (1870 for example), I’m now getting “phantom” siblings (no first name, no dates) to be added and not the people who are actually listed in the census record. Yesterday I got the “phantom” sibling AND actual people.

July 5, 2008 at 6:06 am
Jane Kimble 

I love being able to attach a census record to several members of the family BUT sometimes I’m offered that option and sometime I’m NOT offered that option even tho I know other family members are there. I can’t figure out how to always have that option??? That is frustrating. Need button or something to get that option all the time.

July 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
Beverly Anderson 

I love this it is so easy to add family members to the tree. It saves so much time!

July 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Erica Olson 

I love the family merge on the census records. Others have mentioned this, but the addition of the ability to merge family members from the census to EXISTING individuals would be a huge help. If the names are slightly different in spelling, it wants to create a new person. Thanks!

July 5, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Vanessa Genens 

This is such a time saver! Now I can get on with my work without having to write everything down and then enter it in the record. I love it!

July 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm
lesley busher 

This records merge is a really fantastic addition. It saves so much time when discovering and adding new members to your family.

July 6, 2008 at 3:50 am
Jodie Hart 

Thank you! This makes it MUCH easier to add siblings. Thank you!

July 6, 2008 at 7:51 am
Julie 

It would be nice if you could manually select someone from the family tree for which to add the record. It often misses a spouse or child because of a misspelled name or difference in name. Otherwise, I really like it.

July 6, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Isobell Millsap 

There are time I make a mistake a I cannot get it to go away.
ceim isobell2@verizpn.net

July 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm
gerald Myhre 

In the vien of merging responsibly I would like to be able to send the hint to my shoebox for later study.

July 6, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Terry Barker 

The merge feature is really cool, except that I have a situation where a guy had two wives, but I can’t add the 2nd wife, I can only merge her information into the 1st wife’s information. It’d be cool to have a way to say “No, I don’t want to merge these two people, I want to add a new person entirely.” That’d be awesome. Thanks.

July 6, 2008 at 11:47 pm
David Sandilands 

I like the new system. Much more efficient, and yes you still have to check names with different spellings, as you should be. My only dislike is the type-ahead feature has changed. It is no longer available on some name additions and the default now serves up a lot of irrelevant names, similar to getting American place names incorrectly served up by some of the sources. I preferred the old type-ahead which appeared to work on your own selection of place names, so you could add in district names and other relevant information with one click. (Is there a switch for this?).

July 7, 2008 at 1:03 am
Linda B 

At times the option is not available. Other times even though a spouse already exists the site makes the same spouse a new spouse creating two sets of children belonging to the same family. Mostly however I find this feature a great time saver.

July 7, 2008 at 7:24 am
Shelley Murray 

I found the birth record for William Thomas Edgar Moore and instead of giving me the option of adding his parents. It gave me his spouse.
Her name was not mentioned in the document.
Thanks

July 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Ellen Dickinson 

It would be helpful if there were a box at the top of the relatives on the historical events so you can add them all instead of having to click each box individually.

July 7, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Virginia Gentry Hobbs 

How do I correct Ancestry transcription of names on the census reports?

July 8, 2008 at 10:38 am
Yvonne Pennestri 

This addition has been wonderful. It saves me time, as well as paper. In the past, I made a copy of the preview page, so I could be sure to connect the record to all persons. Keep up the great work!

July 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Kaye 

Thank you, Kenny.
this is my grandmother.

July 8, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Michel 

With the family name undergoing a spelling change, but finding the correct family, I was not able to add the source all at once, but had to do do each one at a time. Not really the best feature YET. Work on it.

July 9, 2008 at 9:41 am
kay harvey 

samuel H luscombes’ father is recorded on 1881 census as edro? it should be edward born buckfastleigh devon

July 9, 2008 at 9:43 am
Daniel R. Baumgart 

Hi Kenny,
I’m a board administrator for ancestry.com “Baumgart” message board. If you are knee deep with your own problems that does and dosen’t make me happy. You are doing such a heck of a great job on all the new features. Everyone you have done lately has blown my mind. I love the ease of moving from one area to another. One I would like to see is if you know for certain that information that comes up is in error that there would be away to change. An example is
in my great uncles. The site is connecting one of my great aunt son with his cousin. The cousin is coming up as a son which is definitely not true. It’s because the son and the cousin had the same first name. And Ancestry.com is automatically trying to pair the cousin as a son.

Keep all thgose good changes coming but please take some time off to go fishing. (lol) :-)
Ydabtow
Eab

July 9, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Barb 

I LOVE the new feature for accepting other relation to attach! It is coming in handy for my husband’s family which have 10-16 children per couple!!

I am so glad I waited to work on his family!

July 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Paula Copp 

Can you make it possible to select all relatives from more pages? There are some results where this is not an option.
Also, the feature does not appear to work consistently, in that sometimes the parents and or husband/wife are not added to the family tree, despite being selected to be merged.
Also, please make it easier to locate and search on women’s maiden and married names (possibly display both on every record). This is especially helpful when a maiden name is not known, instead of just saving “Mary (unknown last name),” I would like to save her as Mary (blank), married name Smith. Since this option is not available, I routinely save the married name as the middle name for all women who’s maiden names are not known to me.

July 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm
fann dewar greer 

I am ready to see how this works. I really don’t know yet.

July 9, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Michele 

Like the new features, does seem like to all takes longer now!
Frustrated with getting undefined when ancestry family trees appear and then being asked to check back in later. Sent comment in email to ancestry days ago and received no comment.
Also, love the adding relatives feature except just tried to add a relative but won’t let me without adding parents and as it was a civil war record parents are provided.

July 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Jeanne Bickerstaff 

This is really an excellent resource. It is a time-saver and makes it much easier to source other family members on the same record. Thank you so much.

July 9, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Rebecca Farley 

When you have added a “hint” to someone and go back to the list it should be noted that it has already been added wither by a color or a tag “added”. Also, when you go to a persons page i.e. when you find famous relatives, it would be really, really, really wonderful if you could just add that entire line and family in one click. I have to add person after person after person. It’s great that the info is there but you should’nt have to cut and paste when it is already all in there.

July 9, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Constance E Burnell 

Re: Thomas Baird
Bn. 1850 Ralls, Missouri
Information came up regarding his siblings. Unable to add siblings to his file as no parent was mentioned.
Frustrating!

July 9, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Carolyn 

Often, when trying to add passenger list data to my tree(s), the wrong data entry form appears. it is entirely useless as it doesn’t have the entry spaces for anything. What a waste of time.

We also think the new multi-colored format is giving us trouble. We are receiving multiple “Error Messages” and cannot easily open up the information.

July 10, 2008 at 12:30 am
Ami Jackson 

It would be cool to have the “Add as alternate fact” check box on this feature, like we have on the One World Tree merger.

July 10, 2008 at 10:43 am
Hazel 

This new feature is certainly not as good as it first appeared to be. It misses out some family members for no apparent reason, adds on people as ‘new person’ when they are already on the tree so duplicating them, and doesn’t always link chilren with parents properly so a child will be posted with an unknown mother or father when that parent is actually there but has been ignored for some reason. It now takes me longer sorting out the muddles than it used to take putting everyone on individually.

July 10, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Robert Hood 

Kenny,
the merge appears to be an excellent tool/benefit, with one caveat: bad information from folks who do sloppy genealogy work. I know this is not your fault, but it gets old passing on whole families when someone has input dates of births of 3-4 children after the mother has died or when she was in her 70′s.

July 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jeanne Smith 

Berger Nelsen Is the Father of Clifford N. Nelsen

July 10, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Rosamond Crawley 

This would be a great feature, but it doesn’t work at all for me! There needs to be a way to search for specific family members to attach to the additional people in the census record. I tried to link a census record to a family. It tried to add a new child to the head of house for each of the children listed. There was no way that I could find to attach those children to the children already in my database.

July 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Erin Parker 

I love this feature – what a time saver to be able to incorporate a whole household on one page, from one census record. I haven’t experienced any noticeable “slowness”, either. I also like the new search page. One thing I wish for – the bubble at the top that shows the info for the person in my tree I’m searching for, I wish that would stay visible on the screen as I scroll down, so I wouldn’t have to keep going back up to the top of the screen to check dates and stuff.

Thanks!

July 10, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Larry Vredenburgh 

Wonderful!! I would like you to add a select all button, then we can uncheck the people we don’t want.

July 10, 2008 at 11:11 pm
LaGarry Smith 

I’m can’t seem to get the record to accept all of the children from the record. Help!

July 10, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Robin Faulkner 

I found this feature easier to use than the one by one access, as I have lost several entries and do not know how to get them back again. It means I can also the record in their context. Thank you.

July 11, 2008 at 12:50 am
Joel Reid 

While doing some record merging I noticed a very simple ERROR. The problem is because father and son have SAME NAME. So some got confused and merged father and son’s dates.
Joseph Patchen b1610 d1689
SON
Joseph Patchen b1643 d????

July 11, 2008 at 6:03 am
Rosemarie Derry 

The time saved is excellent,but it does tend to show married women as new….(different surname and sometimes marginally different year of birth. An option to relate to someone else in your tree would be good.

July 11, 2008 at 6:50 am
Pamela Ross 

POSSIBLE BUG —

Census REcords for George C Dent are showing several family members but they can’t be merged.

Each of the census records I’ve tried to merge shows “John Dent 1814 RI” as a sibling. I can merge John to George but john isn’t on any of the census reports. don’t think John is George’s brother either.

July 11, 2008 at 8:23 am
wgaede 

While I enjoy the automatic searching for documents, I am having difficulty when a document includes another name–such as parent, brother, etc. If the name is not exactly as previously given, it makes a new file. Either I forgo adding the new person or have a duplicate. I find myself spending most of my time going through duplicates to make corrections.

July 11, 2008 at 10:56 am
Ian Lovatt 

Hi,

really appreciate this site and the hard work. Well done.

I have a hint aginst my Great Grandad. it tells me he had a son – James – whom i do not know of and my ftaher neither.

I’ve gone in and searched the BMD fopr this young man, and that throws nothing up.

Please can you tell me why does a hint pick this up but I cannot then get a hit in the BMD register?

I can accept it’s a freak/error and no hard feelings!!!! Just wnated to check with you guys.

Once again, fantastic site, love it ot bits

Ian

July 11, 2008 at 11:25 am
Shirley Kading 

I love this new feature. It helps sooooo much you cannot believe. Getting information one one family at a time helps sift through what you will need and what you have wrong and comfirming what you have right. Thank you so very much
Shirley Kading

July 11, 2008 at 11:46 am
Kathleen Conway 

While I think this Nolan might be related, I am only given a choice to add the hint, or ignore. The Thomas Nolan listed might be a brother of my great grandfather, so I’d like to put it in the Shoebox, but can’t figure out how to do it.
I love all the new features in Ancestry, as well as the compatibility with Legacy.

July 11, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Paula Stine 

I have not found a fix relationships on this that I have used in family tree maker, or am I justing missing it?

July 12, 2008 at 2:09 am
stan walker 

it gives a child to add but when i try to check “mahalia higgins” an error box pops up stating “you must select one parent”

July 12, 2008 at 2:45 am
Jo-Anne Hiscock 

Because of incorrect Data on my grandparents I did not want to merge the sibling documents for my Uncle.
How do I get the correct data there.

My Grandmother’s first name is incorrect and my Grandfather’s birthdate is incorrect.

Thanks JHiscock

July 12, 2008 at 3:16 am
Jeanette Pinnix 

I already had this info in my tree.

July 12, 2008 at 3:51 am
Carol Murry 

The merge feature for everyone in a specific file ie a census record, only works for the immediate family. In other words lets say that a sister or brother is also listed as living with the family only the spouse and children are able to be added, unless the parents of the brother and sister are listed. Additionally, if there is more than one spouse it will not allow you to add the second spouse unless it overwrites the first spouse. Any fix in the works for this?

July 12, 2008 at 5:59 am
Lynda Littrell Benjamin 

How do I show an alternate name on a record–my G-grandparents are listed in your records as Littick–correct spelling is Littrell
Thank you

July 12, 2008 at 6:31 am
Maryaileen 

Great feature, time saving.

July 12, 2008 at 7:57 am
Catha S. Sapp 

I am just getting acquainted with this new feature and I already love it. Thanks for this helpful upgrade.

July 12, 2008 at 8:01 am
Jan Groshan 

Nice feature, but in my particular case I got an email that Ancestry had found a possible “match”, which in fact was a match for a different individual on my tree but I had no way of linking it to another individual….other than the one that came up when I clicked on the information. Having the ability to “link to someone else on your tree” would be a great idea.

July 12, 2008 at 8:07 am
David 

The merge of other relatives should allow for the selection of someon from the tree list if no match or an incorrect match is identified.
Thi feature would also be great on birth records where th mother/father are listed, like in Texas.

July 12, 2008 at 8:07 am
shirley couch 

i can not merge anything into my trees anymore why i am i paying for this it dont work anymore

July 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Valita Randolph 

Why can’t I add information that is available in the record to the people listed in the record, when those people are listed in my tree? I just tried to add info from a census,and all it wanted to do was add two “new” children who weren’t new at all, and it ignored all the others.

All in all, a great improvement, though!

July 12, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Lisa Barber 

Though I appreciate your encouraging restraint in merging individuals, it would be nice to have a select all option when one is viewing the relatives of a found individual.

This family tree feature has been wonderful. Months of work that I had done previously has been found and merged in minutes by this system. Thanks. It seems to only be searching other family trees. Is that an intentional limitation or coincidence for my research? No direct response expected.

July 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Lisa Barber 

two more comments from me:
When I try to merge an indidual from a record where only one of their parents was listed, it wants to attach them to a second marriage. If the program could “ask” me first it would be great. Second related comment is that it is very easy to mrege an individual and hints, it is not easy to delete them if you discover later that they weren’t merged correctly or their not related after all. An easier editing interface would be lovely.

July 12, 2008 at 4:43 pm
happytrailsfarmer 

Ever since you added this I keep gettting “Error on page” and I can not merge any of the information. I have tried everything to make it work right. It sucks.

July 12, 2008 at 6:31 pm
joe 

this is exactly what was needed. it moved adding a census froma 20 minute task to a 2 minute task and anything that imporves effciency by an order of magnatude gets my gratatude.

JC

July 13, 2008 at 7:04 am
Wes 

This is a great new feature and overall very time-saving.

One thing I’d like to see addressed is that you often can end up with duplicate “Residence” entries for the census year if you’ve already attached the census to one of the parents (because to add the children using the merge function, you’re required to select the parents). It seems like something that the system should be able to detect, and not end up with multiple duplicate citations on the same individual.

Thanks,

Wes

July 13, 2008 at 8:12 am
Annemarie Carlan-Menard 

I love this new feature!! It is also wonderful that I can make the corrections needed to the information. Such as, James Carlan b.1846, Ireland landed in the states on July 2, 1864 according to his immigration papers in PA. This is great!!! Thank you so much for doing this!
Annemarie

July 13, 2008 at 10:35 am
libby trautman 

when merging the 1900 census document into my family tree for Mathilda Imler up pops her hubby harry C. Mock – but this time as a “new person” – he is not a new person – he is already in my family tree with the exact same birth information as listed in the 1900 census documnet, thought the merge wants me to add him as a new person – thus duplicating him my family tree. This has happened many, many times when trying to merge family data into my tree in recent weeks – please recheck this feature so that you can better help those of us using your search engine, which we pay for, to build our family trees.
thanks,
Libby trautman

July 13, 2008 at 11:31 am
Melissa Koch 

this feature for marraiges only ever adds the mother! the spouse would be nice too… especially in the case of muliple spouses

July 13, 2008 at 11:31 am
Pat McBride 

I don’t get the hints. They are nothing different than what I already have.

July 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Maudotha Ratchford 

William Odis Ratchford: I have , anyway what I thought I done is add to Christopher Aclin what I had found in the Census and other events into his profile under the above tree. Like today I receive Hints for the item I had already place in his profile. I look for what I had intered. Not there. Can you tell me what is wrong. I follow the directions some info gets in some don’t. I dont agree with some of the info offered. But I still would like for the ones that I have selected to be input. Please let me know were I am going wrong. I don’t have enough time left to keeping going over again and again. Maudotha

July 13, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Shirley Lash 

This is much better than before. Please don’t change it unless you find other sources for us.

July 13, 2008 at 4:13 pm
DianeEdwardsAnger 

It is great and grand being able to merge and yes you are right, don’t do the willy nilly, but you know we almost have to at least once to learn not to. It is great though, cannot say enough good about it. I would like to be able to add on the lodgers or servants, somehow under the umberella without having them show as family. Keep up the good work. Diane
Linda it sounds like you have Vista, I forget how I did it, but you have to go in to the viewer and adjust it to the compatiblity of Windows 2000 it will work then. I fumed at first too. Most computer shops can help over the phone or call Big Bill.
LOL Diane

July 13, 2008 at 7:50 pm
theresa 

I wish ya’ll would add a extra place for people to put nick names so people can add them with putting them in the name space

July 13, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Mary Mayfield 

I am having a few problems learning
how to operate the new program.
I am related to Thomas H. Houston
and have not been able to make correction when needed.

I am still learning,
Mary mayfield

July 14, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Debbi 

This is a fantastic feature, or WILL be, IF you can get it to work properly… especially since the old “add” had to be done twice… once to add a person with birth date, then again to attach the census record you got the info from. What I found here on this family add is what others menioned: It thinks a “new person” must be added when the name is misspelled or differently spelled. It is COMPLETELY useless at this point, as I have no need to have multiple records, so I will have to go back to the old method of adding each person one by one. This is a significant flaw in the otherwise possibly exciting new feature.

There really should be a match-up option which works similar to the old feature which finds [or offers] the matching record and allows me to choose with whom to match the record and then allows me to make corrections to the name field, for example.

I look forward to using it when it actually works as it should! For now, it is a hopeful and often-maybe-sometimes-useful feature. (It’s about a 50-50 success rate so far, what with all the enumerator and index transcription flaws.)

July 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm
mindy 

I think it is great when reviewing census and you are able to add others on the list. I was writing the names down and transfering…thanks saves me a whole lotta writing.

July 14, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Mike Albright 

First thank you for your hard work. Ancestry.com is money well spent and is extremely addicting. This merge feature is a great addition.

What follows are few possible improvements related to this feature.

1. When adding members to one’s family tree from another member’s family tree or census, occasionally a person will be considered a new person when in reality that person already exists in one’s family tree. It would be very helpful, in these instances, to be able to manually associate a person that is mis-identified as a new person with someone who is currently in one’s tree.

2. At times I have added records for what I thought was a new person into my tree, but later realized that these records actually belong to someone who is already in my tree. This results in two people in my tree when in reality there is only one individual. It would be very helpful to have a less manual process to merge the duplicate persons into one person in a tree.

Thanks again.

July 14, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Patsy 

I a constantly reputting in the same information about my ancestors. They question is WHY? That is the only problem I continue to find with this program, plus someone is changing my information and I am the only one that is suppose to have access to my family tree.

July 14, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Barbara Diane Hart 

Margaret A Dildine was my grandmother and her date of death is: 15 Jan 1975 Phila. Pa. Barbara Diane Corbett is my maiden name, and I go by B Diane Hart, the mother of #1 Frederick William Hart. bdhart421@bellsouth.net

July 14, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Helen.Hiner 

I set up both of these trees when I first started on Ancestry.com

July 14, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Titiantop 

Like the new UK census detail layout with it’s attached family but would like to see a space to enter the description details.

July 15, 2008 at 12:41 am
lynn 

Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn’t. I haven’t been able to figure out why it’s not always consistent. I love the feature….when it will let me merge or add family members who have been born since the previous census but it won’t always give me that option.

July 15, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Sue Peters 

Frances Mae Peters Goes into The Peters Tree.Elvis Ray Peters Sr. is my husband (susiesonshine)Edith Sue Sconce-Wardwell- Peters. I asked to work on the Peters records.
THANKS

July 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Laura Hill 

I like the imrovements. I would like to have the option of going back to the list of people with hints so that I can work on the next person with a hint without going back to the tree. Thanks for your hard work on the site
Laura Hill

July 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Duane Alphs 

It would be nice if there would be some way to add individuals whose names are wrong but are actually family members. For example, if someone’s name is William and it comes up as Bill it would be nice to be able to add that person without it becoming a new person.

July 16, 2008 at 10:04 am
briannewton175 

The facility to include relations when attaching an Ancestry census hint is excellent but I have one remaining beef. When a new person is created from a census transcript, the residence data does not get attached to the new person. It is necessary to do a second attach of the same census record in order to have the residence data included for that census year. I suspect the problem is that the new person form which appears during the process has no field to accomodate the residence data being transferred from the source census record.

July 16, 2008 at 10:14 am
Ashley Hoover 

I got a hint of a family member. I went in to add him and the offer was to add additional family ( a sibling). When I tried to add it, the software told me that I had to choose a parent, but one was not available to choose because only the sibling was attached to the record. So long story short, I had to add the sibling independently of the family member.

July 16, 2008 at 11:01 am
Laura A Bunyard 

I really like the merge the whole family as a unit until I get to variations in the spelling, or the child without a parent, or people with slightly different birth years and then I end up with one or all of the family members duplicated. This is most frustrating because it means that the little merge feature has created more work, instead of eliminating the time I need to round up all the loose people from the census and various tree records.

July 16, 2008 at 11:23 am
whitehead19281 

ulir papper born hull 1877
should be alice papper
see 1881 census

July 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm
whitehead19281 

ulir papper born hull 1877
should be alice papper
see 1881 census
daughter of james and mary ann
papper

July 16, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Kelle Luoma 

Great feature, love it! Now, how about the ability to merge duplicate records instead of deleting the extras, then going back to add details? Esp. helpful when there are spelling variations of the name. Spelling variations would become alt names with the ability to choose the preferred name.

July 16, 2008 at 8:57 pm
David Whipkey 

I think that this will be a nice new feature. Many times I have had to keep going back so as to include all family members from a source like the Census. I like what you are doing.
Thank you,
David

July 16, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Marilyn Sanders 

In the 1850 census, I found my record with husband, wife, and many children. When I asked to add relatives, I got only one more to add.

I really have enjoyed being able to merge records into my tree, but I’ve found that its very easy to copy bad information from other peoples trees and from census records.

July 17, 2008 at 3:41 am
Judith Statham 

I amreally finding this new feature helpful. Thank you. Please keep the improvements coming!

July 17, 2008 at 4:38 am
rebeccahrich 

this rarely shows other relatives, and when it does, it is siblings and will not allow me to add, unless i pick a parent and there is no option for a parent.

July 17, 2008 at 7:25 am
steve seper 

how does one merge two people that are the same person, I did it thru one of the census merge.

July 17, 2008 at 9:48 am
Lloyd Robinson 

I like this option!! It saves so much time and effort. Will be glad when it works on earlier census reports

July 17, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Carla Elliott 

I like the merge features very much. However, and this is not the first time this has happened (!), sometimes census record names and facts are misread (i.e., Macey for Marjorie; or, in the most current case, a mother is listed as a sibling by ancestry.com) by whomever recorded all your census “facts” and we are not given an option in the merge to make those changes which need to be made!
It would be most helpful to have a little button at the bottom of each pair of people to merge that would offer us the option of changing some of the information Ancestry reads to what the census gives us as true or “facts” we have records to prove otherwise.
Thanks for your consideration!

July 17, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Jon Piesing 

I really like the feature.

My main comment is one already made – it doesn’t handle variations in names very well. (#12, #21, #27, #61, ….).

July 18, 2008 at 4:58 am
Beverley Clarkson 

Whoever transcribed the 1852 census for my family is wrong. He included a neighbour s child as one of the family; the census clearly shows otherwise.

July 18, 2008 at 5:00 am
David Cazalet 

How do I fix relationship mistakes created by the new feature? I can’t figure out how to attach children, who have been added by the feature to their parents or how to make sure a spouse, whose name is spelled incorrectly by the census merge with the actual person in my tree.

July 18, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Virginia SUMMERS-ARNOLD 

What I would like to see is when someone mergies your people with theirs I would like to have a email sent to me notifying me that someone has a link to me.
Then let me know who they linked with.
Then I will be able to check out their link and maybe it will be a break I have been hunting for.

July 18, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Lillian Newman 

I am so happy with this feature. It has already helped with birth dates, places of birth, etc. Thank you.

July 19, 2008 at 4:13 am
Rose Stephenson Waters 

Misspellings of names and other misinterpretations make it impossible for me to accept some of the hints given even though the people mentioned are in fact my relatives. How can I make the necessary corrections?

July 19, 2008 at 7:18 am
Annette Morris 

The only problem with downloading information to ones tree is…When the names have been wrongly transcribed there is no option but to use the wrong name. I think there should be a way of un-ticking the name box. I have had this problem on four separate occasions!!

July 19, 2008 at 8:57 am
Tom Johnston 

When ‘other’ family members are shown the system does a fairly good job at figuring out if you’ve already got that person in your tree thus allowing a merge but sometimes it can’t figure it out or it gets it wrong.. (due to slight variations etc).. I suggest a ‘default’ guess but also a drop down of the other family members that I can associate the new data for.

July 19, 2008 at 11:27 am
Valerie Balester 

I love the new feature even with its imperfections. But it stopped working yesterday. Every time I try to use it, the same name comes up as related; sometimes that is the only name that comes up even though others are on the record, and sometimes it comes up along with those others. Looks like a bug.

July 20, 2008 at 3:17 am
Tammy Davis 

I absolutely love this feature! The only thing that I would like for you to add is a link to “attach the record to someone in my tree” if the program has not identified the correct person.

July 20, 2008 at 11:22 am
Peter Longbottom 

When saving family members to my on-line tree there is no facility to save them to one parent only when it is clear that the children are from a previous relationship. Can you add this feature please?

July 20, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Colin Burton 

A big thank you to Ancestry, I have been trying to find my grandparents on the 1901 Census for years and today you found them for me.
You have helped fill a missing link and helped me fill in another piece of the family jigsaw.
Thank you again. Colin.
Ps If you have time I have an interest family member on my wife’s side (Goodliffe family tree) a Col William Winer Cooke.Died at the Battle of the Little Big horn and was later exumed and taken back to Hamilton in Canada.

July 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm
dana 

merging is excellent, can you add to more areas… and allow corrections when the merged item is mistakenly seen for a wrong member due to the census takers incorect spelling, ie: courtland henderson wanted to merge with his father, not his already documented name in my tree…etc.

thanks great work, it is getting better and better.

July 20, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Diana Devers Osbahr 

All of the information that appears in a source does not show up in the list of items to merge. For ex., the Minnesota Inscription… shows cemetery but then it doesn’t appear in list to merge.
How do you merge from Ancestry into Family Tree Maker? No one seems to understand to help me. When you write an article – there are all sorts of levels of experience. I am a 2 week beginner and get lost in the explanations. Companion Chart CD doesn’t work- won’t open – and your techs are not familiar with it.

July 20, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Cindy Wright 

Thank you so much, for adding options that help make sure you have the correct person so that you don’t keep adding the same person over and over! Thanks so much for resonding to my earlier E-mails! Cindy Wright

July 20, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Cory Mason 

I found your 1880 census for Charles H Driskill listed him as Chs. H. Driskin as well as his daughter Mary F. Driskin. This is incorrect for the name spelling. They are correctly listed in the household of Milton L. Fore but the names are mispelled and don’t show up in searches at all as I only had enough info from family records to know the difference. We knew he lived in his father in laws household and that his wife was not listed there so that is how I searched and still took almost an hour to find the right one since I didn’t know it was mis-spelled “Driskin”. I hope this helps as I often have difficulty reading the old hand-writing…

July 21, 2008 at 5:52 am
Cory Mason 

Kenny, about 488′s question about merging to Family Tree Maker if this may help… you may have already told her but I found the same problem but what I have done is download/save the file from Ancestry.com to my pc. I then convert that file to a “ged.com” file sometimes by having to save it and change the file type to “ged.com” manually in the “save as” dialogue box. Then, I merge the trees on my pc which also makes it more compatible to upload back to my Ancestry.com tree… hope this helps.

July 21, 2008 at 6:02 am
Katherine 

The merge feature is wonderful as long as you are aware that if you merge the children on a record where one of the parents is deceased that they will be added to the tree as children of parent an unknown spouse. In this case you will have to “fix” those records by adding that parent using the “Choose someone already in the tree”

July 21, 2008 at 12:18 pm
tammie 

I really like the new feature that gives you ability to attach all family members at the census level. Saves a lot of time and clicking!!
I also appreciate that you have to check over them one by one just to make sure they match to your info. I like the suggestion made by some to be able to use a “drop down” or some other selection tool to pick someone that the system may not have picked up as a match to that family.

Thank you for the hard work!!

July 21, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Steve 

Ditto suggestion 493 by Tammie, namely allow the selection of a match to an existing person that your program did not detect or to select someone other than the one your program selected. You can use the same subroutine as you do when adding a relationship to an existing person.

July 21, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Nancy Jenkins 

I saw that on a record of Hall Neal Bowers that Ancestry.com had listed Florence Bowers as his spouse. She is his daughter, not his wife. Hall Bowers is my G.G.Grandfather and Florence Bowers is my G.Aunt. Please update this record if possible. Thank-you so much, Nancy Kottcamp

July 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Sandy 

Your(?)typed interpretation
of my grandfather’s name on the 1920 census is incorrect. Is there any way to change it? His name was EARL JOHN HUNTER, born Perrysville, Green Twp., Ohio, 13 May 1906. The typed copy has “CARL A.” His parents were EDWARD BURUS HUNTER and MAUD (MINA) BECKLEY.

Thanks, Sandy

July 22, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Mary Beck 

Sometimes the directions state that I must choose at least one parent to link when I am connecting a document to more than one relative. Yet I am given no parent to link.

July 22, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Sue Welton 

The 1920 census was transcribed incorrectly for my great grandparents and their family. The last name should have been spelled Jenkins, but they have Jankins. Abraham L. (for Lincoln) Jenkins, Yamhill County, Oregon. It made this record much more difficult to find. If you can correct that, It would sure be appreciated.
Thanks, Sue

July 22, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Joe Davidson 

It’s a good feature, but I don’t see a way to merge information from a census record to a person that it doesn’t already suggest. For example, my relative’s name was Caroline but she went by Lina. There’s no link there to say merge with an existing person and I can tell it which person this is.

July 23, 2008 at 7:18 am
Shirley Avera 

I find this “new” system to be very frustrating as it adds the same people over and over again. The old system was much easier!! This system is probably helpful for beginning a family genealogy but not for one already established.

July 23, 2008 at 7:29 am
Pat Ratcliff 

When you click on see all relatives and click on a sibling you cannot merge because the parents are not listed.

July 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Barbara Joan Jeffery Reed 

Every time you have changed the format for a Family Tree, I have had to go in and re-enter all the hints that I had accepted in the old tree. This is very annoying and time consuming. The pictures and stories for personal profile have not always followed either. I hope you quit make all these changes!!

July 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Leslie 

If the family members merging feature would allow a link to the current family tree, then valuable census information of family members could be added even though the census name is misspelled and is not recognized as a current tree member. It is a shame to have to forgo using the information from the census because the census has a transcription or name variation error — which is so often the case. I am hoping you will add a link to the family merge feature to click on an existing tree member for relatives.

July 23, 2008 at 10:52 pm
fred j miller 

the last name for this family is wilcox not wilson

July 24, 2008 at 12:03 am
Bruce Walker 

Who is doing the data entry? There are many misinterpretations of what exactly the names are supposed to be. Where do we send the corrections for this?

July 24, 2008 at 11:12 am
Andree 

re #198 .3
I have been struggling for a year on ‘My Ancestry’(since the viewing option was improved) with census records ‘view original’ refusing to load and causing all programmes in use to shut down. Yesterday it took 5 tries before I was successful! Has anyone else had this problem?

July 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm
SPOCharles 

Type your comment here.

July 25, 2008 at 6:43 am
SPOCharles 

I,m having trouble finding the floor.

July 25, 2008 at 6:49 am
Robert R Kling Sr 

Hi: I don’t have much today since I anm a novice, but I would like to comment on the listing as Mary DING. Since this family in the census is my Grandfather GEORGE KLING and Grandmother is Mary Ann KEENAN – KLING. I looked at the copy of the19110 Census and yes the writing looks at first glance as DING a closer look with a maginified lens shows rth the writer had written Kling not Ding thank you. Bob Kling

July 25, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Mary Hamley 

I’ve tried, both the old search and the new search, to add 3 diffrent ‘arrivals’ from the NY passenger lists, and every time the record wants to add just name, birth info and death info. The arrival information doesn’t even show: not the date, port, etc.
Something happened when you created this new ‘add family members’ thing.

July 25, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Charlotte B. Thompson 

Linnie should be Lizzie Noe Cooper

July 25, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Debi Curtis 

I AM becoming very frustrated. By trying to merge and link or add things to more than one I have ended up with gibberish in some areas. I have people duplicated in the list but then you can’t gt there from here. I am not hearing back from technical support which is even more aggravating. It was going great until the free period ended now I seem to be having the problems. I really dont want to think that there is a correlation. I have been going on the site for years.

I do appreciate that the help I am obtaining is far more than I ever would have gotten before the advent of the internet. Thank you for all your knowledge.

July 25, 2008 at 9:55 pm
jillian chesley 

I love this new feature its great, however I would love it if you had a feature that chooses to “select all” like you do when merging a tree. I know we have to check family names, but it would be good for large families.

July 26, 2008 at 12:25 am
Carol 

It would be helpful at this point to be able to add individuals to my tree and choose a person in my tree that is included in the records under a different name.

July 26, 2008 at 6:37 am
Pippa Baddeley 

I can’t add any information from “hints” any longer – if I use my PC at work (not always convenient!!), the information gets added to the ancestor record(s) – from Census records or merge data from other family trees.

If I’m at home using my Mac with Firefox (2.0.0.16 latest version), I just get a screen that says loading but however long I leave the records, no data gets added to my ancestor records.

I have previously been able to add information to ancestor records using my Mac and Firefox.

Any suggestions?
Pippa

July 26, 2008 at 9:03 am
Martha Barnett 

There should be a way to merge two children. In some cases the same person is listed with different names. As of now I know of no way to merege them correctly.

July 26, 2008 at 9:12 am
Pippa Baddeley 

REF COMMENT 515
OK, I’ve checked your help section – despite my browser saying I had the latest version, seems I didn’t. So I’ve upgraded to Firefox 3.

The problem with Attaching Hints still persists – I click on the ADD TO YOUR TREE button, but all I get is the loading screen.

July 26, 2008 at 9:33 am
Tammie Zuker 

I love this new feature that allows you to add the relatives, children and spouses automatically when looking up information.
This is really a time saver.

Tammie

July 26, 2008 at 9:38 am
Lois Salcido 

I,m a new member never used your resources. I’m looking forward to it.

July 26, 2008 at 9:55 am
Lois Salcido 

Type your comment here.

July 26, 2008 at 9:56 am
Lois Salcido 

I have never used this resourse before . I’m a new member

July 26, 2008 at 10:00 am
Lois Salcido 

I have never used this resourse before. I’m a new member

July 26, 2008 at 10:01 am
Jennifer 

The ancestry site has helped alot all though I am not finished yet. The hints are really great. You all have found great uncles that I didn’t even know that I had. I showed my mom and of course she knew all of them. Once again thank you.

July 26, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Brie Cooper 

I’m getting a LOT of duplicate people (listed as New Persons). There must be a way to merge the records together without getting tons of Duplicate People. Please advise…

July 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Nott-Hopkins 

One of the things i have seen frequently happen with this feature (merge additional relatives) is that a relative not listed on the original record will show up with several records as being there. This person if selected completely compromises the integrity of the database.

July 26, 2008 at 10:12 pm
DianeEdwardsAnger 

There is an error, in the information it is showing the neighbours as the parents of the Jackson children.

July 27, 2008 at 11:41 am
Dick Zimmerman 

On the merge feature. It would be great to add the feature of selecting from our tree when the person comes as a new person. Almost always it’s a spelling error or transcriped wrong and this feature would allow us merge the right person in the tree.

July 27, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Patricia Forrester Horn 

My grandfather, Kess Lawson Forrester, is listed in the 1900 census as Kess I. Forrester. The other members of the family indicate this is his family.
How do I attach and correct this for future website readers–that Kess I Forrester is Kess Lawson Forrester, Kess L. Forrester?

July 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm
PAT SWETLAND 

FRED NIEMEYER WAS MARRIED TO SENA OHLENSEHLEN LENA WAS HER SISTER THAT LIVED WITH THEM FOR MANY YEARS TO HELP THEM OUT WHEN MY GRANDMOTHER ENDED UP IN A WHEEL CHAIR..

July 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Tim Maddock 

I love the ability to add source references for all family members in a census entry. It used to take me “forever” to access each family member individually. I have tried this several times with great success.
THANK YOU

July 27, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Patrick Horgan 

It’s frustrating that for example this shows a son Joe living at the same address, and I know that’s it’s the same as the son Joseph, but my only choice is to add another son Joe. There must me some way to match them up. I’ve made the mistake before of creating duplicate kids, and don’t know how to fix that!

July 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Georganna King 

I have noticed lately when attempting to add hints for my grandfather that the records with “add hint” link have been trying to say that, for instance, his mother (Annie)comes up as the person I need information on. Instead of showing “additional family members” as his parents and siblings, it shows spouse and children (as if he were his mother or father), but I am needing to add as parents and siblings.
I refer to Ulis F (aka Franklin E) Reynolds or King, born 1896.
I keep trying, as I am trying to learn the maiden name of his mother, but this slows me down.
Also I am getting a box that says my request cannot be processed at this time, referring to other census links on the same person.
Help?
Is there something I am doing wrong?

July 27, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Kristin D 

I love this feature. Doesn’t always pick up everyone I want, and sometimes the option isn’t there at all, but it’s wonderful when it is there! (especially for those very large families)

July 27, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Susan Heinis 

So how does the merge work? Please tell me where the directions are located. Thanks

July 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Lisa Dayhoff 

I like this feature, but there is one thing that still bothers me. There are times when several results come up matched to either the wrong person or showing as a new person. We should have the option of changing who the names are matched up with during this process also… it saves having to go back through and manually adding or changing them later.

July 28, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Laura A Bunyard 

Kenny,

I really like the new merge feature when it works. If the date information is different, a new person is created. Today I wanted to add a record for Laurin M Hardy’s siblings, but the record didn’t add the parents, so I can’t add them. Also, I was working on a line last week and the computer kept trying to add a child when the record didn’t include the child. Any fixing would be a great help. Thank you. :)

July 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm
john hassen 

On census 2nd wife with name of husband vs maiden name in record appears as a “new” person and cannot be successfully reconciled to capture source

July 29, 2008 at 7:04 am
Carol 

Death index requesting a parent when non is listed. It lists a sibling and would like to connect record to sibling even if parents are not listed. Should be able to add parents if none or not.

Really like the new programs

July 29, 2008 at 8:46 am
James 

The record merge feature is really really cool and useful. It could be made even better if more information were shown for the person on the right. I have several people in my tree with the same name and it is hard to determine if I have the right person.

July 29, 2008 at 11:53 am
Barbara 

I really love this facility. It’s so much easier than the old way. One thing I’d like though; since we know the actual dates of the censuses, any chance that could be automatic in the Residence box? Or am I just being greedy?

July 29, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Linda Stanch 

On this particular census the entry for Carson is incorrectly followed by entries for Sislies instead of the wife and children for Carson.
Thanks for all the new features. I try my best not to use them “blindly” and go back and recheck. Thanks again,
Linda

July 29, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Anne Bloomenthal 

I, too, love this feature. (And I’m glad I didn’t find out about it until the initial kinks were worked out.)

One “logic error” that should be pretty easy to solve: if the “new” person is being merged as a WIFE or MOTHER of the initially linked person, the new record for the woman should have the last name blank (because the data record has her married, not maiden, name).

The problem of ending up with duplicate events/sources is that the merge feature apparently does NOT ACTUALLY IDENTIFY whether the event/source (e.g. 1930 residence coming from 1930 census) has already been linked to the person. When doing the linking, it shows ALL the current source/event (e.g. 1930 residence) information as NEW, even when that’s not the case.

My work-around for avoiding the creation of duplicate family members due to spelling differences is to keep multiple browse tabs (or windows) open, and when I see that a person, who I know is already in the family, is not matching, I go to that person’s profile and change the name, e.g. from “Anne” to “Anne or Ann” – so then it will link to the new record that has “ann. This works most of the time.

This feature still has some bugs, but it’s a wonderful labor and time saver!

July 29, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Mary D Leach 

I have been working on my tree for years you have helped with the hints you look read and add on, Sure bets typing in each person
Thankss
Showmestate67

July 30, 2008 at 12:14 am
Ruth Tootill 

I’m afraid to point out that something weird is happening with this feature. When I go to attach a record the surname & forename fields switch places and are causing me loads of extra work i.e. going back into the person page and swapping the names back. Also I have noticed it swapping mother and father deails around.

July 30, 2008 at 10:40 am
Sue Norman 

Why are all the names backwards?
norman Susan not Susan Norman?

July 30, 2008 at 10:52 am
Russel Hester 

I have had some trouble lately with the merge feature switching surnames with given names. I also would like to know what to do when the merge program doesn’t merge obvious matches?

Thanks
Russel

July 30, 2008 at 12:18 pm
JOHN A. ROWAN 

MY FATHER IS FROM FALL RIVER MA.DURING THE EARLY 1930′S. HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE AND WHEN IF ALL POSSIBLE TO LEARN INFO ON THE DEATH OF 1:DR.JOSEPH A. BARRE .

July 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Carole J Chauncey 

The mothers still aren’t showing up on the census, so any children new on the that years census don’t get attached to the mother!?!

July 30, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Nott-Hopkins 

One of the problems I have seen with the new merge family members is that when you go to a record for a person, such as the social security death Index, it will list a child. First, I did not know the acutal record included such things so I believe it to be a “bug” to be worked out. second, if you were to try to add the child, it does not allow you to because you must first select one of the parents. Since the original person is the parent, they are already selected. I am not able to add the child from the record.

July 30, 2008 at 5:31 pm
mamaburk 

The ‘relative merge’ is a wonderful feature, and I use it regularly.

July 30, 2008 at 9:06 pm
jo johnson 

I have found the new merging of family members confusing,as it duplicates people in my tree and when i try to delete them it takes out a whole branch of that family and it takes a lot of work to imput everything back.

July 31, 2008 at 6:36 am
Christine Stonehouse 

I to find the site is slower, but I am keen for it to progress, I have found also that ancestors are duplicated and removing them is fraught, as you find deleting one (for example) Lizzy Ellerbeck has deleted her completely from her position in the tree but she still comes up independently on the list. This is rather confusing as you can imagine. So I vote to keep the new and we will just have to wait for everything involved to catch up.

July 31, 2008 at 11:33 am
mamaburk 

It would be good if the record merge also worked when adding a marriage and only one party is already in the tree. I have noted that when a marriage is added and both parties are in the tree, the record is now added to both. However, sometimes the name of the second party is not know until the record is found.

July 31, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Frank Brown 

I want to change the person to merge. It came up under the wrong son of my grandfather, and I can’t change the infor to the other son, so had to hand write it all down, and add it by hand. thanks

August 1, 2008 at 6:55 am
Meg 

I love the new merge feature. As the kids say: it rocks!

August 1, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Erika Goodman 

I do believe that this record says “Huggins”, not “Haggins”. Thanks…

August 2, 2008 at 12:20 am
Marcia 

I love this feature. I used to hand write all the names listed on the census reord and then enter them one at a time onto my tree.

August 2, 2008 at 5:38 am
Carol Culver 

Why can’t I just add the census to my tree without it wanting me to add information that I don’t need. I cannot see any way to just add the document to my tree…help..I am not happy with the new format.

August 2, 2008 at 10:11 am
Shirley Steins 

Printed Document says head of household is 5 years old, but original document says age is 57 for George Potemko

August 2, 2008 at 10:52 am
peter adee 

CAN SOMEONE HELP ME? I HAVE BEEN UPDATING MY FAMILY TREE AND HAVE DISCOVERED THAT 10 GENERATIONS BACK MY ANCESTOR IS ALSO MY WIFE’S, YET I CANT FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THE TREE REALIZE THAT THIS ONE PERSON IS THE SAME PERSON, AND I DONT WANT TO MAKE DUPLICATE SETS OF ANCESTORS. WHAT DO I DO??

August 2, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jeannette Dupont 

I Love It!!!!! Thanks it has been so helpful.

August 2, 2008 at 11:57 am
Diana Brown RLB4472 

Why will none of the Census Records or any of the other images come up on the screen? I hope you realize you are waisting a lot of time for many people, with having to come back to the sites sometime in the future (if we remember which ones) most of the time it takes forever for anything to load. It used to load in a reasonable length of time. Merging the CR’s puts the people in each time. FIX THAT!!!!!! It takes precious time to go back & remove people that get put in multiple times.

August 2, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Linda Johnson 

I like the merge feature very much. It greatly reduces time spent revisiting a source and saving for other members of the family also mentioned. I have noticed that occasionally a few of my family members are not shown as possible matches, expecially those I have left with un-Anglicized names or unusual names, and they are in the record. It would be of great assistance if there was some way to make the link between the record person and the family member without having to re-locate the record and then attach it to the family member. For example, my ggg-grandmother was born Stina Cajsa Nilsdotter in Sweden but shows up in various American and Canadian records as Christian, Caroline and Cora so when I found the 1860 US Census for her husband, the program showed Caroline but did not provide Stina Cajsa as the possible match.

August 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Ben Lovitt 

I find this feature helpful; however, I sometimes end up adding the same record/event to a person that already had the record/event added. An improvement for the “family merge” feature would be to recognize if the record is already attached to a family member.

Thanks!

August 2, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Phil Williams 

This new feature is great but is lacking one major option.

If some detail, like spelling, is slightly different for a family member that is already in the tree it is assumed the person is a new addition. Simply add the option to link to person already in the tree and the issue is solved.

August 3, 2008 at 5:58 am
Larry 

Kenny,
I agree with 564 & 565 on the failure of the merge to recognize someone already in my tree which of course will double that person.
Otherwise I love the new feature and would love to see it on all searches. Adding the same record to more than one person at a time is fantastic!

Larry

August 3, 2008 at 6:33 am
Diana M Findley 

When listing other relatives at a census residence, the system should provide an option to attached that document to the others. As it is, you have to attach each individually. Thanks for the opportunity for input and please know that this is a great feature. This is just a suggestion that would most likely be helpful to all users.

August 3, 2008 at 8:20 am
Pat Horton 

I am having problems merging the information I have found on the 1861 census for James Henry Boon. His name is indexed as James Wm. instead of James Hy. and it is being treated as a second individual.
As a result I am also getting two fathers and mothers recorded. How do I merge these details.

August 3, 2008 at 10:23 am
Judith Horton 

family merge did not include children by another spouse… and seemed to expect a merge of all different information instead of desired information. would like the family member merge to work the same as individual merge.

August 3, 2008 at 11:08 am
Cherie Hopper 

Hi! Absolutely love the feature!! I don’t know if this is the appropriate venue for this particular item of feedback. The pages are out of order on the census. A page got inserted between the Baileys – it makes it look like Ruthie is the daughter of Minnie Tincher. That is not correct.

August 3, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Diana Martin 

Great feature BUT– today it’s not giving me the correct list of relatives. A relative from a DIFFERENT Census keeps showing up and NOT the list of relatives on the census I’m adding! Weird! I’ve tried redoing it several times and nothing changes.

Also, the other day the feature was missing….maybe you were working on it?

August 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm
C Colombe 

Really like the merge record feature but warn people not hit the “back” button at anytime to go back for more records, like other family members on the same Census. This is only explanation I have for duplicating people.

I am not a newbie; this is my second free trial and have been using the limited features outside of free trials to keep adding to my trees from local obituaries, physically viewing local birth and marriage records at the City Clerk’s offices, so I am quite familiar with having to check for the presence of someone from my tree before adding them as new to prevent duplicating the person.

I found one Census record I reported for not having all 3 parts (name, birth year, residence) follow for one individual.

August 3, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Judy Gleason 

Absolutely wonderful! Getting records onto the tree is so much faster, leaves more time for research! Sometimes it doesn’t show what I have already recorded, but hopefully these bugs will be worked out and eliminated.

August 3, 2008 at 4:40 pm
C Colombe 

Re: duplication of individuals

I noted tonight the duplication occurs if you check on any of the faded family members below the person you are in the process of merging. If they are already in your tree, they are added the second time. I only noted tonight, after doing this for 9 days, that this how the duplication occurs. I wish I had the chance to attach (or create a person) only after checking, like with the original merged person. Only tonight did I notice the “new person” notation on faded ones I had checked to add.

August 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm
judi 

I find the merge to be helpful — however, it needs to have the ability to select someone already in the family (as you do with adding children) because I am ending up with duplicates of people rather than one file with many things in it for an individual. It’s completely maddening.

Also in the lists of people–it would be helpful to be able to merge two people that you know are identical.

August 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Tammy Blandino 

There is only one problem. If the spouse is not listed in the record, then the system automatically attaches the child to a different, unknown spouse. It is impossible to merge the record with the existing spouse (who is the other parent of the child). As a result a great deal of editing has to be done manually. Its a real pain.

August 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Rita Arnold 

is there any way to make merging of information of a single individual when the programs make duplicate persons, like in the FTM 16….this would be a great feature and would make soooo many of your customers happy….it is very frustrating to have to re-attach info that we have found….just because we have duplicates that should be one person.

August 3, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Frederick Sieber 

Overall this is very good. Sometimes, the routine does not match the census record or a relative to someone you already have in you tree, and wants to create a new person in the tree. In this case, the program should have an option to allow the user to choose someone from his tree to match with the census data that the program could not match.

August 4, 2008 at 3:59 am
Helen.Hiner 

I am not going to enter this information without further resurech because of the difference in date of birth, I must say it is a joy to receive more imformation on our family.

Thanks so much.
Helen Hiner

August 4, 2008 at 6:51 am
mamaburk 

On three british census merges today I have had the sibling of the person I was trying to merge [with his wife and children] show up at the bottom. This sibling is NOT in the census record I am merging. Where does he come from?

August 4, 2008 at 7:11 am
Sabrina Camilleri 

Parents are not listed but won’t let me merge siblings. I love the merge feature. Your web site is cooking.

Thanks,

Sabrina

August 4, 2008 at 7:14 am
Libby Trautman 

when merging – the census data is sometimes off by a couple of years on births, which I have clear documentation for – so instead of providing a possible merge for you to decide if it is right or not, the merge on these census documents wants to add totally new people who are really not new – they are the same people not new ones and this is very frustrating as you have to go back for each person to upload that census documentation. If you could correct this it would be very helpful as it has happened tons of time! thanks!

August 4, 2008 at 9:34 am
Martha Russell 

I like the feature that allows merging of additional family members from one source, but when I wanted to merge to a different spouse than the one who came up as an option, I was unable to find a way other than closing out and going to that person directly. Therefore, I was unable to merge the five children who were connected to that other spouse.

August 4, 2008 at 9:57 am
Myrna DoRemus 

I love this ability to add all the people on a Federal U.S. Census that are in that specific family. The old way took so much time! Occasionally, I will have something put with my part of the tree that is not the same person I am working on. One just has to be careful before clicking. Thanks to you! There are sluggish days and I do have duplicates showing up on a person even though I do not click for that record to be put on that person. It takes so much time to delete the same names that wind up being listed several times on the family side of a person, when I have not clicked to add them.

August 4, 2008 at 11:19 am
leona wilson 

I appreciate & love the new things you have for us. The leafs are great.
Thank you very much.
Leona

August 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Shelley Murray 

Unfortunately, I was not able to add to my tree.
Too many technical difficulties at times of high usage.
I am not happy about this. I pay for this service and am not receiving what I pay for.
I have been having problems accessing documents too.
This has been going on for months and I have called several times and asked for help and no one seems to be able to correct the problem or offer any compensation.

August 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Arlene Miles 

I worked on several family trees and now want to merge three of them together without dupication.
It sure would be niceif your IT folks can make this happen sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the good work so far.

August 4, 2008 at 6:42 pm
22Rusty03 Charles 

http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/MergeFamily2.aspx?tid=382733&pid=-1306760936&hid=-1543181581&dbid=3693&rpid=44046450&pg=0,48&ret=-1306760936&altRet=-130676093
————
NEW: You can also review the relatives of Mary MOULDER on this record and select those you want merged into your tree.
——
• Option provided BUT when click on option
• You must select at least one parent in order to add a new sibling
——
WHY DOES NOT ancestry provide the parents needed to allow the choosing of the option provied?

August 4, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Judy Weiss 

When merging records, I often have a spouse or child show up as “new” when it really matches someone in my tree. There is no option to match with existing family members and it would really help.

August 4, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Nancy Harrington 

You don’t have select all on this version but on other versions you do. Select all would sure make it easier to merge records. I still look at each record individually but now there are the extra steps in clicking each record. In addition to select all, a show options for all records would be nice.

August 4, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Patricia Liverod 

I think this new facility is brilliant. As you say, it does not always come up with the correct relative but on the whole it saves a huge amount of time. Just one thing, would it be possible to include the occupation of an ancestor as well?
Best wishes
Patricia

August 5, 2008 at 2:00 am
Mary Eagleson 

I find it difficult to go back to my family trees and make corrections. I have inadvertently added an ancestor to the wrong tree in the past. Also it is difficult to view each entire tree.

I especially appreciate eacy access to censuses and the material included before actually accessing the censuses.

August 5, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Michel Platt 

The new merge is still not up to snuff. If there is a slight spelling change in a wife’s name from 1900 to 1920 for instance, it creates a new wife, with new children, so it duplicates unnecessarily. You should be able to force the merge of a person

August 6, 2008 at 4:42 am
Y Southward 

Brilliant! I have found some family members I may not have found so readily going down the ‘old’ route.

August 6, 2008 at 5:31 am
SUSAN 

I LOVE THE MERGE BENEFIT WHEN I’M SURE OF THE FAMILY LIST – SAVES A LOT OF TYPING. THE ONE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE COME ACROSS IS ON THE 1880 CENSUS THE WIFE’S NAME WAS MISSED SPELLED, SO IF I ACCEPTED THE MERGE, IT WOULD FORCE ME TO HAVE A 2ND WIFE ALONG WITH THE SAME ELEVEN KIDS LISTED UNDER BOTH MOTHERS. HER NAME IS ALICE AND THE CENSUS SPELLED IT ALLIS. NEED A BOX THAT WE CAN CHECK IN THE PARENT’S INFO., THAT WE DO NOT WANT A NEW SPOUSE CREATED. OR ONE THAT SAYS THIS IS THE SAME PERSON AS _____ ALREADY LISTED AS A SPOUSE. MAYBE HAVE IT DEFAULT TO A LIST OF SPOUSES THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE, A JUST CHECK THE ONE THIS CENSUS RELATES TO. THUS NOT ADDING ALL OF THE KIDS AGAIN. I’M SURE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE COME ACROSS THIS PROBLEM, AS NAMES WERE SPELLED SO MANY WAYS. IF YOU CAN DO SOMETHING TO HELP SPEED THIS PROCESS UP IT WOULD BE GREAT. THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO FOR US.

August 6, 2008 at 7:16 am
Shawnna Thomas-EL 

This is great! I knew all of these names from talking to an older family member, but in doing this by myself, I’m sure I would have left someone out hda it not been presented in this format. Thanks!

August 6, 2008 at 11:35 am
Shirley Gray 

Why bother to put a sibling in a match when your program says we must have a parental match?? Especially when I already have both parents listed. Why do you bother to offer something disallowed when you know it will be disallowed beforehand?? What is your point??

August 6, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Paul Weber 

Since there are many transcriptional errors, it would be nice to edit the names of relatives when adding in multiple persons. I have ancestors named Honeyager, but this is transcribed wrong more often than not. I can’t merge in the children usually without many duplicates being created. If I could edit the input…

August 6, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Jane McClure 

It’s hard to figure how your search engine works (if that’s what it is called). I do lots of research in KY which has wonderful records online, but if I ask for a search of someone who has died in Kentucky, and I have that typed in, I get dozens of other places. Then, trying to get to Kentucky Death Records is much harder than it should be. We should be able to start typing in the name of the source we want, and everything Kentucky should start jumping up right away. )I know, that isn’t computer language)

August 6, 2008 at 8:37 pm
ARMANDA CRANDALL 

WHEN YOU HAVE ONE SET OF SIBLINGS THAT ALL MARRY INTO THE SAME FAMILY IE: 5 GIRLS OF X FAMILY MARRIES 5 BROTHERS OF Y FAMILY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO MERGE THIS INFORMATION INSTEAD OF ADDING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE YOU HAVE.

August 6, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Michael Flynn 

I miss the “find living people” feature that was in the old search system.

When doing search, please include looking in my own tree so I can avoid duplicates. The same person may be related in different ways or there may be duplicate entries of the same person.

August 7, 2008 at 2:01 am
caroly pierce 

Wellllll! What the heck happened to the “Merge” feature??? lately, I don’t often get the actual family listed on the census w/ the person I am following. On the passenger lists, the dates of passage aren’t there, and why can’t we add a child that the transcriptors have goofed up? I can only add the latter to an unnamed parent. Yikes!!!! Please clear this up. the merge feature is lovely, but so laden w/ bugs.

August 7, 2008 at 3:32 am
vhiddai 

A word of thanks to Adrian in post #348 for highlighting what many of us care about.

August 7, 2008 at 8:22 am
Sarah 

The new addition of being able to add family members to the census record is wonderful. It has saved me a lot of time. I wish that you would consider adding a blank line to each person, so that comments or Occupation could be added. Thank you again for this valuable time saver.

August 7, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Dianna 

Well – I like it. Except – sometimes it offers to do this (add entire family) and sometimes it doesn’t, with no reason given.

Also – same person / different spelling = new person is annoying.

Plus – being able to add children to existing spouse would be a benefit on this section. Just some check box or something.

August 7, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Linda B 

This feature is not consistent. Sometimes the option to review family members appears. Sometimes it does not. This particular time I had the wife appear but not any of the many children nor the father of the head of household. Overall, the feature is a great time saver when it appears!

August 8, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mark Newman 

There are many useful features, but I find it complicated to fully understand what is happening and several times, particularly when adding data to a spouse and children where there are more than one spouse; the result has been duplication of members of the family in all sorts of odd places. This takes a long time to correct – I haven’t found an easier way than editing each individual and this not only takes a great deal of time, but is also very awkward to deal with. Two things which would assist: 1/ It would be helpful if more than one window could be opened at once; 2/ If the Family Tree page could be edited by highlight/delete or add options on the siblings/children listings it would make life much simpler and result in fewer errors. Incidentally, I think the sprint-outs are grim!!! Otherwise, thank-you for the many good things in the system!

August 8, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Lauren Argento 

How about adding a field for the census records for corrections? People with incorrect names are viewed as new people. Tree is getting too hard to clean up with all the incorrect info due to spelling errors on census records.

August 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Wm Morrison 

I am getting numerous mismatches, either the wrong generation, or more commonly, one spouse for the other. I cannot find the shoebox so I have to delete them.

August 9, 2008 at 3:17 am
S.Bennett 

Totally agree with PR McCullough – there needs to be an easy way to adjust mergers with existing people where the transcription is wrong (i.e. last name Dallin was transcribed GALLIN, therefore wants to add all the family members as new records with the name GALLIN)

August 9, 2008 at 6:06 am
Phillip Auth 

The new record merger feature is FANTASTIC! It saves ALOT of time. I have 3 suggestions to make it and the online family tree even better. (1) I read recently the LDS church and ancestry are teaming up to update the census indices. With this new merge feature, I strongly encourage you to capture the date of enumeration in the index so that a residence is for a specific date and not a year. It will also make it easier to determine birth dates on children with fractional ages! (2) I just attempted to merge an indidual who was enumerated with his second wife but the family merge tried to merge her with the first wife. There should be a feature to indicate that the person in the index is a distinctly seperate person. (3) Lastly, and more broadly to the entire online family tree. I have over 23,000 individuals in my database. When I upload none of the tons of sources are added. I love the new online tree but I’m not going to use it to replace my own software. There needs to be an easier way to move back and forth between your online tree and my stand alone software. I recently replace my online tree which and approximately 18k names with my stand alone tree which had over 23k. Right now I am entering information into both which is duplicative. It would be nice if you could update the online tree without a wholesale replacement!! I realize this may require some intense programing but I have faith that you can do it if you dedicate the right resources. Regardless, keep up the good work!

August 9, 2008 at 6:25 am
Phillip Auth 

Just a quick follow up on item (2) above after reading all the other comments… my ancestors first wife was Bertha… his second wife was Kate but the family merge attempted to merge them together. Since other have indicated that a merge thoughe Kate, Catherine and Katherine were previously considered different individuals, it would appear that merge has now gone from one extreme to the other. I would concede to error on where it is now but to added the ability to unmerge if desired!

August 9, 2008 at 7:03 am
Mary Crawford 

I really like the new feature of adding additional family members to a selected record. Overall, it’s very easy to use and a VAST improvement over the old system. However, it would be nice to be able to look up specific names in one’s tree that are close to the names on the census – while some names show up on the census, there is no option to search for them when there is no obvious match back to the census. Also, oftentimes while attempting to add a sibling, it simply won’t to go through.

August 9, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Brenda Scott 

Oh dear. It worked perfectly well before. Now I just get a message saying I can upload the relatives, but there’s nothing to tell me HOW! Only a click-on message to provide feedback.
What a pain this has become. Why ‘fix’ something that hadn’t broken in the first place?

August 9, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Mary 

Changes quite good but very frustrating that my ancestors details keep changing to being born in USA not in UK as already discovered. Please fix default countries

August 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Jean M Wright 

The family attached link does not work. The 1860 Census for William Irvin Wright encludes both parents and 5 siblings (or more) but when I click the family link I get: one item about boy twins.

August 9, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Trudy 

What you want to do would be great. My concern is that I have a Christine in my tree and they have spelled her name Christina. She is the same person and I don’t want to add her twice (once with each spelling)like it seems I am asked to do. Thanks

August 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm
gerald Myhre 

It would be nice when a persons name is grossly mispelled in the census transcription, and it would create a new name entry, if we could move the correct persons info into the right column for inclusion of the data.

August 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Bonnie 

It seems in trying to “help” make things easier, you made things more complicated. I used to be able to attach records of an entire family on a census in a couple of minutes. Now it takes forever. Not only does the site download slower but it mismatches “relatives”. It will show a brother as a child and you cannot change it. Many times not all of the “relatives” are included. Very disappointed.

August 10, 2008 at 5:10 am
Sue 

Your merge application does not always work correctly. I did a search on Stephen Coleman Townes, census year 1840, Pittsylvania VA, his birth year 1796 or 1798. The record returned has no other names attached but it bring up a record to attach for William M Townes. The system will not allow you to add the record anyway because there is not mother listed (this needs to be fixed also because there are times when only one parent is available).
Thanks

August 10, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Anita Kimball 

Being new to Ancestry I don’t have a prior system with which to compare. However, I would like to add my suggestion to the others regarding the different spelling of the given name. Ex: Sarah in 1900 was given as Sallie (nickname) in 1910. NOT a new person but the same. Very frustrating…Please fix! Thanks for all the information.

August 10, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Steve Strickland 

I have several places where the branches come back together and have the same name in different locations. It would be great to have a merge function so I could select where this occurs and make two names the same person and keep the relationships

August 10, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Dennis J Friedman 

Philander Leroy “Bud” Birth 10 Feb 1861, Missouri, death 24 Dec 1947, Ohio, He had two wives, #1 Alice J Gibson and Sarah Bertha Richey, wife #2

August 10, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Dennis J Friedman 

Philander Leroy “Bud” Blackstone,Birth 10 Feb 1861, Missouri, death 24 Dec 1947, Ohio, He had two wives, #1 Alice J Gibson and Sarah Bertha Richey, wife #2

August 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm
leightonp_1 

Hi, While searching 1871 Census for Mary Ann Bond, ancestry.com.au gave me sibling Sarah Ann Warry, which is correct, however birth/death details are incorrect. They belong to Annie Warry Passant.
Regards

August 10, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Tom Brown 

When merging information to a family in a family tree, I think it would be a nice feature if all individuals were listed. Often I find that there is a transcription error which prevents me from easily merging a record to a family member.

August 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Martha Franklin 

Thurman McDaniel was son of Nancy Jane’s frist husband. After Robert Osburn McDaniel’s death Nancy Jane married Robert Murphy Henry. She had Gladys in 1900 and then she burned to death when Gladys was 18 months old.

August 10, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Rosemary Durham 

I don’t like the fact that when you try to merge new census info onto the tree it then ends up adding the children twice to the same parents. What a waste of time. The merge feature says that this is new info, but it isn’t.

The Family Tree Maker manages to merge info on children very simply and straightforwardly, why cannot this site manage it?

Now having to delete six moe children…

August 11, 2008 at 6:15 am
Bruce Walker 

You need a capability to search one’s entire family tree to look for duplicates, and then have the ability to merge two records of the same person into one. Some times the information entered from a Census in misspelled; this creates a whole new person.

August 11, 2008 at 7:01 am
Rosemary Durham 

Aaaargh! Using the merge button has been a disaster. Having got children entered TWICE by using it, I then tried to delete the extra children and found that I had detached a whole branch from the family tree… and now have to delete the whole branch, as the technical whizzes have told me that it is impossible to merge people who have got detached (why is that, you may ask) Thank goodness I have their details on my Family Treemaker so that I can add them again.

The merge button for use on the census details needs to have some kind of warning: USE AT YOUR PERIL!!

August 11, 2008 at 7:14 am
Faith 

The family for Vincent Ira Ball and his wife (N.) Elizabeth Ball keeps having the wrong parents posted for the children. Beards and Baileys? It’s rather odd, because the census is readable.

August 11, 2008 at 10:32 am
Richard Pender 

You offered me Hannah Bangs to be combined with John Doanne?? That doesn’t work, not even quite!!!!

August 11, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Jack Sulsona 

You need to consider how surnames are
listed and used in Spanish speaking countries. Ancestry software doesn’t address this well. Causes me serious recording problems. For example Jose Felix Colon meeans Jose’s surname is Felix. Colon is added to show mother’s family name. If Jose marries Lola Cuevas Moreno, Cuevas is her father’s surname. A child named Manuel would be Manuel Felix
Cuevas. Felix being his surname and Cuevas identifying his mother’s family name. If Manuel had a middle name it would come after his given name, then surname, then mother’s family name. This system is not practiced as much in the USA today. It is in most spanish speaking countries and in their records.

August 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Charles Hall 

I like this new feature. It really saves a lot of time when adding historical records for multiple family members. It works pretty well, but there’s at least one important improvement I would make. Right now, if the spelling of a person’s name is different by even one letter from the same person in that family that I already have in my tree, the software treats it as a new person. That means if I accept the addition, I wind up with the same person twice in my tree. I wind up having to do the changes manually in this case. I suggest you change the software so that if it doesn’t recognize a person as already being in the tree, it gives two options: 1) to create a new person or 2) to choose an existing person from a list of people in that family to merge the record with. Practically speaking, I run into this problem with almost every family. There are so many variations on spelling from one census to the next. I have one person whose first name is spelled at least six different ways in different historical records! Thanks for your continuing innovations with the Ancestry.com program.

August 11, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Margaret Tull 

While I really have enjoyed the merge feature with census records, one area that could be improved would be to ask which spouse the children go with?

or give an option for the children to be placed with a spouse. For example 1910 census, the husband has died but there are several children since 1900 census and the merge wants to put them with unknown spouse.

Thanks.

August 12, 2008 at 10:48 am
Scott Denison 

I just found this feature at the merge screen for Census records – I use Ancestry daily, and have been using it for years. The feature blends in with other crap at the bottom of the screen. It should be more obviously placed on the screen. Great Tool!

August 12, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Joe Folsom 

I now really like the ability to merge family members into an existing tree, but when one of the spouses has died, it only lets you merge the reamaining children as if their parent that died never existed, and lists them as “Unknown”. Other than that, pretty good.

August 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Joe Folsom 

tried to submit coments, unable to find page, regular feature of this system I assume, happens all the time to me.

August 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm
JoSweeney33 

The feature of “merging” relatives from the census SOUNDS great; but, it doesn’t actually MERGE them — it ADDS them, even if that person is already there. I now have so many DUPLICATE people in my trees that I will have to go back and individually delete — AFTER I figure out which of them is the one I want to keep!

August 12, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Joe Folsom 

something needs to be done about when a parents name is spelled wrong on a census it could be corrected otherwise you wind up with two wives or husbands and the children’s parents come up as wrong, and if a parent is deceased, comes up as unknown parent if children listed on census with living parent.

August 12, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Libby trautman 

when i went to add the 1910 census for Carl J. McMullen – up came the right document, with the right person, but low and behold – whomever translated this original document into the “add relatives” wasn’t even close to what the census document said – the census is righrt – your translation is way, way off and because of this I can’t properly attach it to the rest of Carl’s family which is absolutely listed correctly on the census document. I am paying for this service and I have made this comment multiple times, yet it remains in an error state. Please, please address this issue. It is hard enough tracking my relatives, paying for a service to help me and finding that the service is wrong much of the time.

August 12, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Linda Smith 

Good idea, though in my particular case I think it’s the wrong match! Never mind, I’m sure the right one will turn up eventually!

August 13, 2008 at 6:00 am
Nancy Flippo Zeigler 

The person named Hiley on this census should have been Charlie Lee Crawford, born 28 Mar 1906. He was my mother, Bonnie Ruth Crawford’s brother.

August 13, 2008 at 6:52 am
Meredith Lane 

In the case I am looking at right now, the list of relatives (and they are real) is of SIBLINGS of the person the hint is for, not OFFSPRING. But, if I merge them into my tree, they will go in as offspring, which means that I then have to spend a whole bunch of time moving them one by one to the right generation. Could you please make it possible to select where in the tree one wants them attached?

August 13, 2008 at 6:53 am
Gregg Watts 

When it works, it can be a real timesaver, but sometimes I just shake my head at the results – like when it doesn’t find a match between a census record for Mary Smith born in 1846 and a Mary Smith from the same family born in 1845 in my tree, or a census record for Margarett and a matching Margaret in the tree.

August 13, 2008 at 7:27 am
Lorrin Montague-Lockwood 

Has saved so much time its so helpful

August 13, 2008 at 9:41 am
Sharon Mugno 

I really like not having to constantly go back and enter the same information under different family members. But I do have one question for you before I merge a record that I have found. The record has somce of the family surnames incorrect and once I click on the name to insert it automactically brings up a new person for that tree, is there any way I can add this data to the correct persons without adding new family members?

August 14, 2008 at 5:05 am
Helene Gray 

I have identified a woman who is described on being the daughter of other people on the same census return. However, it is now apparent (by checking other years) that she is not their daughter, although she is the granddaughter of the older residents of the same property. Without a parent identified, how can I attach her to my tree?

August 14, 2008 at 6:42 am
Richard Hollis 

I like the new merge possibility a lot. One thing I wish it could do would be when merging information from other ancestry member trees, would be to scan my existing tree for matches. A group of us are building a tree primarily around our Casey County, kentucky roots. Back before the merge was more careful, the merge when attaching information from other trees would attach whole branches, so we ended up with a lot of duplications….
but overall, I still enjoy the ability to merge information easily.

August 15, 2008 at 4:53 am
Pam Caldwell 

I wonder if you would consider writing the “Or add this information to some-one already in your list” in red. It merges into the background and you end up adding duplicates.

August 15, 2008 at 7:37 am
Doris Dixon 

I was trying to correct the birth & death dates on my grandfather Robert Coleman and his wife Emma Mae Stockman Doris

August 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Irene Anderson 

How do you correct mistakes in some people’s names?. My aunt Terral Holsted is shown as Ferol Holsted in the 1930 Census in Oklahoma. Her father is shown as Peta when his real name is Peter.

August 15, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Carol 

When attaching individuals from census records and other records to my family tree sometimes children and individuals are listed with under their married names or relatives are listed living with relatives but there is no way of attaching them easily in my tree. Another option (attached to others listed with the families) of attaching or adding new indivduals would be helpful. Ex. if I could add a new person to my file or pick from my family file and individual to attach the listed person on the record would be very helpful. As is I have to skip that new individual and only attach the record to the one the computer recognizes.

Love the new options available in spite of the problem. Thank you to all of you had workers we appreciate you!! Carol & Larry Bassist

August 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm
DIANA MERCHANT 

THIS MERGE SOUNDS A GOOD IDEA AS I have set up two trees, one for each parent but naturally have sevearal people to add to both and its so annoying to open one up and find no info which is in the other tree.
Haven’t tried this set up Yet but I will

August 15, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Susan Twomey 

Good feature…keeps me from repeating the same names over and over, while only wanting to add sources…Unfortunately my MacOS 9.2 computer is no longer able to attach records…and I am missing the Shoebox…what do I do with sources I don’t want to lose but am not sure about yet?

You are getting so good at what you are doing that I now find that I need to get a newer and more capable computer!

/S.T.

August 15, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Judith McKinnon 

I need help in looking at Real Estate Records- Deeds,etc.
I know George Root Was born 1805 Grand Isle VT.Died in Willsborough,NY July 3 1886. The 1860 New York Census said George Root`s Parents were from Vermont. I`m trying to find out what their names were. Can you help me?
Thanks, J.Mckinnon

August 15, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Cynthia Taylor 

I have a problem with a record that does not show wife or husband at that cencus not giving the option on adding spouse. and thus making the children on that record show up all over again with unknown father or mother. Is there a solution to that? I see that happening all through the diffrent trees. I would like to attach records to some ancesters but this will show them with unknown father.

August 16, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Row Relf 

I love the new merge feature on records. I can add family members I didn’t already have without having to do them one by one. I can also add that census to someone else without having to go through it all one by one as well. An excellant added feature to a great family tree website which I think is one of the best I’ve used.

August 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Linda Remley 

Great feature. Cuts down on a lot of steps to access and place the info on my tree. Discovered a couple of “new” siblings for my husband’s grandfather.

August 16, 2008 at 12:58 pm
jo lovell 

An incredibly useful change to the website – saves hours of writing!!
Thanks!

August 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Patsy 

Carrie V. Guthrie is the daughter of Allie L. Alexander. I do not know her fathers name.

August 16, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Shawn 

This is very little help and actualy makes everything allot harder since you do not have the option to merge people in the individuals file. If the wifes name is spelled differently, she show up as a new person and you can not add the record to the wife with out ending up with the same children listed with a different mother. You need to make it more like FTM were you can really merge people and information wether the name is misspelled or not with out getting multiple mothers and children.
Also you need to make it where I can upload a FTM file to ancestry.com with all the pictures and media that a GED file will not allow.
If you do have a real merge option let me know because I have not found it.
Sincerely, Shawn

August 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Laura Kozin 

The new merge option is smoother EXCEPT when Hints brings up a set of information from more than 1 family tree, very often the server or whatever cannot handle the function. After waiting a couple of minutes, the error message comes up “Sorry we can’t do this right now. try again later.” It is pretty consistent: 4,5,6,7,8 family trees involved give it a brain freeze. Annoying & a waste of time waiting, only to get the error message.

August 16, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Richard Davis 

Love your feature but it needs some tweaking. For example; your hints on my fathers brothers & sisters, ie 1900 & 1910 Census, I personally know the correct statistics very well.It only makes sense that I would not want to change the birth dates to, only approximations from the census, by merging the (lumped) data from the census into my tree as it is offered for my fathers siblings. Little details, such as the incorrect spelling of my fathers brother’s name by the census enumerator, (or the means by which Ancestry.com interprets the handwriting of the enumerator),Stewart instead of “Stuart”, (his ancestors family surname), makes it hard to use this with no 2nd thoughts as to compromising the accuracy of my tree.
That said it would be nice to be able to attach the source records to my tree with a reference link, (without changing the correct data in my tree) !!
Respectfully Submitted,
Richard Davis

August 17, 2008 at 1:32 am
Richard Davis 

After reading many of the comments, I agree with the last statement in comment # 27. If we could edit each fact before merging, it would work great, because, let’s face it, each of us can only vouch for the accuracy of a limited amount of our database of the family we personally know and are familiar with and then we have to rely on the accuracy of the public records, and other researchers work.

Respectfully Submitted,
Richard Davis

August 17, 2008 at 1:59 am
Drinda Rawlings 

the most recent census page has been transcribed incorrectly when I look at the original. Thanks

August 17, 2008 at 10:02 am
Beau 

It is a great feature and I have been able to use it several times.

August 17, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Sandi_Andreas 

regarding merge responsibly. oops, I have one that I need to delete. I’ve tried several things, but I’m not seeing anything that tells me how to get of this duplicate entry. Thanks

August 17, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Jean 

If you know a deceased spouse has parented children shown on a subsequent census along with widow/widower, an additional line allowing you to link to deceased parent would eliminate need to go to individual children & link manually one by one to missing parent.

August 18, 2008 at 10:10 am
Maria Nicklin 

Hello Kenny,

Being able to merge records with more than one family member is a great improvement, thank you.

I also wanted to let you know that my ancestor Haley Flounders is recorded on the 1891 Census as Alby Flinders.
Not sure if this is the place to inform you of this, if not could you please pass the information to the appropriate person/Dept.

I hope this information is useful and prevents misunderstandings for other users of Ancestry.

Kind Regards
Maria

August 18, 2008 at 11:01 am
Karen Kay Teague 

I see a couple of discrepancies. How do I change them? Thank you.

August 18, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Judy 

Nice feature. This saves time when merging census records. Worked perfect! Thank you!

August 19, 2008 at 9:03 am
philipthorne1 

It would be good to add comment for mistranscribed names to the database, without having to go anddo a seperate search. Or does the database grab back the name of the person you have appended to automatically?

Regards

phil

August 19, 2008 at 10:44 am
Amy K. 

This is a great idea. In practice, though, the add feature is still limited. For instance, I found a record of my ancestor at age 10. I can’t “add” other relatives who are part of that census. I’m still looking for another part of the family and this could be a link. Thanks for all the hard work, though. Hope you can work out this glitch.

August 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Susan Wilson 

When Adding census to family tree, it often merges only the person selected and not the rest of the family. Show relatives doesn’t even appear. Or the list is sometimes incomplete.I just did one family with 9 children- I was only shown 1 parent and 1 child to select and add to my tree!

August 19, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Jacob Battin 

It would be easier if this feature didn’t add the last name of the husband when adding a new spouse.

August 19, 2008 at 7:17 pm
John Frengs 

I’ve only just started using the website to build the family tree, and this is a great feature. If Ancestry has mis-spelled the name when picking it up from an original document, like a census recored, can it be changed? For instance, Adolph Frengs is shown by Ancestry as “Things” in the 1920 census. All of the data is correct.

August 19, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Angela Galloway 

You have the wrong venue for place of death, and also the wrong year. Richard passed away shortly before his sister, my mother, which was July 12th 2002.

August 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Sharon Zingery 

I just attached a historical record from Family Data and when I clicked on seeing other family members, I expected to see people listed in the record. Instead, George was listed as his own father????

August 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Shammy Dingus 

Often, it doesn’t pick up matches, even though they are identical! Instead, you end up adding duplicate people. This needs work! Otherwise, I LOVE the ability to post a census record to the whole family!

August 20, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Jonelle Sether 

I sent a nasty letter yesteray about all of this. Even called it stupid on the duplicates….so you read my mind, or I yours….I apologize but noticed silly aggrevation. Now I hope it is cleared up. Still want to back this thing up???? So simple, cannot figure out why?
Jonelle

August 20, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Terry Moore 

If a wife already exists with an unknown (blank) last name, the merge function wants to create a new wife with her married last name. This also plays havoc with the children. If they have already been entered with “no last name” mother, duplicate records are created with an unknown mother. You’re close on this new function, but it needs some more work.

August 20, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Sarah Holmes 

In the case of adding the family members on a census I don’t agree with adding the parent to add the siblings. It turns out that the parent on the census is actually a new step parent and now it won’t let me add the siblings so i have to go through and add all 12 siblings separately. this defeats the purpose I think. also would it be possible to be able to chose which sibling already on the tree matches the ones on the census? many times there are misspellings on the census so it’ll want to add the source to the wrong sibling or make a new one when the match is already on the tree.

Thanks sarah

August 21, 2008 at 12:00 am
Sylvia[Lewis]Simko 

George H Leavitt Born 1834 in Harpswell Cumberland was the husband of my GreatGreat Grandmother Mercy DeWolf who was married twice before and both husbands died befor she married George.Her first son was George F Reed b 5 May 1848 father Francis Reed died 23 Sept 1848 she then married Solomon Higgans on 9 of April 1849 and had Margurate b1851,
Mary b1852,Josephine b1853,Solomon b 15 1855.Solomon Higgins the father 22 of Sept 1855.Mercy and George Married 22 Apr 1858 and had Wilbraham [William]b1858 d1913,Charles b1861,James b1862 d1890
Ada H b27 Apr 1866 and Ida b 27 Apr 1866. Ida was my greatgrandmother she died 21 Apr 1947 here in Massachusetts.My grandmother was one of Ida’s three daughters she also had two sons.Togeather George and Mercy had five children.This information came from Ida’s family Bible. Sylvia simko. brandylouise1940@yahoo.com

August 21, 2008 at 2:06 am
Sylvia[Lewis]Simko 

George H Leavitt Born 1834 in Harpswell Cumberland was the husband of my GreatGreat Grandmother Mercy DeWolf who was married twice before and both husbands died befor she married George.Her first son was George F Reed b 5 May 1848 father Francis Reed died 23 Sept 1848 she then married Solomon Higgans on 9 of April 1849 and had Margurate b1851,
Mary b1852,Josephine b1853,Solomon b 15 Jan 1855.Solomon Higgins the father died 22 of Sept 1855.Mercy and George Leavitt Married 22 Apr 1858 and had Wilbraham [William]b1858 d1913,Charles b1861,James b1862 d1890
Ada H b27 Apr 1866 and Ida b 27 Apr 1866 twins. Ida was my greatgrandmother she died 21 Apr 1947 here in Massachusetts.My grandmother was one of Ida’s three daughters she also had two sons.Togeather George and Mercy had five children.This information came from Ida’s family Bible. Sylvia simko. brandylouise1940@yahoo.com

August 21, 2008 at 2:12 am
Janet Packer 

Good idea, but so slow to reload the pages as they have ads on, and also seems to keep checking for matches, which again slows page loading down. I’d like to be able to turn the abouve features off, otherwise this is so slow, I don’t think I will actually subscribe & I’ll go back to using Generations Family Tree.

August 21, 2008 at 8:11 am
Marilyn Schiffman 

How about allowing us to add other people shown in census data since many families in the past had multiple generations living in the same house.

August 21, 2008 at 9:36 am
Isobell Millsap 

This is my family anf I would like to contact some who knows this much about them is they would be worthy. I looked closely and found some things I thought were were great about Wylie and one thing I could not verify. my email is isobell2@verison.net. Wyliey way my grandfathers Uncle although I did not know him personally. ceim2634 I am 70 sometimes my memory goes weird and it may be 2634ceim.

August 21, 2008 at 11:04 am
Joean Rasnick 

This site has been very helpful. It has made my work so much easier. I found one mistake on my family that needs to be taken care of. My grandfather is Willie Holbert Rasnick and he married Millie Marie Stanley. On here they have her as his daughter. They had 8 children together. I hope this helps.

August 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Mary Toth 

I find it frustrating trying to attach records to the tree. It seems to change the name of the person I try attaching it to. EX. I find a record about my grandfather (on my father’s side) and when I try attaching it to him suddenly my mother’s name will change. Or his mother’s name will change. Or it wants to attach to the wrong person (we have lots of andrew’s in our family). What gives?

August 21, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Patricia Hines 

I really like the merge feature. It is great. I wonder though, why I am offered to select family members and then when I do and the only ones that come up are siblings, and when I click on them am told that I must select a parent first. but no parent is offered so I am unable to add the siblings.

August 22, 2008 at 5:27 am
Patricia Hines 

I have on more comment on the merge feature, sometimes it matches it to the wrong person on my tree and I don’t know how to get it to merge to proper person! Also I have ended up with multiple same name persons instead of merges–how do I remove all the multiple entries and get them to merge??

August 22, 2008 at 5:30 am
Athen Garland 

Yes you Can go on my web page Charles M Kimball B 17 Sept 1880 in Chelsea Maine usa Father Charles M Kimball and Mother Flora L Dill B 13 March 1860 in Gardiner Maine Charles M Kimball and FloraL Dill were married in Oct 07 1877 Gardiner By name Davis. there is a Charles H Kimball who also Married Flora Dill sister Hannah Ann Dill b 5 April 1845 I Dont think this is the same Charles Kimball I Do not know Charles M Kimball parents name it would help me

August 22, 2008 at 11:19 am
Susan Bridges Niemann 

This is very helpful!!!
Here is my comment: if a name is spelled incorrectly (e.g. my g-g’fathers name is Stacy but because the handwritten census was hard to read, it was translated as Slarry) – there is no way to connect this to a known person.

August 23, 2008 at 10:02 am
Janet 

Well not sure of what to do.Im looking for any info I guess.My granddad-Bert Cobb from Wisconsin married Ethel Knight ,asshe was ful bloode indian,he took her from her home.i dont know what type she was.i was told he crossed the lake or river to get her. I dont know all the details.My dad was Maurise Raye Cobb-after name change from Melvin Delvin.Id like to find out more.

August 23, 2008 at 10:59 am
Kassy Daggett 

I would like to suggest a feature that would be very helpful. When a record pops up showing other siblings, wives, children, etc. it would be helpful to be able to attach that new record (Census, etc.) that is spelled incorrectly to the person that record actually belongs to. Currently the only option appears to be to not include that person in order to not add an additional child, spouse, etc. Very often the early census records have serious spelling error due to the transcription of handwritten materials.

August 23, 2008 at 11:22 am
Helen.Hiner 

I am injoying the new system. Your news today realey made my day. You see our familys always had 12 or more children. This ment I was doing a lot of repetive work. I hope what I read will make life a little easer.
Sincearly, Helen A. Hiner

August 23, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Dianne 

It’s great that this feature has been added. Unfortunately, I do wish that it would add children without unknown parent(s) as it makes more work to include them, there is no shortcut there.

Thanks

August 24, 2008 at 2:54 am
K. J. Wood 

Good, but better if one had the option of saving other family members (e.g. Grandchildren) or some one else on the record-e.g. I’ve found young cousins in the household (listed as “Nurse”) who were staying to help out with a newborn etc.
Best wishes, Karen

August 24, 2008 at 6:29 am
William Hoffman 

KUDOS!!WORKS GREAT, SAVES TIME AND HELPS IN DEFINING RELEVANT INFO.

August 24, 2008 at 6:57 am
patrick page 

thankyou for the chance to reply .I would like to see proper task bar,this would make better to move around more quickly the site there should also be a means to stop us from repeating the information that we acquire…..patrick

August 24, 2008 at 9:12 am
FRANCES PRICE 

HI, I FIND THIS A VERY USEFUL FACILITY, ALTHOUGH I ONLY FOUND IT BY CHANCE !!!!

August 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Shirley 

The whole list of children noted on the actual census is not coming up on my James Moore – only one child.

August 24, 2008 at 3:23 pm
PR McCullough 

I greatly appreciate this feature when it is enabled and active. Unfortunately it often asks if you want to see the relatives when the information is not available such as for the 1885 Florida State Census. Keep making refinements so that it is more often functional!

August 24, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Judith Buck-Glenn 

This is great EXCEPT that if the information on your tree deviates from the added relatives names–like me, with my “Armanus” husband being called “Arman” on a census–there was no way I could tell the program to link the information to Armanus, and I ended up with a lot of kids being ascribed to an “unknown spouse” and a whole snarl of other issues developing as a result. I had to dump all the relatives because it became a mess, with half the kids being linked to Arman and half to Armanus. You need a way to tell it that it should consider a name already on the tree.

Also, I have noticed that things entered under the advance options as alternate information don’t seem to end up on the main profile that way, which is frustrating.

August 24, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Helen Sieber 

I receive clues for people who lived 300 years apart,i.e. Joe Blow born in England in 1500 with a clue for Iowa marriage records in USA in 1800′s. This happens regulary. I also receive clues which I have already added to people. Overall I love this feature,though.

August 24, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Sharyn Fahey 

When merging other family members under the census records, I already have the name of the family members in my tree. When you merge, you are adding them a second time, thus creating more work for me in removing the person you list as new, but is not new to me.

August 25, 2008 at 2:31 am
Susan Montelius 

The merge relatives section of ancestry is not working correctly. It shows some siblings of one I am working on when they are not even in the census. And it doesn’t show anyone who is in the census. Merge Relatives is a great tool, when working properly.

August 25, 2008 at 6:55 am
PATRICIA ANN MANGUM 

The name great-grandfather is mispelled. It should be Rass Berry Taylor not Rasberry or Raspberry oor Raspben.

August 25, 2008 at 11:28 am
cascott_92501 

When viewing other family members from historical hits it would help to be able to select the correct people to attach a relationship to. For example, the children of a widowed woman pop up with the father being an unknown spouse.

August 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Sarah Holmes 

I like the feature of the mass adding, but more options as far as who to add the census records to would be nice. Also if you accidentally add the record to a name that it’s been added to previously then it shows up twice on the timeline for that person.

August 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Donna Curnoe 

I love this feature. It is the best yet!

August 25, 2008 at 5:12 pm
JeannieWhitesell 

LOVE this new feature!

August 25, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Athen Garland 

Looking for more information on Charles M Kimball b 1844 D Feb16 1886 in Augusta Maine (togus Me) his two children with Flora L Dill b 13 March 1860 d Gardiner Maine Are Lillar F Kimball 09 April 1879 in chelsea Maine Brother Charles M Kimballb17 Sept 1880 D 28 Oct 1957 Thank you for all yor Halp athen-garland 0n Ancerty or my email is agarland39438@roadrunner.com

August 26, 2008 at 7:40 am
Iris Diesi 

I have been using this learning center it has helped me a great deal.
Thank you and please continue the good work.

Sincerely,

ird1937

August 26, 2008 at 11:42 am
Alfred S. Liddle 

Merging info on relatives is a great idea. I just couldn’t figure out how to use this feature to add a new relative that showed up for the first time in the record I was viewing.

James Liddle (1796-?) of Romsey, Hampshire, England, had wives Amelia and Ann, both deceased before 1861. Information in the 1861 English Census for Romsey, Hampshire, shows (another) wife Ann, who I wanted to add to the tree.

I’ll next try adding Ann as a third wife and see if the merge feature allows me to attach the information from the census entry to her record in my tree.

August 26, 2008 at 2:23 pm
H. R. Wismar Jr. (Bob) 

August 26, 2008

Great information. Thanks!

The 1930 Census has my grandparents in Red Bud Illinois which is correct; however, their names are not correct on the search results from Ancestry.

Ancestry says: W T Wemhoener (Grandfather)
Cathrien Wemhoener
(Grandmother)

Should be: W F Wemhoener
Catherine Wemhoener

Actual: William Fredrick Wemhoener Sr.
Catherine Wemhoener

How can I get this corrected for future generations?

August 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Stan Gaines 

Name John Tollett
Birth date abt 1845
Birth place Arkansas
Residence date 1850
Residence place Madison, Sevier, Arkansas
While merging a hint from the 1850 USFC It told me that 5 year old John’s 3 year old wife was Angeline Blackwood. I looked at the document and could not find that information on it. Think you have a bug.

August 26, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Grace Nugent 

I love this new feature but why is it only on some of the census report mergings? i.e. Ellen Hobard Riley is listed with her husband and children but only Ellen’s information comes up to be merged.

August 26, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Jerene Ramsey 

I do not like having a way go back a page! when you have the wrong info on a person, say you are working on a husband and the wife’s info is showing I have no way to get it to her. if I cancel it I have lost that info. give us a way to return Please. If there is one I don’t see it. Thanks, Jeri

August 27, 2008 at 12:56 am
Judy Banks 

I have found that if i do a “family merge” on additional family members, I do not get just the additional information, but, now I have duplicate family members.
Also, when within my family profile the place of birth doesn’t carry over to “search historical records” and I get similar records for all states. I than add place of birth and place of residence; my record comes up but now I must locate the person on my list of family members to add the record. I want to add the new record to the person that I just searched on!!!

August 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Nancy Preiss 

I loved the new merge ability and was also able to find my grandmother in the 1910 Census. This was difficult because she was a boarder in 1910.

August 27, 2008 at 6:08 pm
lloyd armstrong 

I only get offered this option at random times- it is very useful – but very frustrating when I am not offered the option

August 27, 2008 at 7:24 pm
LibbyGene1 

Is there some way to save a census reference to the shoebox until more info is turned up to verify that it contains the right persons?

August 27, 2008 at 9:33 pm
david schutz 

New Record Merge Field is an excelent idea and so far it has made life alot easier in tracing things

thank you

August 28, 2008 at 2:50 am
Elizabeth Davies 

I love this feature – you can easily add new family members and refine data, from censuses.

I’ve also cautiously used the merge from other trees and like the fact that you can check item by item, and correct or ignore as you go along.

Nothing negative to say at all – well done Ancestry!

August 28, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Silver Allen 

Hint are helpful, but found hints for Alfred Magner Magner was spelled with a “W” for parents and siblings.

August 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm
kriss poll 

It linked Mary E conrad with Mary E Donner but this is the first time where I think they are different people. The Birth date and other information is different. Is there an option to say “I don’t think this link is correct and it is really a different person in my tree?

August 29, 2008 at 7:24 am
Rosemary Alford 

I have had problems with this feature adding duplicate records for ancestors who are already on my tree. When I have tried to delete the duplicate it has automatically deleted both copies leading to hours of work to find “free floating” parts of the tree

August 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Irene Palmer 

I love the merge feature, it saves me a lot of time, but I have encountered a problem. It seems that unless I select at least one parent, I am not allowed to add siblings via merge, but the records in question do not contain information on the parents, so I cannot select one. How can I merge the info on the sibling? Thanks. Irene

August 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Tamsin Majerus 

Love the merge feature – still getting used to it. Is there anyway we can record amendments to the transcription when it is inaccurate, as this would save others time in the future. eg I just found Rev’d H J Borrow listed as Reid H J…clearly a mistake as the address and other occupants are all correct and his surname (Borrow) is clearly visible and legible.

Thanks

August 30, 2008 at 6:10 am
Pamela Berry 

I believe the last name should be “Berry” instead of “Perry” as noted. .I believe the last name was mistakenly misspelled. The family tree, however, is the same.

August 30, 2008 at 8:25 am
P John Andrew 

On the Family Tree, the date for the birth of Isaac John’s son – Charles – is shown as 1856 – the same as for ‘IJ’ !
If at the 1901 Census, Charles was 15, then the yeat of birth should be shown as 1886 !

Kind Regards, John A.

August 30, 2008 at 11:29 am
Ann Hood 

Concept and practice on the whole great. In all things mistakes occur in the case of records regarding Ellen Primett and her family the record transcribed from the census has her family of daughters with two men as parents!!!! In these circumstances can’t merge whole family records in one go. Still system gets better every time.
Thanks

August 30, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Tommy Michaels 

Often times the spelling on the Census record is slight off such as Elmo for Elmer. It would be nice to be able to select someone in your tree than having to select Elmo and have a new person. When the names match with ones in my tree I do attach the record to that person, but half the time there is no exact match

August 30, 2008 at 1:44 pm
marilyn 

I wish we could merge people on our lists together (someone may have an initial included on one doc and nothing on another so then it looks like 2 different people even though all other info is exactly the same

August 30, 2008 at 9:51 pm
SUE DENTON 

It would really be nice if there was a way for the program to know you already have family members listed so they aren’t repeated. AS of now, you have to have a print out of each person’s tree and have it in front of you so you
don’t repeat those names.

August 31, 2008 at 8:03 am
SUE DENTON 

Where are the answers to these questions?

August 31, 2008 at 8:08 am
Mike Daigle 

This is an EXCELLENT idea and saves countless hours and hours.
Thanks.

There is one more feature that I don’t see at ancestry.com. That is a
“unattach” feature, so if you still wish to keep info on someone, but realize they don’t fit right there, you can “unattach” them there and “reattach” them where they belong. Thanks again for listening.
Mike

August 31, 2008 at 11:27 am
Garnet Quigley 

When the Hint or multiple Hints are offered could not one of the offerings be a hint that the individual in question may exist as a duplicate within the user’s own tree? If the user opens this Hint on possible duplicates could the user not be offered the same currently existing person match screen but this time comparing the older record with the newer one within the user’s own tree. And then having the same ability to merge the two as the user currently has merging individuals from other member’s trees.

In other words could Ancestry not use the existing screens and merge functionality but just add the option for a Hint on duplications within a user’s own tree?

Even manually adding for example a spouse, without a time-consuming search of an existing tree’s list, users can easily miss the fact the spouse already exists on the tree as an unmarried child of parents captured on another occasion.

Having an easy way to identify duplicates and to merge them would benefit everyone including I believe database management and indexing when duplications within trees can be removed from consideration.

I would like to see the users be given a choice. A choice whether to avoid the automated merging tools Ancestry provides such as many apparently do, or a choice to use them knowing there is functionality to overcome the duplication challenges.

Garnet

August 31, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Josh 

I’ve just found my family in the 1920 census. It’s a family of about 12 people. I’ve previously entered most of them in my tree, so there should be some matches. However, when I click that I want to associate the record with the relatives of the current person, it only show 3 of the people from my tree. The spelling of the names in the record is a bit off, so it does not know that they are the same people I’m trying to pick (example: Osila is not seen as Otila). When i click the name on the left, it tries to add a NEW PERSON on the right. That’s not good. Now I have to revisit this record 9 more times just to associate it with everyone in the family. Can’t you add something to allow me to associate relatives of the current person to names already in my tree? That would save a lot of time.

September 1, 2008 at 12:34 am
Dorothy Francis 

I do get multiples of people(children) listed when I accept more than one record and I accept all people. Must I go and only accept the people that I have not included before and skip the others that were included? I am new to doing ancestry but I love this site. Thank you for making my search back into history fun and much easier than I ever thought it could be.

September 1, 2008 at 2:47 am
Judyg 

I LOVE this!! However, 1856 Iowa census info on the family. When I click Show Relatives it will only list one of the children and not everyone. Happens this way regardless of which person I click on. Thought you’d like to know.

September 1, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Gail Braswell 

Love it!! A superb timesaver.
Thoughts for the future: ability to choose which family members to connect information to; sometimes the names are transcribed incorrectly or incompletely and the software doesn’t match them up properly.

September 1, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Dave Dike 

unable to amend records that are transcribed incorrectly or incompletely, eg. 1930 Census for Roy Dalma Hill, my maternal grandfather, includes entry for Sarah E Lam – misspelled “Lane” – my mother’s maternal grandmother, but ostensibly unmergeable. Mergeability of other household members may be useful to future researchers. All the same – great service. Thank you. What fun!

September 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm
jzihlman 

I like the new feature. I would like to see the ability to browse the family list with the relatives that get listed because sometime it doesnt show a match because of a difference in spelling or date of birth listed. Knowing my family tree pretty well, I recognise when this has happened and don’t create a new person but I also can’t put the reference with that person. Sigh, except to type in a note.

September 1, 2008 at 7:12 pm
jzihlman 

adoption is a problem. my mother was adopted by her uncle. Not uncommon in the depression era to be put out with family during that time. I want to list her uncle as her father. He did legally adopt her, but I also want to list real parents. More complicated I guess. Have you plans for this problem?

September 1, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Charles Bather 

When I try to add a list of children to their parent, I seem to end up with them attached to the Grandparent. The real parent gets deleted. I don’t know how to recover from this situation. How about an ‘undo’ button?

September 2, 2008 at 9:14 am
Jim Kempton 

great feature but is wildly unpredictable. Sometimes it appears and not so at other times. Sometimes it shows family members not included in the (ie) census you’re looking at and not the people you’d like to add.

When it does work it doesn’t show if the other family members already have a reference to this record, resulting in redundancy.

Getting better all the time,
Thanks for the efforts,
Jim

September 2, 2008 at 11:21 am
Carol Burk-Braxton 

Why do you have to select parents in order to be able to merge siblings? Often there is no option to select parents, so one cannot merge siblings even though they are known to be valid and were listed on a record.

September 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Sara Wedeman 

I want to add my agreement to the comment made by the person who proceeded me (Carol Burke-Braxton). It is very frustrating to see a sibling attached to a file and not to be able to add that sibling because you have not added the parents, when there is no option to do so) and when you know the sibling to be an accurately identified individual. I hope you’ll correct this glitch. thanks

September 2, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Debbie Vietzke 

When the widowed mother appears in a later census with the children, the merge process does not give the option to attach the children to the deceased father. It implies the father is unknown. It would be great if we could attach children to the known father at this point.

September 3, 2008 at 9:09 am
Betty Garber 

On a different subject…Am I the only one who now cannot see the parents and spouse on the screen? In the last two days the parents have been moved to the far right and the text size is way too small for those of us over 40years old! Now I must put my nose to the screen and it is very tiring on the eyes.

September 3, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Peggy LaZier Smith 

James LaZier was my grandfather. My dad, Raymond Joseph LaZier told us that his father was born in France. I have found a census that recorded his birthplace as Italy. All of the rest indicate France as his birth country. My dad referred to him as Jean. He was only 5 or 6 when he, his father, died.

September 3, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Greg Lee 

This works really well for census records. I really like it a lot. thanks.

September 3, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Mary Geier 

I love the new option to add family members but I keep getting an Internet Explorer Script Error that keeps me from adding this information to my tree. Can you help me with this? It keeps popping up each time to go to add people or information. So it is keeping me from using this lovely feature. We went to IE and told it not to notify us of Script errors but that didn’t help.

September 3, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Brian Gillespie 

I love the multiple person add feature. It saves a lot of time. However, sometimes it thinks one of the people is new when in fact, he/she already exists in my tree. How about adding a button for each listed person to optionally select someone already in my tree? Keep up the good work!

September 3, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Kevin Long 

1. How do I combine two individuals once I have merged in an “extra” that the program did not correctly match up with an existing person?

2. There is another section after spouse and children which shows a sibling which is not from this record as follows: “Other Children of (Siblings of George F. Sample)”. When I click on the check box next to that individual it get a pop up about needing to choose at least one parent first. What is going on here?

September 4, 2008 at 9:50 am
Sam Casey 

attempting to attach a Texas death record that also included info about a sibling. Software would not let me attach sibling info because I didn’t select a parent. There were no parents on the record to select.

September 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm
J Sims 

I have had to individual add the 1850, 1860, and 1870 Federal Census records for each member of the family. Starting with 1860 this was 5 people. When I get to the 1880 census it finally populates “add relatives” but does not recognize the family members already on the tree. So, again I have to attach the record to each family member. This experience has been work and more time consuming. Please fix this soon. Thank you.

September 4, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Linda F Young 

I really don’t know where to start>
I would like to start with my Mother
side of the family, How do I do it? When Her name was Johnson, Married a Johnson
was told Had a child by him then Married
Archie Harrell, then someone said his
name was not Harrell but Howe. Who do I
believe.Lord I need help, is there any one can help me I paid this money I just need some help Please Lord if you are listening I am the one whose .

September 4, 2008 at 4:20 pm
lynn seamark 

Still having trouble with linking family members from the census. The 1900 seems to have the most trouble. If the last name is different in the index than the last name in the tree, it does wierd things – such as trying to attach a new wife (first name was ok) then wants to add children to unknown spouse. You have to be real careful or you end up with duplicates and have to unpick them all and add the link to the census one by one for each child. I still also have trouble with the marriage attachment when starting with a child and attaching the date of marriage for the parents. It adds a record to the parents stating a marriage to the child.

September 4, 2008 at 4:38 pm
M 

Yep. The “Show relatives on this record” appears to be broken now. It’s not picking up other members of the family anymore. It points to a member of another family… always points to that person.

September 4, 2008 at 4:56 pm
molly 

Okay, seems to work generally but you have to be careful of everyone having been born or died in the USA! Hampshire to me is in England, Palestine is in Palestine, etc etc and neither are in the US when researching family from England especially if one is searching before the 1490′s as the Americas had not been discovered let alone colonised. So this does mean you have to read through ever site you open.But I guess this is supposed to be a labour of love after all!

September 5, 2008 at 2:54 am
Nan Whitcomb 

A little hint. When errors in spelling are found in census records. Before adding the record, go to “comments and corrections” Do your corrections for the names, but wait until Ancestry e-mails you that the corrections have been made. Then when you go back to add the record it is easier.
I also found that the other family members won’t be added unless you click the box.

September 5, 2008 at 8:06 am
Catherine Hawkes 

The record I found has a second marriage for the head of family – and the merging system will only let me over write the second family names – I want to annotate why there is a name change.
Also – Family name spelt wrong on historical record – how do I get it changed?

September 5, 2008 at 9:27 am
emma 

i wish that you could add other relatives as well it seems that only parents or children and spouse can be added, if there are any other relatives ie nephew or siblings with a different last name through marriage then you have to add them one at a time makes it hard and iv lost relatives in trying to remember where they all are!

September 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm
MARY FALCON 

A HINT IDS PERSON TO BE IN FAMILY 1 BUT IS ACTUALLY A MEMBER OF FAMILY 2. THERE IS NO PLACE TO PUT THIS 2 PERSON UNTIL I CAN GET HER TO RIGHT FAMILY.
OVER ALL IT WILL A GREAT IMPROVEMENT ONCE ALL THE BUGS ARE OUT.

September 5, 2008 at 5:07 pm
CherylAnn Mabry-McComsey 

There is information in the 1920 for Allma B. Mabry born abt 1912 and was at the time 7 1/2 years old, Mothers name Dolla.

This information is incorrect, I am from this family, Alma was my Grandfathers sister and we have a Family Bible with all the children of Sylvester Lee and Dollie (McGrady) Mabry all of their DOB’s, Marriages & Death Dates are in this Bible along with pictures of mostly all of their children. Her name is Alma Dell Mabry and she was born on 8 Nov 1918 and died on 9 May 1922, which this Bible has been passed down by my Great Grandparents – Sylvester Lee and Dollie McGrady Mabry.
All that is written in the Bible was written by my Great Grandparents. I know that sometimes back then the record taker was not very good with writing things down, I have found many mistakes regarding my family’s history and information.
Just wanted to give you an update and let you know of the mistakes that can be made.

Sincerely,
CherylAnn Mabry-McComsey

September 6, 2008 at 1:21 am
Justine Brazina~Bachman 

I love the new merge feature, but AT TIMES it will not include all of the family members. And i can clearly see them on the original census records. Please help, I must be incorrectly triggering this. As I really enjoy attaching the record to all of the members of the family simulateously.
Keep up these great advancements!

September 6, 2008 at 4:53 am
Robbie Mae Bronner 

Thank you! You are very helpful to me.
I need a space for a second marriage. I found in 1870 Noel (37)the same person) lived with Harriet (38)with three Rutland children (Elizah/Elijah 17,This checks out to be Elijah, Sr born in (1853) Charley 10,& Cressy 4). I found in 1880 Noah (47) married Fannie (23) and had a daughter Sarah Rutland (2). I will also check for death records. Any help here will be highly appreciated.
Elijah,Jr. born (1880) & listed too as (1882)> He is my grandfather and I knew him,his sibblings and his children. I have his death certificate and I have Elijah, Sr. death certificate. I can’t find Noah’s yet I found in 1895 he married Edna Ogletree in Monroe county,Ga.

September 6, 2008 at 5:30 am
Clare Loppe 

This comment concerns the transcription of the record for Charles Arpin in the 1901 Canadian census. His birthdate of 1900 makes him a “one” year old, married head of house hold with many children. Not Possible.

September 6, 2008 at 11:06 am
Sheila Gropp 

I see a area for improvement of this feature.

I have used it many times, with on limitation. When there are family members on the historical records is slightly different then what I have in my tree, it does not recognize it and I cannot add it with adding a new person.

It would great if I could select a family member out of my tree to link the historical record to.

Let me know if you need more information.

September 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Lea Miller 

I love this feature if I am adding a wife and children and everything matches. However, if there is a parent missing, it lists the children a second time with an “unknown mother/father”

September 6, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Jan Beasley 

This is a good feature, but its presentation is not well thought out. What I want to do is link the record to people existing in my tree, not add people to my tree, and it is not clear what will happen if I do check on some. For example, in this particular 1880 census listing, I have the male head of the household, his current (second) wife, two children from his first marriage (wife presumably deceased), two children from his present marriage, and a step-son (who is the son of the head of household’s current wife and her previous (deceased) husband. I don’t want to add any people, or change their names or birthdates, etc. I just want to link the record correctly.

The set-up of this page does not make it clear that I can do that.

September 7, 2008 at 8:26 am
Lois Follmer 

I LOVE this new feature! I have found only 1 problem, if a grandparent lives in the home like in the census, the different last named person does not come up in the merging. If that could be fixed, it would be really great too.

Thank you so much for this new feature. Family Tree software & Ancestry changes have saved me HOURS of looking!

September 7, 2008 at 10:29 am
Donna Curnoe 

This makes adding family members so much easier. You must first read the origional, of course.

September 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm
theresa allington 

I like the fact that other family members come up for you to include in your family tree. It makes things much simpler.

September 7, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Glenda Longstreet 

Thank you for “adding family members” when I add a source and additional information it’s very helpful and saves lots of hours of adding new people.

I do have one suggestion I’ve run into a couple times.

Sometimes the spouses or chldren are misspelled so much that the system cannot match it with information I already have…if I could click to add a person already in my tree – I thought that might be an easy solution.

Thank you again.
G. Longstreet

September 7, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Thora Goodnight 

the 1910 census for Oren Whitehead is transcribe incorrectly as Whitchead. Can this be fixed?

September 7, 2008 at 8:44 pm
PF Smith 

Says I can add relatives and it shows sibling of Ida Smith but will not allow me to access it because it does not show parents.

September 7, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Mike Norman 

The new features are good and help a great deal. Just a bit concered about the (Ancestry Hints) keep getting single females married to husbands with same name or is it that she has married a distent cousin with same surname.
Mike

September 8, 2008 at 4:23 am
Juliana Mulroy 

I love the ability to add other members from Federal census so easiky–doesn’t always work if record is for someone other than head of household. and skips children if list interrupted by someone else, including another blood relaice. Since I always check image, I would like to see all members of household, even boarders (often relatives) listed, with relationships, if given.

Does not work with Iowa State Census and other records

September 8, 2008 at 5:40 am
Cathy Schaller 

I have been getting quite a bit of duplicate information. When deleting and cleaning up the information I accidently deleted my grandfather. I can add his name back in but it causes duplicate information again. Trying to link him in without doing this seems to be impossible. How can we merge duplicate information without going through having to delete information. There is an option on Family Tree maker to merge duplicate information is there one on here? My cousin is having the same problem and has spent 3 weeks cleaning up here files also.

September 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Beth Blote 

Need to mark the possible duplication of possible merges to the actual duplicate family members already in my tree because I cannot check during the merge process. Then I don’t know which duplication to delete. I’m having that problem already.

September 8, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Sharon Mugno 

Why does it tell me that I have a new person when the name is exactly the same, but it isn’t picking it up? I don’t want to attach it to my person for fear of having two different people for the same family then I will be in trouble.

September 9, 2008 at 8:31 am
Ric Hooban 

How do I merge two people who are the same into one without losing the info? I have a lot of duplicates like a Mary A and a Mary who are the same person. Surely there is a way to merge two people into the one person they are, and, if there isn’t, then get on this task pronto. Thank you. RicWhaley

September 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Tui Lewis 

New feature sounds great. Looking forward to trying it.
SLUGGISH was mentioned back in May 08, Am still finding it this way in September.
Any help on the horizon please?
As love the site.

September 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Mike Damon 

When doing a merge, it would be nice to have a icon to manually match a person on the left with a person in your file. If you add a person (child or spouse) that did not match because of mis-spelling, you end up with duplicates. If you don’t, you have to remember to go back an add the citation to that person manually.

September 10, 2008 at 9:01 am
Marion Adam 

I find this to be a useful feature – except that it lists the Census info as a birth record source only. It does not register as a residence. If I want to have that show in the individual profiles, I have to go back to each person and remove/restore the link. This is annoying and time-consuming.

September 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Marion Adam 

I need to amend my comment (#790) – this lack of the residence link occurs when adding someone as a “new person” to one’s family tree. Testing it again now….

Now I see that the Residence does show.
Awesome!

Ignore #790 :)

Thanks

September 10, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Bruce Veazie 

This “feature” is definitely messed up.

There is information in the relatives section that does not come from the historical record. And information in the historical record does not show in the relatives section so it can be added to the relative.

For those of us trying to link to historical documents this is a great hindrance.

September 11, 2008 at 5:37 am
Bruce Veazie 

Add’l info for my comment above.

D W Barkley Town of Orange, Schuyler, New York 1860 Census

When the Add Hint link is clicked:

D W Barkley with correct info is shown.

Under add’l relatives, none of the entries in the index show except:

Ella A Barkley (from the actual next page of the census)

The information for Ella A Barkley in the document part of the Add Hints page has a full birth date rather than “abt whatever” and a *death date* in 1940!

September 11, 2008 at 5:50 am
RogerWyatt24 

I like the system and enjoy using it. There is still the problem when it states “New Person” when that person is already on the tree you are working on.
I do have concerns about those who use it and are not responsible. Some users appear only to have an ambition to add as many names as possible to a tree, regardless.
Thanks for your efforts to improve the systems.

September 11, 2008 at 7:30 am
Rossie 

I LOVE THIS
I Just Found It TODAy
wow you made my life great
have a terrific day !!!
rossie

September 11, 2008 at 11:48 am
alice larson 

What a wonderful surprise to find all my work gathered together. Thank you much. a very wonderful addition to genealogy work.

September 11, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Bruce Veazie 

The interaction with the actual census index is still of medium use. Someone posted a “correction” to the index which is incorrect. The “Add Hint” interface now takes the incorrect entry as gospel, whereas I want to use the actual historical document.

I.e.:
I have in my tree
Fred W Barkley
Margaret Emery – his wife

1930 Census Winthrop, Suffolk, Massachusetts
Fred K Barkley
Margaret E Barkley – wife
Martha Conery – mother-in-law

1. a “correction” was made to Margaret E to make her name Margaret E Conery
2. A close examination of the census image reveals that Martha “Conery” is Martha Emery.

Now the “Add Hint”, when applied to Fred Barkley insists on creating a new person for his wife, rather than letting me decide. I have a wife Margaret Emery and the interface won’t apply the index entry “Margaret E Barkley” to her.

As a result, each individual has to have the census information added separately.

The interface should default to the index information, not someone’s “corrections.”

September 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Mary Lee 

This will be great ,Good job

September 12, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Peter Styles 

Dear Kenny

Looks very clever but it doesn’t work. If you don’t have a precise match on the parents then it duplicates the entries. Example: I have a wife called Ann but no maiden name; the census shows Ann Styles (her married name) and the children all match; so I choose to select them; when I get back to the detail sheet, I find the system has made a new wife and a second set of children. I have given up using it, in frustration, and gone back to linking the census data one at a time.

regards
Peter Styles (07976 550876)

September 13, 2008 at 7:45 am
josephine harless 

I love having the relatives listed and to be able to merge….

My hint for Jacob M. Burrough (spouse Martha B. Burrough) is great, however, it wants to attach to his grandfather Jacob Burrough (spouse, Sarah Helmick)

September 13, 2008 at 10:52 am
Carla Elliott 

I really appreciate the ability to merge other family members listed on a particular record to my files. However, there seems to be a slight glitch in the program! I accepted such on a census record that listed two extra children whose names I had not known. Thereafter, no matter what the source record I viewed, it offers me those same two children, who are not even on the specific record I’m merging. Obviously, something is not quite right!
Thanks for this opportunity to let you and others know.

September 13, 2008 at 11:23 am
Caryl V Taylor 

Don’t know website.
I have some difficulty when trying to find my family tree. Some of the information has been deleted. I only find 7 names in my tree. What is wrong? Please find all names of my tree and help me merge them.

September 13, 2008 at 11:24 am
eva morthland 

Want to learn all there is.
Thanks
eva roberta martin morthland
nickname-Bobbie

September 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Karen Parker 

It would be nice if there was a way to merge two people once they are already entered on the tree. I find I have to go back and delete someone who was already in there with the name spelled differently and then go back and add all the sources I already had on one or the other. Also for some reason known only to the peculiarities of the computer there will be someone with the correct name and it just does not match them so I have to add the family and then go back and add this person and hope I don’t get interrupted and forget them.

September 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Karen Parker 

Two other comments I forgot. One is person B is listed on a census record with person A. The connection comes up with person B’s name but when you go to the record it says to connect to person A. If you don’t watch very carefully you are connecting to the incorrect person.

Number two is I would like a way to go back to the list of people with hints without bringing up the full list of people first. I have to wait for the full list to load then click on people with hints. This takes so much extra time.

September 13, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Scott Hunt 

1910 United States Federal Census; Rome Twnship, Crawford, Pennsylvania, USA
Inskip Morris, the next page shows Mary E. as spouse.

September 13, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Jane McClure 

When I attach 1900 census records, Ancestry shows the marriage date on the individual page–which is great, except that more often than not, it shows a father married to his daughter rather than his wife, etc. This has just started happening recently.

September 13, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Rebecca Szozda 

Hi
Twice now, Ive had a glitch where one of the children is labled as the spouse, and I am unable to change it in the merge. this is on the lt side in the events column – on the far right, the spouse is correct. Both times I had to delete and re-enter info about the wife/husband to get it corrected.
Also, the merge shouldnt change the maiden name of the spouse, but if you merge the female, it automatically changes it to the married name. This has happened even when I didnt check the spouse to merge, knowing it would delete the maiden name. I’ve had to go back and change MANY married names to maiden names because of this – Frustrating. So I merge sparingly. lots of great info available on your site! Just needs some fine tuning.
Thanks for all your help with my research – i wouldn’t be so far without you all. Becky

September 13, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Sherry Hightower 

Whomever transcribed a census record for the person I am working in, listed the wrong sex. Now when I try to merge the info from the Census, it won’t let me without my sending the male info to the female side!

When can we expect to be able to send corrections on things other than names?

September 14, 2008 at 10:01 am
Terry Lowes 

I have been using Ancestry.com for about 18 months and find it very helpful for family information. One thing I have learned from this data base is that is was typical to use middle names because there were so many of the same first names duplicated in families there was no other way to identify one branch of a family from another because they were all large. When I ask relatives for info all they know are middle or nic names for the older relative so it sometimes takes hours to research them and some are never found. Some tree seekers do not investigate they just click and then your family is tied into a mess or they leave out one generation and just connect anyway.

September 14, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Drwts8 

!910 Census was wrong. Effie was my grandmother name. my dad was John Garrison. Effie had remarried and her name was HASSELL. She had an another son Alley Bradford (Pat) Hassell and a daughter Mertie Hassell by Mr Willice Hassell of Holly Pond, Cullman County Alabama. He past away after Mertie birth. About 1902 Effie married Mr George Wahington Moore. About 1920 they moved to Tuskahoma, Pushmataha, Oklahoma and lived there until there death. Effie in October 1929 and Mr Moore January 1930. My mom and dad lived in Oklahoma until their death.

September 14, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Bonnie 

The feature is convenient… however, the same issue exists that has always existed. Your transcriptions are frequently WRONG.
My GGGrandfather Sylvanus Scott, is shown on the transcription with one relative and an incorrect age. When in fact, he was two years younger ON THE ORIGINAL CENSUS. Plus, he had an entire family listed in the original census. None of which included the person listed with him on the transcription. You all really NEED to devote time to information provided to you by subscribers who ONLY go by the ORIGINAL transcriptions. You are selling a defective product and encouraging point and click genealogy, which is horrible for accuracy.

September 14, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Laurie Kirby 

This is great and has saved me a lot of time. However, my one problem with this seems to be trying to deal with different variants of a name. I have a James Henry Rayner in the 1901 census where the name as it appears is Jas Hy Rayner. This ends up creating a new “child” to this family rather than merging the census data with the existing James Henry, though the screen would appear to merge Jas Hy with James Henry. I’ve had to delete Jas Hy twice now.

September 15, 2008 at 6:01 am
Lynette Stamper 

How do I merge familys together so i only have one tree instead of all indervual trees

September 15, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Brenda Humphrey 

I was about to add an iowa census as a source, and noticed the information (spouse and children) was incorrect. The census said he had a wife and four children, the addition page listed one child by an unknown spouse, and no one else.

September 15, 2008 at 6:02 pm
April Nienberg 

They have the corrected name from Hienberg to Neinberg…it is really Nienberg. Maybe it can be corrected again.

September 15, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Mary Mayfield 

On a 1920 US Census, Gene Price, was listed. She is the daughter of Sumner Bacon Price, not his wife. How do I list as such. It came up
to be checked as his wife.
Mary Mayfield

September 16, 2008 at 5:09 am
Nicole 

I haven’t read the comments, so this may well have already been mentioned…but it would be nice to have the option to merge records that are far off enough that the site doesn’t think they’re a match. I’m running into this a lot where, say, the census put someone down with their middle name as their first name. Before I looked closer, I had a great-grandfather with the same set of kids listed three times – once with “Mary Sue Smith” as mom, once with “Sue Smith” and once with “unknown mother”. Fixing that took a while! :)

September 16, 2008 at 7:20 am
SYLVIA PETTIS 

Very good.

September 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Christopher Colbert 

There appears to be an error occurring when I attempt to show the relatives for Eunice Marilda “Hallmark” Armstrong. I keep seeing one of her daughters, Salema Armstrong. The same error occurs when I try the same for Henry S Armstrong, Eunice’s husband. Its a minor inconvience and otherwise your service is so great! Thank you thank you thank you so much!!!

September 16, 2008 at 8:00 pm
jzihlman 

Its a great feature when it works. but &%$# when it doesn’t. Mary G comer is married to Zachary Taylor Carr , alias Z T Carr and when I get cesus record for him with her in it. I hit show relatives, and it doesn’t think she matches so it wants to create a new person. so I change her stats to match and try again, but no, it wants to create a new person, damn it damn it, I tried and tried and changed stuff and tried again, no go
!!!!!!!!!! That is irritating!

September 17, 2008 at 1:55 am
Fred Montgomery 

Kenny: Heads up on the 1930 cenus for William C. Monthomery of Carter County, Tennessee, District 14. WM. C. and Sarah Montgomery were my G-Grandparents. Ancestry has his child listed as “Edna”. Actualy it is a male named “Edens” which was my G-Uncle.Did’nt know who to tell,so you were elected. Thanx, Fred Montgomery

September 17, 2008 at 10:34 am
Jenny Elliott 

One little adjustment or added functionality I would like to see added to this record merge feature is the ability to select a different or existing family member from my tree to merge the name with (like maybe in the “Show Options” part). So many times names are spelled incorrectly on the census records (like May and Mae) and the record merge doesn’t recognize that it is the same family member.
Otherwise, this feature has been very helpful!

September 17, 2008 at 10:58 am
Rubyann Darnell 

The family member listed on the original document, the wife Bessie, was not one of the choices of relatives to attach to my tree.

September 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Dgoodale 

The names that came up on this census are nick names and not exactly what is on my tree. I would like to see the “household” members on my tree so that I can choose the correct person on this page.

Thanks!

September 17, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Ralph Jackson 

I keep getting a message which states “You must select at least one parent before adding new siblings,” but there is no parent available to select. What is going on?

September 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Karen 

Great! I love how easy it is to add more information to all the family in a few clicks. It saves so much typing.

One problem I have noticed is with the names that can very with spelling. The system thinks these are new spouses. In options there should be a way to choose if you know it is the same person.

September 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Kay Willerton 

Just because someone is a widow or widower, it doesn’t mean that the dead parent is unknown. Why can’t it meld the children into the children of the living spouse? Very frustrating when you wnat to merge information into the whole family but because it reads ‘unknown spouse’ you end up with duplicate children.

September 19, 2008 at 11:43 am
deb elker 

I was tring to merge a hit to my tree
but it would not down load

September 19, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Patricia Bowers 

This is a great idea, but it doesn’t WORK most of the time. For instance, I was given the sibling of this person, but was told that I had to choose a parent to allow the sibling to be recorded. Since I don’t HAVE a parent to choose, I also can’t choose the sibling. Not very useful!

September 19, 2008 at 5:56 pm
John Cannon 

I find that a person is often not selected for the merge even when the name is spelled exactly the same and the dates are the same. I wind up with children in my tree with unknown parents, or with the children entered in my tree twice.

September 20, 2008 at 7:52 am
Verna Booth 

The Rebecca Laybourne, born in Toronto in 1846 to John and Alice Laybourne married Charles Hewlitt and divorced him about 4 years later. The Rebecca Laybourne listed in your note would not be the one I am looking for as Laybourne is this one’s married name, not her maiding name. I believe that the Rebecca Laybourne Hewlitt I am looking for may of moved to Washington state after her divorce.

September 20, 2008 at 11:56 am
Barbara Coleman 

For the past 3 weeks or so when I try to add information found from searching I get a message that an Internet Explorer Script Error has ocurred and after I clear the message it pops up again….I can’t add info to anyone in my tree.

September 20, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Dennis J Friedman 

When I am working on certain family records, I have the option of adding a family member, who is in both our records as I select the box to add this person I keep getting the warning “you must select at least one parent in order to add a new sibling” I don’t understand this because there is not a option to select another parent or parents on the page

Thank you. Dennis J Friedman

September 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Patricia Bowers 

Okay…. it provides a person… and his sibling – and then doesn’t let me ADD the sibling, saying that I must choose a parent, which is NOT shown.

Not very helpful.

September 22, 2008 at 5:21 am
a. marie nelson 

when adding info ‘attaching a hint’ and there is and varying in the person name like lizzie verses elizabeth sorry for the spelling it adds a wife and i have a hard time getting rid of her or if i add on new info from another cenus where there may be a child i did know about new wife please make it less wife touchy or eaier to drop them because if i delete them then i have to go back and readd stuff

September 22, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Vivian 

I would be nice to be able to choose which family member you wish to merge. It does not always recogize the spouse and ends up adding the same spouse twice.

It’s come along way –
Keep up the good work

September 24, 2008 at 11:03 am
Fred Hanning 

I was just wondering how a name that is spelled wrong on a census, namely 1930 census Maine, in Houlton. could be corrected and easier for someone to find. You see my grandfather name is Hanning but it was spelled Hanson but looks like Hannon on the record.
Thanks

September 24, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Phyl Menyhart 

Hi
I would just like to say a great big thank you to all at Ancestry for all the work they are putting in to the shaking leaf, and of course everything else they do I have been able to expand my tree even more over 2 thousand names.

Thank you again
Phyl

September 24, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Jim Brown, Jr. 

As with several other comments, when going over merges, noticed that there were duplicate names that I could not delete. We need somehow to be able to correct errors. Would appreciate direct e-mail regarding any fixes on this problem.
God Bless,
Jim Brown, Jr.

September 24, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Mary Petrey Pike 

I like this feature but how do we correct any wrong data that is in it? Can that be done? 1920 census has my father’s family and I know it is them, but a few of the names are spelled wrong and the name of the town.

September 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Colleen Arnold 

I have been trying to view an image on the 1930 census in Porter Midland Michigan for Frank Neitzke but the image itself is not there. There are double pages 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 I’m not sure which one is missing but the names are the same on these 4 images and the names I’m looking for are not there?

September 24, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Ann Bales 

Would it be possible to have an alert that this person is already in your family tree. I am getting duplicates in addition to adding new information.

Thanks Ann

September 25, 2008 at 7:41 am
lynn seamark 

Lately, I’ve had more trouble linking the record to the spouse and children than usual. The last name is wrong in the index but the first name is spelled right or close and usually that was enough not to trigger your system to think it was a new person for the tree. We need more flexibility for this to be an aid more than a hinderance.

September 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Norma Thomas 

I would like to be able to edit children also when the family tree info is for the child but comes up for the mother or father. No way to make it go to child I could find.
Also when viewing tree I sometimes need the Ahnantel (spelling ?) view and then copy it off to check correctness of what I have found. it would not let me do that. That was a good feature before.
I like most of the new features I have found. I think you should offer the FAmily tree software upgrade like familysearch.com does. Norma

September 26, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Ginny Harlow 

Joseph Mallie Matthews show Sarah J as wife on the census, but Mary Waldrep on the Ancestry tree.

September 27, 2008 at 8:08 am
Chris Jones 

When I clicked on a sibling of the individual in my tree being displayed, it asked me to select a parent. Both parents had already been selected, so I think there may be a bug here.

September 27, 2008 at 10:15 am
Carol 

On ancestry when connecting records to a individual with the option to connect others on the records, Need an option to also search my records and connect a preson from my records. Sometimes the record shows a different name spelling for someone in my records and I can’t connect them unless I add a new person. Also, Marriage records should give the spouse information and the option to add them to our records. Thanks (I really like the new setup)

September 27, 2008 at 10:52 am
Erika Cherry 

Great feature but it is possible to list all children or spouses listed in both the record and the tree, as some family members are listed by several spellings of the same name.

September 28, 2008 at 6:15 am
Rose O'Donnell Mulcahy 

In adding a relative’s record from the Social Security Death Index,I noticed a new feature: SHOW RELATIVES ON THIS RECORD & SELECT THOSE YOU WANT MERGED INTO YOUR TREE.

Unless something changed recently, the SSDI record does not list additional family members, so this suggestion is meaningless.

September 28, 2008 at 10:07 am
Richard Evans 

This 1900 US Census Has TWO SABIA Families. One Sabia Family is transcribed in Error as Seaborne.
The name is in FACT SABIA.
Head Frank Angelo Sabia,
Wife Elizabeth Cecelia Ferrone Sabia and Children. One of the Children lited as BARRY in Error. It is BOZZIE. short for Basileo.

September 28, 2008 at 4:46 pm
MARY K FALCON 

WHEN TRYING TO ADD SIBLING FRAM ASIBLINGS PAGE IT ASK FOR A PARENT BE NAMED FIRST …THERE IS NO PARENT CONNECTION..ANOTHER BUG TO BE SMASHED.

September 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Laura Olson 

On one particular family, whenever I click show relatives, it only lists one sibling (always the same one, regardless of what sibling or parent I am searching records on),

September 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Sallie Hanson 

Same person, but different spelling … you check, but now u have another spouse plus all the same children. More time to remove one of the sets.
Same person, but used nickname, etc. Again a new spouse or child.
Good idea, but lots of work needs to be done.

September 28, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Drew 

I like the Record Merge feature but it should give me the option to apply any changes to existing family members instead of just trying to add new members.

September 29, 2008 at 7:39 am
KATHRYN KILDOO 

THIS IS A NICE FEATURE HOWEVER THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLACE TO ADD A DECEASED SPOUSE WHEN THE CENSUS INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT ONE PARENT AND CHILDREN SINCE ADDING THE CHILDREN FROM THIS SCREEN DOES NOT ALLOW THE UNKNOWN SPOUSE TO ADDED LATER. ALSO IT WOULD BE AN ADVANTAGE TO BE ABLE TO EDIT UNNOWN PARENT LATER WHEN CHILDREN ARE LISTED UNDER AND UNKNOWN PARENT ON OTHER SCREENS

September 29, 2008 at 9:03 am
Laurie 

I wish there was a way to input the correct family memeber when it doesn’t recognize the person. If it can’t find a match in your tree based on the information, it wants to add it as a new person. Sometimes you know who it is, but you have to go back and do that person individually.

September 29, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ruth Hunt 

I think the merge is great but I have more information than is posted on the site adn I have the correct spelling of the names and Birth and Death dates. I am not sure who submitted the information

September 29, 2008 at 11:53 am
Kenna Stewart Ehret 

On the whole, I love this feature. It saves tons of time and boring repetitive work.

I have had one problem. We work from the present to the past, children to parents. When I add a record containing a marriage year with the parents of a known person, both parents are married to the child. I have to erase the event and add each parent and then the event.

Still, I have saved some time with the sibling additions.

September 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Linda 

This a great time saver. Thank you so much

September 29, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Lenora M. Martin 

Ancestry is showing a hit on Lucinda Brown – 1880 census Fannin Co TX – when I pull it up to attach to my tree it places William Moore’s name beside Lucinda’s – When I switch to William’s name on my tree there are no matches to pull up. I don’t know how to deal with this.

September 29, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Mike Parsons 

After following people with hints and then adding them,or otherwise, there doesn’t seem to be a quick link back to the next people with hints to deal with.
regards Mike

September 30, 2008 at 5:30 am
Lorraine L DeVore 

In this census (1930 Long Beach, CA), the daughter is married and living at home with her children(unknown reason). My only option for including her in the census source is listing her as daughter of unknown father. Her father is known and she is not a new child. How do I merge this info? I would also like to include her children. L DeVore

September 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Nancy Zeigler 

The person named Hiley should be Charlie Lee Crawford.

October 1, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Loras Schuster 

It would be nice to be able to have the option feature on census documents, and other documents like you have when looking at others family trees

October 1, 2008 at 9:35 pm
jill clark 

totally confusing. I keep using the merging items for “new information”, and it keeps adding the same people with different names to my lists, and it’s making more work for me, having then to delete things.

October 2, 2008 at 7:50 am
Richard Longfelllow 

It would be more helpful to be able to select a name from your current tree for each person included with your selected person on the census. People who took the census seemed to misspell the names or mis interpret them when listing them typed. Sometimes they add an extra letter. I find it quite involved to go back and add the misspelled name as an alternate name and then try to add the census again. I do like it when all the names are spelled the same and you can add the whole family at one time. I have found several times that the letters have been added to name, middle name used, nick name used or misspelling of first or last name makes it difficult to add the census information.
SUGGESTION: Maybe you could select to use the name as alternate name for someone from your list and you click that box and then select the name from your list already on your tree. I know that every suggestion involves more expense to add that idea to the program.

October 2, 2008 at 10:40 am
June A. Rettig 

In the family I am working on there are four more
children that I could add to the tree. That would
save time and paper.

October 2, 2008 at 11:02 am
Candace Lewis 

I love the new “merge” feature. It is such a time saver!

October 2, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Virginia M. Lee 

I am trying to add sources to persons o my family tree. Janet Lee, one person, has been married twice. I am having trouble adding the source to the correct marriage. Itkeeps being added tothe first marriage instead of the one that took lace in 2001. There are two marriage sources from TX marriage indec, one for each marriage.

October 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Marion Savage 

Some name don’t Get translated from the census to the TYpe copy correctly. Ei. Hazel A. Bauman’s mother name on the census of 1900 is Amy and some one has typed it as Anne. THis is my husband grandmother and I know he has her name correct. Please have you transcriptionists be more careful.

October 2, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Marion Savage 

Some name don’t Get translated from the census to the TYpe copy correctly. Ei. Hazel A. Bauman’s mother name on the census of 1900 is Amy and some one has typed it as Anne. THis is my husband grandmother and I know he has her name correct. Please have you transcriptionists be more careful.

I liked being contacted about people I’ve been trying to find. Knowing that other are looking for these same persons and being able to contact them is great.

October 2, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Susan Mack 

Using either IE or Mozilla, the website does not complete the adding a record function. On IE, the bottom says “Error on Page” When I open up the detail information it says error – object expected. On Mozilla, the page says “done” but nothing is happening or moving. I go back and start over but get to the same place. I have cleared bookmarks and deleted cookies and deleted browsing history. No different. I have been having problems for a couple of weeks now.

October 2, 2008 at 8:40 pm
George Adams 

This is a huge timesaver. There is less chance of moving on without saving ancesters you dont have in your tree. There are times when I have forgotten to write down the new ancesters found. Thank you Ancetry.com

October 3, 2008 at 8:15 am
Micky Cook Odenwalder 

My ancestry name is micky_o – I have two trees “A William Cook Family Tree” and “Reunion Cook”

Yes the new feature is wonderful when it works. However, there are times when it just doesn’t make sense. One particular instance is an 1880 census record for my gr great grandparents and family. When I click on the “view additional relatives or however it is named” it brings up the entire family. However, for some reason it appears as though my gr gr grandfather is not in the system even though he is. If I click on any of the children at this point, it will add them without a father. I have seen this type of situation several times and know it is a problem. As I have viewed other trees, I have seen the children not attached to one or the other parents and often listed twice. Thus many times in “One World Tree” you find the children listed twice.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Micky O

October 3, 2008 at 8:29 am
Edward Allen Summers 

I am able to provide update information for the family of Owen Wilson Summers and wife, Vernon Lee Grace (Summers)between the years of 1896 to current year.

October 3, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Bonnie Ducharme 

I would LOVE to see another line added so you can add their job description when doing this merge! This is a great new feature and so timesaving then the old tedious way of going back and forth for each separate person! Thanks!

October 4, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Margaret Maulin 

I want to echo Dennis J. Friedman’s comment of September 21, 2008. When the option to add family members is given and you try to add a sibling, you get a warning that you must select at least one parent. The parents are not listed on the page so you cannot choose one of them.
Are you working on a fix for this?
Otherwise I love this feature but going back and getting the source attached to all the family members is a pain as it works now.
There may be other comments on the same subject but Dennis’ was the most recent I found.
Margaret

October 4, 2008 at 9:59 pm
connie O'Meara 

When I merged William O’Meara born 1823 and his children in th 1880 census, the children that were living with him were added as children of an unknown wife because his wife, the mother of his children, had died earlier. I cannot figure out how to remove that term “unknown wife” so it appears that the children do not belong to Anne and William.

October 5, 2008 at 7:42 am
LAVanGorder 

I have two records that if I would merge them would have James Hilliard VanGorder (father) and James Floyd VanGorder (son) having children together. Any suggestions as how to fix this? 1930 census.
Thanks
LAVanGorder

October 5, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Robin 

I am new to Ancestry, but this feature has been very helpful to me . I would like to know, how Can I submite a correction? A cesus sheet has grandmothes family, all names & birth dates match, but last name was read & entered as Luman instead of Lyman, just a small faded spot on the record. I am positive it is my husbands family. Thank you for thia wonderful site :) Robin

October 5, 2008 at 7:56 pm
emma neville 

hi i like been able to add relatives but for some reason when it is giving siblings ie when 2 sisters are both servants in one household it will not allow you to add the second sibling as it asks for you to add a parent first (which of course you are unable to do as they are not listed with them)

October 6, 2008 at 11:19 am
MARY K FALCON 

STILL CAN NOT MERGE SIBLING FROM SIBLING PAGE IS THIS GOING TO BE FIXED SOON?

October 6, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Nanette Ellis 

It’s great that you provide the opportunity to add relatives. However, one record I was attempting to add showed only a sibling of the person in my tree. When I indicated that I did want to add this sibling, I received the error message that I must select one parent. However there was no parent listed. ??

October 6, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Dianne de Cruz 

Being able to review other relatives of a person I am researching is just great. Then I can compare my research to the rest and fill in the blanks, add new people or correct some mistakes I have made.

October 6, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Barbara 

This feature is a help. However, I’d like to be able to make corrections to the hint. For instance, my grandfather’s last name is indexed with a wrong spelling for his first name in one census and a wrong spelling for the last name in another census. I’d like there to be an option to make the correction, but I don’t see it on the screens I’m using. If I’m missing that, I’d love to be told where to make the change. Thanks.

October 6, 2008 at 11:19 pm
TJ Tell 

great tool when it works, there are glitches where there are 3 generation in a household, it will pull the grandchildren is a children when adding on the husband, and does not hace an option to add when adding under the mother.

October 7, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Lisa Kovach 

The relative merge is giving me a message to select a parent to merge, yet there is no feature. can this be corrected?

Lisa

October 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Joanetta Counce 

I don’t know how to merge information that appears incorrect in some aspects but correct in other areas. I clicked the leaf for Lincoln Breckinridge Parker and what appeared is both correct and incorrect. Ruby (Rubby) Parker is his mother, the information displays Lucilla Brown as Rubby’s husband but Lucilla is her mother. Her husband is Daniel (robert) Parker or vise versa. And the siblings are those of Rubby and Daniel and not of Rubby and Lucilla. How did the data get so mixed up and is it possible for me to fix it or are you responsible for how the data displays? HELP

October 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Catherine Dunn 

I do like this feature, however, I have noticed on many occasions that the original transcription is not done properly, therefore, the record you pull in is not correct. I do realize that it can be difficult to read original documents and sometimes a ‘best guess’ is all you can do. However, I checked AutomatedGenealogy.com and the Family name for this record is clearly Watt, not Wall. In addition, the entry for Margaret Maasz is incorrect. Her name is Margaret Maass. I realize as well that I have an edge because these entries were for my Great-Uncle and my Grandmother. Thank you.

October 9, 2008 at 4:25 am
Frances Russell 

I think this a wonderful feature when the names are recognized. I have here an entire family whose last name is incorrectly spelled with the two vowels transposed. So it will be necessary for me to do manual entries for each of them. Too bad for me!

October 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Jean Seddon 

Seem to have some problems on Ancestry Hints (green shaking leaf) with names of parents and sometimes obtaining maiden names of females

October 10, 2008 at 10:11 am
Peg 

Sometimes this feature pulls up siblings of the person or children of the person. When I go to check the block so that they are sourced with the same item, I get a response telling me I have to first select a parent. Sometimes there isn’t a parent available to check. How about fixing this so that we can include this source for any family member who comes up? Sure would save a lot of time… and I’m not getting why there’s a requirement to include parents on this feature.

October 10, 2008 at 1:38 pm
George Gilbert Moss 

It is about time for me to get some directions in listing family members. I greatly appreciate this method now at my fingers, BUT, I do have a hard decoding and deciphering the methods you need for me to fill out. My dates are from Headstones and Courthouse records. I hate to put land transfers in the Family Tree but if I must I can, back to 1700 days. Please, I do need help.George G. Moss zip code 62703

October 10, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Sarah Gill 

I’m trying to add in someone’s grandchildren (whose parents are unknown) but I can’t seem to manage it.

October 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm
James White 

When I follow the Hints, I’m having a problem attaching the hints to the correct person, with a person with same name. (Father & Son, Sr. & Jr., ect.) Also, it won’t let me attach information if it don’t have a parent name, even thou the data is not there.

October 11, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Kenneth W Beamer 

This new site has greatly improved over the old one, you are doing a great job. I really enjoy the new “People with Hints”. In the 1880 census Second Creek District,Monroe,West Virginia, the census taker wrote the name Mattison Beamer when is should have been Robert Madison Beamer. Is there any way to correct this to make it easier for people to find the information if they are not sure of the correct spelling?

October 12, 2008 at 7:11 am
Kerry Hook 

Why does it say, “You must select a parent” on the screen for some census records when there is no place to do just that? This means that I end up with a person on that record that I cannot click on to add to my tree.

Hope you can help.

Thanks.

October 12, 2008 at 9:00 am
Ivan Oakes 

Generally good. However is fooled by female with married name living in household. In this case it guesses the wrong surname when finding “relatives”.

October 12, 2008 at 2:30 pm
gwen 

Hi Kenny,
Just making a note that I think there is a miss translation on the 1871 England census for Amy Willing Cole. She has been translated as Henry. I have examined the original and can see how the mistake could easily be made. Perhaps you can relay this to the appropriate people.
Thanks for a great site, it is very helpful.

October 12, 2008 at 5:30 pm
NancyDrewFan 

PLEASE, PLEASE FIX YOUR MARRIAGE FEATURES IN YOUR PROGRAM. My subject has two different marriages and two different marriage dates. They are entered on my subject’s page. When I try to attach the 1900 census, it lists as a source on the wrong marriage and date, even thought the correct date is already listed. Does your program not look at the dates already entered and match itself to them as a source? It sure would be nice to use the census as the source, but I am unable to do to the BUG in your program. THANKS!

October 12, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Laura Kozin 

Good feature – I like it.

October 12, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Tandy54 

Several times now, I’m offered the name of a sibling on the record whom I can’t add “without the name of one parent.” But the parents aren’t named on the record & can’t be checked! For example, a soc. sec. death record. What a frustration. Yet I do appreciate the advanced capabilities, in general.

October 13, 2008 at 11:29 am
Irene Mercer 

The Donald Nielsen you have for a son of Carl E U Nielsen is my father,Leander Donald Nielsen. You have the rest of the info right.Carl’s wife and Lee’s mother was Laura Doyle. They had 4 children Virginia,Barney,Eugene,and Leander.Wish I could find Carls’ parents-they seem to have fallen off the world.

October 13, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Liz Michael 

Well, when there is no parent to choose the program does not let me merge brothers and sisters which it gives me to no purpose.

October 13, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Claire Bushell 

This is a great time-saving feature. I find it very useful but would like to be able to have the option to select a person from the tree if the correct person to merge with doesn’t come up automatically. Is this possible?

October 14, 2008 at 4:27 am
LM 

Thank you for allowing me to comment.
Point #1:
Could you please make it IMPOSSIBLE to link up persons where the given Dates would be impossible, as based on the birth, marrigable/child bearing age of mother and DEATH of the parents?

Point #2:
Often I see references to USA places when The New World had not been discovered. Could this practice be made unacceptable?

October 14, 2008 at 10:21 am
caroline jackson 

merge feature is great, but it sometimes does not recognise a spouse of it is spely wrong and tries to create a whole new family, is there a fix for this???

October 14, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Al W. Benton 

You have incorrect information re the marriage of J D Jones and Sam Benton in Kentucky, 1906. Sam married Prince N. Nickell NOT J D Jones.
Thank You,
Al Benton

October 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Emily 

This is a really great website, however, when we merge the information to our family tree, it doesn’t give us the option to link the new person to someone who is already on the tree. For example, I found John Rabideau, whose wife was Ida Detour, but she came up w/a different name on the census, so all the children that were listed under them when I go to add her (she is showing as a totally new person even tho I’ve already added her) are going to show up as children from some other wife…. no easy way to fix this either. Just a little feedback. If you know of an easy way to get rid of duplicate people on your tree due to this problem, PLEASE let me know!

Thanks!

Emily

October 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Beverly Cownover 

I love the fact that we can merge records on Ancestry with our tree on myfamily. However, the fact that you don’t have a link to go back to your ancestry search is annoying. You have to go back and back and back until you get back to your original finds on historical record.
But I guess I can live with it. If there is a way I don’t know of to do this better please let me know. Thanks.

October 15, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Barb Collishaw 

I really like this feature: I just discovered it today!

October 15, 2008 at 12:41 pm
hazel Jean Lowe 

WONDERFUL!!!

I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT ANCESTRY.COM, IT IS REALLY HELPING ME TO PUT TOGETHER MY FAMILY TREE, I WAS IN A TRUCK CRASH AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO WORK ON MY FAMILY TREE , BUT I AM ON THE AMEND NOW, AND SO EXCITED ABOUT GETTING BACK TO WORK. KEEP UP THE GOOD WONDERFUL WORK!!!!!!!

THANKS.

October 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Lottie Bailey 

I was an Ancestry member quite some time ago and I had done a lot of research on my family tree. I wanted to join again to continue where I left off,however I can’t find anything! HELP!

October 15, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Donald Sylvester 

I frequently have family members who do not work on my tree ask how they are related to someone in the family?

It would be great if something similar to “FAMOUS PEOPLE RELATED” could be written.

One would enter two names in the tree database and the connection could be mapped to be able to be printed (in order to show the inquirer how they are related).

I have over 3,200 people in my tree and I am constantly telling people IN WRITING how they are related to others.

This would be a great tool to get others involved in ancestry.com

Donald Sylvester
11402 Wickersham Lane
Houston, Texas 77077
Cell: 281-543-2622

October 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Judi Findsen 

sometimes a hit is shown by that great little leaf, but it should go to the other spouse. We need a way to choose who to merge the hint to.

October 15, 2008 at 8:15 pm
figaro1st 

I don’t understand why this merge other family members feature is so unreliable. One time I come up with Margaret Fletcher and it says fine, Margaret. The next time I come up with Margaret Fletcher, it says “New Person.” Or I attach people, and it makes them children of an unknown mother, even though it is bringing them up as already in my tree as children of this person. I waste so much time going back and correcting the errors that I’m very tempted to go back putting them in one at a time! And I can’t see a rhyme or reason for when it is doing this. Please fix it!

October 16, 2008 at 10:30 am
Adrienne 

This is a good feature overall. It does make an assumption that the person in the record must be merged with someone in my tree, but it is actually another person. There does not seem to be a way for me to mark this. I can either except them as a merge with the wrong person, or not accept them at all. Frustrating.

October 16, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Kim Smith 

The only thing I found so far that I wish was different, is when I add a census for all people listed. For example: My grandfather’s older sister was Elsie and in the 1910 census, she got listed as Eley, so it wants to add her as a new person. And it doesn’t have the option to attach the census to her under her real name of Elsie without making her a new peson.

October 17, 2008 at 3:32 am
PR McCullough 

Records for the federal census enumerations prior to 1880 and the 1885 Florida State Census indicate that you can see and merge relatives. That function is not working on my computer! One person repeatedly displays who has no relation to the people listed in the family group.

October 17, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Cheryl Wright 

I am in the processing of attaching hints on the wife. THe husbands info comes up for the wife. The spouse makes her married to herself.

October 17, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Jim 

The record for Henry Schork and family is not accurately converted to digital in the “1910 United States Federal Census”.

After searching the scanned document, Henry Schork has a wife Anna and 2 sons, all with the Schork name. Your digital record shows Henry Schork living with O’Brien.

Thanks,
Jim

October 17, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Shawn 

I really love this new feature. But I only wish that when you are merging the family members that you could pick a person to merge them to when the spellings are off.

October 18, 2008 at 5:49 am
Clairine Johnson 

Great site….second time I have been on it. Went on with my daughter-in-law and I am so excited about my findings that I have to figure out a way to get my family tree out of her name (even tho it will finally reach her name on the tree). Oh well, my complaint is that I couldn’t pick children records without changing a parent. My parent information was better than the new one offered, but I couldn’t add the children that I didn’t have. Thanks, Clairine
P.S. I look forward to more. In fact I am thinking about looking into a business with Genology.

October 18, 2008 at 6:52 am
Kathryn Maynard 

it would be nice when you do a merge info from census families which spouses could be married twice which there should have tag to say second marriage or something like that so it would be easier for us to do the merge info without our knowledge.. i have done my research which i am doing the merging… save me time to do the adding info in my own way!!!

October 18, 2008 at 7:44 am
Laura Hill 

Margaret Fox keeps showing up on the hints but she is not listed on the census that I am doing. None of the other family members are showing up.

October 19, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Terrie Dawkins 

I would love to be able to see everyone all the kids and sblings and there kids because i know alot of them

October 19, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Belinda Robinson 

I have found this a useful feature, but get caught occasionally when it decides that the same person is a different wife. The resault is that I end up with three census docs giving rise to 3 wives with the same name and a marhginal difference. I then have several children repeated with the same mum. You have warned of this.

It would be really helpful if, having decided that you have duplicated a person, that you could merge the details.

So far, I’ve been slowly deleting each of the duplicated kids and the offending Mum. That means not saving the different source docs or a very slow procedure to enter all the details by hand (having been spoilt by the ease of the new system where it works properly).

October 19, 2008 at 7:37 pm
James 

I like the new merge feature, and I agree with being responsible. There are lots of variations in how names are recorded, which brings me to my comment, when names don’t match according to the matching process, it would be useful to have a way of manual matching to existing records.

October 20, 2008 at 4:20 am
Pauline K Coon 

The father of Berta Katheryn Carter Coon was Edgar Norton Carter of Oakland, Coles County Illinois

October 20, 2008 at 8:49 am
Maurice H Ritter 

The Family that is Attached to James O Ritter belong to James M Lowery. His wife was Minnie and The others are their kids

October 20, 2008 at 11:06 am
Mary Adkins 

There is some incorrect information on the 1920 census for my family. I need to correct the information on the information page. My mother and aunt were listed as spouses when they were actually daughters. I don’t know how to do that.

October 20, 2008 at 11:52 am
Betsy Brock 

Thanks for updating the Family Tree and making additions easy. I like how you search the people in my tree for me. This alone has saved me hours in time. I do check carefully to be sure the suggestions match what I already have and have proved. PLEASE add more cemetery, marriage, and death records for Mississippi. Did you know that on microfilm in the Archives in Jackson, MS, are death certificates from 1912 to 1943? They are rich with data. Can you scan those for adding to your data? MS records are so difficult to obtain. The family members I am having difficulty locating are from MS. Thanks for the improvements

October 20, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Sophie Frizzell 

Great feature, but one possible enhancement, where a new person is being added, allow selecting of someone already in your family tree. Also, allow forcing a new person when linked.
I have found the occasion where someone is not correctly linked, or not linked when they should be.
Keep up the good work.

October 20, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Marjorie West 

I’m having trouble with the information and pictures staying in
my family tree after adding the information. sometimes if the info
is still there it is changed like
from sibling to half sibling and
from Mother of a person to the wife
of a person.Is it a tech problem or
my service? Thanks, marjorie

October 21, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Cory Mason 

Leonard Lawson Mason appears on your census as “Moson”. He was my great uncle, married to Annie F Bray daughter of Walter Scott Bray & Leticia or Letitia Hudson Bray. Hope this will help other’s in their search if this name is corrected & the one you have listed could be listed as “alternate”.

October 21, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Tom Wilcox 

Good work so far, but if we had a merge feature much like found in FTM 2009 or another tab to manually pick someone in my existing treelist to merge the data and source to would be an EXCELLANT feature add on. I use the advanced merge features alot to format the data more consistantly as well as adding alternate data and/or sources. Being able to get the “nickname” in the data to merge with the “birth” name in my tree results in me having to do a completly new search looking for only the “nickname”. Very Very time consuming and ackward. But you guys are doing good work in general. Keep it up.

October 22, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Wendy 

The search feature is only partially useful–many of my REAL matches come from other trees. They HAVE historical documents to match….so why can’t I FIND them when I plug in the correct information? The site sends me everywhere but where I want to be. IT IS SO SLOW that I have other non computer projects going while I am waiting for the information to come up so my day isn’t a total waste. 60%-70% of my computer time is wasted waiting for pages or data input. I have a wonderfully fast computer otherwise.

October 22, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Christine Woodbeck 

I think this is really a great idea!!! Thank you

October 22, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Zelda 

Hi,

How do I add a cousin who’s parents’ name I don’t have and the two cousins have similar names?

Z.

October 23, 2008 at 12:55 am
Mary-Lee Gilliland 

I just merged some Census Records showing others in my grandmothers houshold; in going back to my grandmother’s specific area, i noticed that her neice had been put in as her mother!I could not seem to get rid of that entry. What do I do and how do I move the neice to a correct “relations’ spot now?
Please send info.

October 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Martin Mackett 

The Merge is a greatthing but we need more control over it.
ie be able to over ride it’s idear that this is a New person in the tree just because they have added another name or the DOB has been transcribed incorectly ( just the same as you can in Family Tree Maker)
ie add as a new child in your tree, ect.
Come on you know you can do it, and it would in provethe meerge 100%

October 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Kathleen Keck 

George Hallstrom was married to Paul H. KECK’s daughter. Barbara Clare Keck. George Hallstrom was Paul H.KECK Sr’s son in law How can I correct this

October 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Karen Parker 

Sometimes the “system” recognizes a wife and sometimes it doesn’t even though she is listed the same way every time. I have been adding census records and the wife is listed on every one of them (surprise)the same way Sarah J. and her married name. Yet in 1880 it doesn’t recognize her and I ended up with all the children added again with unknown mother. Then I had to go back, delete all the duplicates and add the children one at a time. They had 14 children………..

October 23, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Karen Parker 

Just remembered another problem I have had. I end up with a marriage for the couple with the correct marriage date. Then the 1900 census will add another marriage and there is no way I can enter the other spouse so I have a source for the date. Sometimes it will have one of the children added as the spouse. Drives me crazy.

October 23, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Rochelle Gereg 

Another new procedure to learn. This is the 3rd time I have to learn new ways of doing my family tree, by the time I get it down pat , they put in a whole new way of doing it, never have time to research or gather information togeather as I am always having to try and figure out How to do it and get nothing else done.

October 24, 2008 at 5:10 am
Rita D Schafer 

Jean Jane was born after the 1841 Census (RDS)

October 24, 2008 at 7:21 am
awilliams 

More often than you might think, children in hints are attributed to the wrong parent. Also, spousal names are confused when there is more than one, particularly where names are similar or the current and former spouses are siblings. Short of retyping all info, how can those names, dates, and locations be shuffled under the correct name?

October 24, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Vivian Beaudoin 

Type your comment here.

October 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Vivian Beaudoin 

Love the new program (except the bugs and slowness of course, but you’re already on that problem).

My current problem is that you offer me a female and her daughter as the mother and father of another daughter. I want to add the mother, but not the father offered. Is there a way I can choose only one?

October 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Teresa 

This is a fantastic feature for adding new people to trees. I doesn’t work as well for those already on trees but that seems to have improved some since first introduced. Thank you for constantly adding features and improvements.

Teresa

October 25, 2008 at 7:33 am
Barbara D. Hamming 

I’m not very good yet with computers, but I can’t find a way to add this document (from a collateral line) to my chart. This document is for the brother (Hermann) of one of my relatives. I’d like to attach it to his brother (Carl) in my husband’s line but not change Carl’s info to Hermann’s in the process.

October 25, 2008 at 8:49 am
Carol 

Census Record for Lona or Bona Boatman born Apr 1878 age 22 on the
1900 United States Federal Census Webster Co., Mississippi
Shows her as a dautghter-in-law with a son William B Boatman age 2 and you list Conway age 10 as her spouse. There is no way that Conway is her spouse. Please correct to error. Her husband is George W Boatman as listed on the 1910 Montgomery Co., Mississippi Census.

October 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Teresa 

This does not work if the relationships are not the biological parents. Step-parents get automatically attached even when you try to leave them out, so it is better to do it the old way with each person as an individual. Attempting to then fix the relationship to step-parent still doesn’t work. Step-parents have to be deleted to fix this mess.

Teresa

October 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Jon Paul Chandler 

Great feature, getting ready to try it,

October 26, 2008 at 8:12 am
Alan McKibben 

Hello I do enjoy the new feature it is a great time saver. I have also been a willy nilly and duplicated some names, but I did it because each entry had different information that I wanted to compare to see which was accurate. Thanks for making this a fun sight to work on.

October 27, 2008 at 9:16 am
Linda Kelly 

Any idea why I’m getting a hint written in French? I’m unaware of having changed the language setting, but there it was, big as life. And I didn’t/don’t see how to change it back. HELP! And thank you.

October 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Tandy54 

Forgive any repetition of points raised, but How can one merge the names under “Other Children of___ (Other Siblings Of___)”???? When I check a name of say, a legitimate sibling, an error message tells me that I must “enter the name of at least one parent.” Where? There’s nowhere to enter such a parent, although the parent exists in the tree (even the sibling, under another census!) But No, the sib must be abandoned, tho temptingly offered….fix this! fix this!

October 28, 2008 at 10:26 am
Tracey Hoy 

The new ‘Add relatives’ to merging records works well – as you say though, like any new feature there are small glitches which I’m certain will be sorted eventually.
If I could suggest an ‘undo’ feature to a merge, so that if people have merged twice it could be undone. Also I have found that if adding a Census record to someone and there is a second wife, the children of the first wife will often merge as New Persons.
I once merged a line which I alter realised I should not have. I wish there was an undo merge or roll-back feature for human errors! Yes, I am more careful these days…
I am not experiencing most of the problems other people describe – maybe sometimes it depends on what operating system and settings they have rather than actual ancestry issues?
I’m trying to be constructive, rather than critical. I think Ancestry is a grand site and the constant work you do to make things work for us is appreciated!!

October 28, 2008 at 11:07 am
carolyn burgess 

When attaching someone to a person in your tree why cant you pick it to be parents for? it always makes one parent spouse and the second their child. hate it

October 28, 2008 at 12:26 pm
dd herold 

thomas wesley harper was married to elizabeth catherne osborne 1839

October 28, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Barb O'Donahue 

I have found that the matching of individuals who clearly have the same names is very unreliable, and that when you add family members especially when merging with other members trees you end up with MANY duplicate individuals and you do not have the opportunity to make sure they are not already in your tree. This feature needs to be modified to prevent that. Once you have multiple individuals in your file it is VERY hard to remove the duplicates especially if they have other people attached to them because you lose that information.

October 28, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Marilyn Lewis 

I have looked at the Oct. 2008 comments (this was added in May?), and I experience the same duplications instead of melding into the name requested.
This is not worth the effort of deleting sometimes a huge number of entries. PLEASE ADDRESS THIS, or delete the function.
I love your work, but this one sure needs help.
Marilyn

October 29, 2008 at 11:11 am
Scott Smith 

This feature is nice, but it would be very helpful if it didn’t automatically assume that a relative whose name is spelled differently than someone on my tree is a new person. Census records especially have spelling variations from census to census, and don’t always match people in my tree by how the name is spelled, even though I know it’s the same person. The option to add the relatives listed on the census record to someone in my tree would be useful.

October 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Rebecca Farley 

Some ideas:

There should be a better automatic error checker. Some people that are entered appear to have lived 150 years or had children when they are 8 or maybe married when they are 5.

There should be a filter so that people are not listed numerous times. It is very confusing.

Your direct line should have a star next to it, or shown in another color on all pages. You can get so deeply into your research, you cannot remember who was who to go backwards. Direct lines need to be noted.

It seems like at least 50% of the documents I try to open do not exsist. Can that be improved.

I’ll send more, I’m sure – I am always full of information and ideas.

October 29, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Roger Gibbons 

In general this works well, but there are problems when a search is made for a wife, normally listed under her maiden name. This will occur when a husband is working away on census night, and listed separately, but a few new children have appeared and need to be added. The software wants to add a whole list of children again, but is not able to just add the new ones to the correct married couple

October 30, 2008 at 9:31 am
maxine Weathers 

on record for George Lewsley, Ann Lewsley and Roseamon Lewsley Census 1881 RG11/3220/67/17 you have last name as lusley not lewsley

October 30, 2008 at 10:29 am
Dena Spaulding 

Wilbur Walter Lane’s wife under One World Tree is listed as Jennie Frances Ferguson born 29 Sept 1867 MO died 8 April 1917 in Okemah, OK. She is also listed as Virginia Frances Ferguson with same birth and death dates. They are the same women.

October 30, 2008 at 12:19 pm
rosalind askew 

the record of George Clinch is not a father but a brother. how do I correct this? (from the 1871 census)

October 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Louis Patrick 

Gloriously wonderful feature!

Adding kids was such a chore before. What a help!

October 31, 2008 at 9:25 am
Linda Remley 

I really like this feature— it saves so much switching back and forth!

October 31, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Reed Curtis 

This helps save time, but…please create a Select All feature…

November 1, 2008 at 10:56 am
Alison Bell-Irving 

After the record has been successfully merged, is there a link back to the search results without having to use the back button?

November 1, 2008 at 6:01 pm
leighton passant 

Hi, Ancestry hints have shown the father Robert Alan Black (born 1901) rather than details of Robert Alan Black, if any.

November 1, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Julie Winn 

The documents are great– but a lot of times the census names are so far from the real ones that it looks like a “new person”– and there doesn’t seem to be any easy way to merge the incorrectly spelled “new person” with the correctly spelled real one.

November 2, 2008 at 4:44 am
Fred Whitelock 

Thomas Whitelock- residing at 44 Pickwick Street, Toxteth Park, Liverpool in the 1871 Census on your database is shown as about 21 years of age. I would say that on closer inspection it is 31 Years of Age. This would tie in accurately, as at that time he was unmarried. It is unfortunate that he is shown as FEMALE by the Ditto comment in the gender column, rather amusing don’t you think.
Regards
Fred

November 2, 2008 at 7:08 am
Mary Christiansen 

Listed in my Malette family tree which segques into the CRUMP tree is my Grandfather o my Mothers side(Malettes) the spelling of her father is incorrect in many areas and I would like to clean it up asap.
How do I go about it ?I did email different people in the last years or so about this error.
The name Gavin Spellington Malette SR has his first name misspelled The proper spelling is: Gavin not GARVIN .How do I make this correction.
Sincerely, Mary A. Christiansen thank you

November 3, 2008 at 12:46 am
Priscilla Long 

I have lots of duplicate names in my tree.Everytime I use a hint,the person goes in again, sometimes 8 times.

November 3, 2008 at 7:16 am
Kathryn Beatty 

When US Marriage records are identified as hints, the hint includes spouse’s name, but the spouse is not listed in the data that can be added, nor is the date of the marriage. Can this information be added?

November 3, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Sue Welton 

The 1920 US Census, Omaha Ward 7, Douglas Co., Nebraska made a mistake in transcribing a name in the Joseph W. Pokorski Family. Their daughter’s name was Catherine Ann Pokorski. She was married to my Great Uncle Robert Burns Garland. The census clearly wrote her name as “Cassie”, but Lossie was written in the transcription.

November 3, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Deborah Zanella 

Under select relatives only sibling appears. When I click on the name I am told I must select at least one parent first; however, there is no parent listed.

November 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Sandra Cameron 

Don’t know my website. How do I correct errors in what I did and what I found in your information?
Change “Cameron Family Tree” to “Cochis Family Tree”. All children of Peter J and Sarah A (Carroll) Cochis were born in the US.
Help!

November 3, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Laura 

I like the new feature where I can merge relatives on a record, however sometimes the siblings are shown as relatives, but I can’t merge the info unless I choose a parent. In some cases no parents are listed, so I can’t possibly choose a parent and I am still left entering the info for the sibling manually… I wish this restriction could be removed since I am being “responsible” but your data is faulty.

November 3, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Margaret J. Schulte 

Hi! This is my first day, and seeing this is exciting. I also want to compliment you on the ability now to correct mistakes. I have been so frustrated when the corrections were not accepted. Especially at 1:00 am or around 2:00., am. Thanks for the many im-provements. Now, I would definitely recommend this program. Thanks!

November 4, 2008 at 8:25 am
Kate Kern 

Kenny…great feature..use it all the time. What do I do when I find that the information from an original document (i.e. a census) has been incorrectly submitted resulting in a record that is totally incorrect? I have found many of these where bogus family members are listed and then when I click on the original census record I find accurate information. What can I do to help ameliorate this problem?

November 4, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Susan Schultz 

The 1905 Wisconsin cesus for Springvale, Columbia Wi, shows a Harrington Farrington and family attached to James Cowley and family,they are not connected. Over site on trenscribing census.

November 5, 2008 at 3:14 am
Alex 

Fantastic innovation to be able to update family members in one go – slight issue I’ve had is where the birth year of the spouse is slightly different on the record, & a new spouse is created & all the kids info is attributed to new children of that marriage…..
Would also really help me if sources included the names of trees that dates etc were copied across from.
Otherwise, great feature – Thanks!

November 5, 2008 at 7:56 am
FCWL97 

The following details are NOT my gt grandmother’s children they belong to Elizabeth Annie Leverton’s father Alfred Leverton b1850 d 1906
Elizabeth Ann Leverton
Birth:abt 1882
Porth Cawl, Glamorgan, Wales
Death:

Residence:1901
Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Wales Elizabeth Annie Leverton
Birth:1880 ? Born 1882
St. Mabyn
Death:1925
, Cheshire, , England
Residence:1901 new
Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Wales new Show Options
Elizabeth Ann Leverton
Check the fields on the left that you want to be copied to this person.

Show advanced optionsHide advanced optionsName Elizabeth AnnLeverton
Was:Elizabeth Annie
Was:Leverton

Add source
Add as an Alternate Fact
Birth date abt 1882
Was:1880
Birth place Porth Cawl, Glamorgan, Wales
Was:St. Mabyn
Add source
Add as an Alternate Fact
Death date
Was:1925
Death place
Was:, Cheshire, , England
Add source
Add as an Alternate Fact
Residence date 1901
Was:
Residence place Pontypridd, Glamorgan, Wales
Was:
Add source
Add as an Alternate Fact

NEW: You can also review the relatives of Elizabeth Annie Leverton on this record and select those you want merged into your tree.

Provide feedbackShow relatives on this recordHide relatives on this record
Other Children of (Siblings of Elizabeth Annie Leverton)

Please Correct the details

November 5, 2008 at 5:17 pm
dd herold 

IT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME

November 5, 2008 at 7:54 pm
alan small 

impressive….the link ups are unbelieveable

November 6, 2008 at 9:20 am
David Mason 

merge facility good but does need on screen warning re duplication if for example dates and names are wrong on the census. Could you open the fields on the left so that a better match can be obtained ?
but does save a lot of work if used responsibly

re your new search it comes up with too many options even when you are spacific in the question regards

November 6, 2008 at 10:44 am
Cecile Curtis 

on the other sibling information seems to be blocked and cannot be saved to the family tree.

November 6, 2008 at 10:45 am
Elizabeth Dimick 

I would like to be able to change someone listed as “new” when merging family members to “choose existing person.” Sometimes (especially in the census)a name is spelled differently and even though I know it is the same person the system won’t let me choose someone already in my tree. Thanks,

November 6, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Elizabeth Thomas 

Being able to add family members without having to write them down, then type to page saves a lot of time. I need to correct last name on 1880 census, clark co,ohio,Martin Rockenfield, names given as Rackenfield.

November 6, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Allan Knight 

1881 census for Mary Mayne b.c1848 Chichester,W.Sussex shown as an Ancestry “Hint” Contains incorrect information. Williiam Rowell is shown as a son of Mary, when in fact he was a nephew, being the son of her sister Emma Rowell(nee Mayne)widow of James Rowell 1856-1881.
Emma Knight(nee Rowell/Mayne) was my paternal gt.grandmother.
I trust this information is of use to yourselves, and that I’ve sent this message to the right department!!
Regards, Allan Knight

November 7, 2008 at 1:51 am
Michael Krause 

When I try to merge other people that are related who are on the record, it brings up a certain sibling. When I try to merge it it tells me I must select a parent first. No parents or people from the record is listed. I hope you can help me.

Michael

November 7, 2008 at 11:57 am
Michael Krause 

When I try to add children & Spouse for people who are the children of Samuel Funk & Elizabeth Cordell. When I click show relatives it only showes Presley Cordell Funk a brother. When I try to add or merge it, it tells me I must select a parent first. No parents or people from the record is listed. I hope you can help me.

Michael

November 7, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Tammy 

I like the new merge ie with census docs and other records. One big problem I notice over and over, here is the example I have today of my issue.

I have a family and 10 children in my tree. I find the family 10 years later in the census, however there are two additional children, but the man is now a widower, wife obviously missing from latest census.

When I go to merge/add relatives. The sofware only allows me to add the children as his, but with unknown spouse/parent. The outcome is that I end up with doubles of the children already in my tree. When I go back to the man’s person page. now my original record of him and his wife and family are showing, but also he is shown with unknown wife, and all the same children listed again as duplicates. We need to be able to have a checkbox that we can check if wife is known, and have the record from our tree acknowledged, so this duplication does not happen. It has caused grief. If you want an example ask me for link to my tree and you can repeat the issue at your tech level.
Tammy

November 7, 2008 at 5:31 pm
John Burd 

I love your site but where can I get more Birth, death, marriage information? Maybe I’m just not using your site correctly? Please help….

November 7, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Margaret Loos 

This sure beats going through roll and roll of microfilm!

November 7, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Paula Rice 

I have tried numerous times to merge Emaline R Downs marriage to Lemmel McGuire in 1884 in Craighead County AR to Emaline Penter. Each time the site tells me I have successfully merged, but when I look at her page the marriage is listed (I entered it manually) without the historical record citation. It took 2 tries to get the historical record notation on Lemmel’s page. When I pull up the record, it says it has been attached to Emaline Penter.

November 7, 2008 at 9:12 pm
William Pupke 

Unable to open an original census image after several days. When tried to “continue” to save it wouldn’t open the list of other family members. Instead it listed just one sister – the same one listed for a number of other census.
Thanks in advance for assistance

November 8, 2008 at 11:44 am
Karen Gray-Leach 

I found Mary Cates on this census and it states Rosenblum was her spouse. If you look at the record it lists Robert Cates as the head/her husband and there is her son listed as well, his name being Robert Cates. The Mobley family is listed above. So Mr.Mobley isn’t her husband.

November 8, 2008 at 2:07 pm
elmer lee hammock 

elmer lee hammock is a male not a female.

November 8, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Russell 

Excellent family merge option, however sometimes it does not pick up on all family members because of name variations.

Please add option to attach to other people from your tree. This could work similar to the attach to someone in your tree option found on every record page. This option could be added to the bottom of the family merge page next to the attach record link.

This will also be hopefully in notating a deceased spouse that does not appear on the census.

November 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Susan Page 

My comment is about searcing in general and one specific comment regarding the information on the census. I am having a hard time finding information when I want to limit a search to one state – if I put exact – I get nothing, but then I get the entire US and I know what I am looking for is in one specific state. I got to this site because I want to attach the 1860 Census to Jesse Asbury Mann, b. 1792 – I found him and two sons living next door to each other. But, when I search for Jesse or Sarah, his wife, they do not show up. When I look at the original document Jesse looks like “Jefrey”. How do I attach that record to my Jesse? Thanks for your help.

November 9, 2008 at 9:19 am
Trudy 

I like this. Thank you very much. I do notice that not all census have this link yet. Is this still an on-going project? There was one census that had several other family members on it and it didn’t have a link. Bummer.

November 9, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Mary Masterson 

I like this when it works. Thank you very much. I agree with those who have pointed out that it is not always possible to merge the other family members that you see have been listed. And when I try to search for those individuals separately, even when I know which date I need, it is very cumbersome to find them again. I also have ended up with multiple listings when merging. Still, when it works it is great!

November 9, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Lucy Landon 

I agree with lots of comments re problem of dealing with multiple spellings of names, duplication of individuals, difficulty in cleaning up or correcting errors.

One suggestion re use of database: develop a way to pull up a specific source by name or by first letter, rather than having to scroll through lists of sources. Also, please categorize the sources in more systematic way – by country or state for instance. Now some are by country, some state, some by county or town. Makes for much more work.

November 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Deborah 

This is ridiculous…. I have more problems adding family members due to multiple spellings and other reaons… but the now, it won’t take a spouse because the first name is correct and the last name is Rano, and the census has it spelled “RanA.” Just because the last name has one letter incorrect, it thinks it is a new person? What a pain!! Please, this is useless it if can’t give us basic editing. The census transcriptions are sooooooo faulty overall that this “add” feature is more trouble than it’s worth by creating false hope and more work.

November 10, 2008 at 7:18 am
Carolyn Hurt Patton 

My mother, Amelia Jael Lowrie Hurt was born on Jan. 13, 1901 in Silver Valley, TX. When mother was almost a week old, Casandre Jael Dove Lowrie stepped out on the porch to get a breath of fresh air. She became ill and died on Jan. 20th, 1901. Of course, everyone thought she became ill because she got up out of bed (at that time, not recommended!) and went outside (heaven forbid!). More than likely she died of a blood clot from staying in bed for a week after giving birth to my mother!

November 10, 2008 at 11:33 am
Carolyn Hurt Patton 

Some info lists one of the sons of Robert Edmund Lowrie and Casandre Jael Dove as being “Albert” Dove Lowrie. His name was Arthur Dove Lowrie. Dove married Dorthy Chatfield. They had three children, one of whom is still living at the age of 87.

November 10, 2008 at 11:39 am
Rebecca Hignell 

I like this feature – it saves time when finding new family members. However, if merging info on people already in your tree, it results in the same info being recorded again, even if it is already there (e.g. if you have already attached a record to a person, it will still attach the same record again, even if already attached.)

November 10, 2008 at 11:47 am
hlwhite4 

Great start.

November 10, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Robert R Kling Sr 

With regard to the Emma S Wolstemholme record the name is mis-spelled as Walsechlane or something like that – my cousins and others want to make sure that the spelling of their family name is : WOLSTENHOLME – Thank you for your help – I just try to go with the flow – Blessings – Bob Kling

November 10, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Jane Vaughan 

There are several transcription errors on this record. How can help correct them? Jane

November 10, 2008 at 8:25 pm
ARLEEN G, ERICKSON STASTNY 

you tell us about the new record merge, but not how to find or use it?
Arleen

November 10, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Ruth Marshall Austin 

Thank you so much for your help in my family research. I have found many helpful leads and information by reviewing your family trees. Thanks for the information you sent me today regarding my maternal grandmother Emma Etta Hall Dawson of Carroll Co., VA. Ruth M. Austin

November 11, 2008 at 7:55 am
William Price Corbin 

This information appears to be from my own tree, with one minor exception. My records include my grandmother’s maiden name – Edith Minerva Shirley. Birthdate and parentage also in hand.

November 11, 2008 at 8:04 am
Ruth Marshall Austin 

Thank you so much for your help in my family research. I have found many helpful leads and information by reviewing your family trees. Thanks for the information you sent me today regarding my maternal grandmother Emma Etta Hall Dawson of Carroll Co., VA.

On another note regarding my late husband’s family tree, if this is not askingtoo much, I have been searching for Miles Austin’s parents for about 30 years, but have had no luck. Miles Austin was born around 1800 in Virginia according to the 1860 & 1870 Franklin Co., VA Census reports. He died some time between 1870 and 1880, probably in Franklin Co., VA. He married Nancy Sledd on December 25, 1821 in Campbell Co., VA. Nancy Sledd’s brother Josiah Sledd was the bondsman. Nancy was the daughte of Dodman Sledd and his wife Ms. Wilkerson of Powhatan Co., VA and later of Campbell Co.,VA.
I found a record of a Miles Austin at Yorktown, York Co., Va in the war of 1812, but am not sure if it is the Miles Austin I am researching as he would have been around 12 years old in 1812 and probably too young to be in the military. Thanks again for any help you may be able to give me. Ruth M. Austin

November 11, 2008 at 8:10 am
Ruth Marshall Austin 

Thank you so much for your help in my family research. I have found many helpful leads and information by reviewing your family trees. Thanks for the information you sent me today regarding my maternal grandmother Emma Etta Hall Dawson of Carroll Co., VA.

On another note regarding my late husband’s family tree, if this is not askingtoo much, I have been searching for Miles Austin’s parents for about 30 years, but have had no luck. Miles Austin was born around 1800 in Virginia according to the 1860 & 1870 Franklin Co., VA Census reports. He died some time between 1870 and 1880, probably in Franklin Co., VA. He married Nancy Sledd on December 25, 1821 in Campbell Co., VA. Nancy Sledd’s brother Josiah Sledd was the bondsman. Nancy was the daughter of Dodman Sledd and his wife Ms. Wilkerson of Powhatan Co., VA and later of Campbell Co.,VA.
I found a record of a Miles Austin at Yorktown, York Co., Va in the war of 1812, but am not sure if it is the Miles Austin I am researching as he would have been around 12 years old in 1812 and probably too young to be in the military. Thanks again for any help you may be able to give me. Ruth M. Austin

November 11, 2008 at 8:13 am
Susan Paprcka 

This listing is inconsistent with the original document. Susanna Bear is correctly grouped in with the Hassel family. Should be mother-in-law to Hafer family listed above her on the original document.

November 11, 2008 at 10:09 am
Rosemarie HULL Morris 

Thank you for this very good and helpful way of do our family search.

November 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Anna Wakeley 

WARNING: The merge feature is not effective unless the head of household is used. Watch for these negative results:
1. Parents married to children.

2. If only one parent is listed on census and the merge is used, the child shows up under unknown spouse.

3. Other names on the census are ignored, with no prompt to add them to the tree if they are relatives.

November 11, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Linda LubeckShrauger 

I am having trouble editing certain things like it has me married to my son; and my daughter-in-law married to my husband and then it won’t let me correct it.

November 11, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Patricia LaBarge 

While merging to the Edward C Zamboni family from the 1930 Owatonna, Steele, Minnesota index, the daughters named Mary Jane, Mary Zenobia and Mary Margaret do not show up as family members in the merge process. The only daughter shown is Mary Jane but the choice was to merge Margaret. Since it was common to use Mary as a first name in many Catholic families, it seems tha the merge process should look at the middle name as well.

I then try to merge Mary J Zamboni with the correct daughter and when I click family members, it does show Mary Margaret but no parents and I receive an error message that I must choose a parent. Oops!

I am then forced to add the family members individually.

When this works, it is great and I love the feature. Unfortunately, too many times children that are already listed are added a second time or cannot be merged except individually and then I don’t love it. :-(

November 12, 2008 at 10:32 am
Icebc4real 

I love the family merge feature…so far it prove correct. However like mentioned in the article, you need to merge responsibly. ‘Dont drink and merge’ just kidding.
I do like this feature, hope it stays

November 12, 2008 at 12:20 pm
rose sewell 

When attaching a veteran’s grave and an obituary record, the choice to add a sibling appears (the only other relative listed)however, the error message appears “you must first select a parent.” The parents already exist in my tree but are not in the record being attahced.

November 12, 2008 at 9:52 pm
zondu 

The “Show Relatives on this Record” when adding census data, for example, is a SUPER feature! The only thing that’s not super is that it is shown BELOW the matching data to merge instead of ABOVE it. I didn’t even realize this feature was here until today despite using the merge record feature consistently on a weekly basis. It’s a shame I didn’t see it earlier (it was below the “fold” of the web page) b/c it would have saved me many hours of manual adding a census data record to all family members!! Please consider moving this feature to ABOVE the box with the data fields (where the upper “Add Record” button is). Thanks!

November 13, 2008 at 9:15 am
Drwts8 

Clarence Williams WAS NOT my dads wife, He was my mother, JOsie Kelly Garrison, Step father. They (Clarence Williams and Rebecca Delay Kelly Williams)lived in Kauffman County Texas and died there.Josie Kelly married my dad and moved to Oklahoma and mom and dad died there. Please correct my Family line or tell me how. Thank you Doris Garrison Watson. John Garrison died in Kiowa county Oklahoma but is buried by my mother in Tuskahoma,Puahmataha County Oklahoma.

November 13, 2008 at 10:01 am
Drwts8 

1900 census is my dad. the name Hassel was Effie Second husband. Dad was called Jeremy until he went into the navy in 1917 and changed his name to John. He went by John the rest of his life. Mr Willice Hassel was Ellie”s second husband and after his death she married George Moore in Alabama and they moved to Oklahoma. Tuskahoma, Pushmataha County. They lived there the rest of their lives.

November 13, 2008 at 10:22 am
Robert Aubrey Carr 

Harrison F. Barnes died in 1910. His wife, M. Victoria, raised the three children he had by his first wife when M. Victoria and H. Barnes got married on the 25th of February, 1900. Their marriage certificate was issued by the court house in Elba, Coffee County, Alabama, USA. I have a copy of the marriage certificate. On the marriage certificate it states they were married at her residence. I looked at the 1900 census of cofee county several times. The while I was researching her father, Jacob P. Edwards I found him under his father, Pilot H. Edwards, Southern district, Henry County. She was born in 1882 so she was not listed on the 1880 cenus of Henry County because she had not been born yet. Her father, Jacob P. Edwards was born in Henry County, Alabama, in 1847.

The reason I know what her father’s name is because on the marriage certificate he is listed as giving his permission to get married because she was not yet 18 and Alabama law says a girl has to have the permission of one of her parents to get married. Her mother was probably in the wagon with her father. Her father and mother lived in Hilliardsville, Henry County, Alabama which is next to the Chattahoochee River separating Georgia and Alabama. M. Victoria Edwards’ mother was a Gardener. I found her family across the Chattahoochee River in Randolph County, Georgia. I love geneaology. You find out a lot about your family if you are willing to invest your time.

Thanks,
Robert Aubrey Carr

November 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Eunice Ireland 

name error of wife should be shown as Etta L Leitenberger instead of Ella L.

November 13, 2008 at 4:48 pm
terri rochier mcmurphy 

don’t have a website. but this stuff makes me want one. thank you

November 13, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Jennie 

Generally I like it, and it saves loads of time.

However, I hate it when you already have the wholefamily in your tree, and when trying to merge a later census entry for some of thos family members and their name has been abbrev. LIke Wm for William, it won’t accept it as the same person! This is particularly annoying if it’s the mother or Father, because then none of the children will either record, or record with both parents. It would be great if there was a way to accept the parents under a review process so that a Wm. could be accepted as a William and then all the family will merge as you expect it to.

Keep up the good work though and I am getting used to the new tracing feature, and using it more regularly than the old way now.

November 14, 2008 at 6:37 am
Reed 

The merge is good except that unlike on the software if the name of a child is spelled differently you may inadvertanly add them as a new person since you dont seem to get the change to merge that child with the one that is already entered in the tree.

Reed

November 14, 2008 at 8:24 am
Tammie Zuker 

I love this feature. It really makes
the research alot easier.

Thank you so much.

Tammie

November 14, 2008 at 10:45 am
Terri-Lynn Hunter 

Just a comment regarding the adding relatives option.When adding from someone elses family tree If your person has two spouses it only gives you the option of adding to the first spouse only, but not to the second spouse whom the information needs to be attached to. This is something you should look into rectifying.

November 14, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Bryan Blount 

Is there any way to report incorrect information that is shown on the documents?

November 14, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Mike Albright 

Please consider adding the ability to manually select matching relatives on a record. In other words, when one selects the “Show relatives on this record” link, one is presented with a list of additional family members on the left side of the web page and ancestry.com’s best guess as to a match on the right side of the webpage. Unfortunately, ancestry.com’s guess is often wrong. It would be nice, in such cases, if a link or dropdown list box was presented per person that allowed one to manually select a match from ones tree. This would mean that by default one would be presented with ancestry.com’s best guess, but in the event that the guess is wrong one could override the guess in an efficient way.

November 14, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Annie 

I have been frustrated with the family merge feature. It is inconsistent, as some census records have it, and some don’t.
I have come across some records with multiple children, but then find only one child listed in the family merge.
I have also had a similar problem to # 1027, and have encountered the error message “you must first select a parent”.
The parents were deceased at the time of the census, so they were not in that record. They were already in my tree however.
Another problem I’ve had: getting back to a page one actually wants to be on after merging records.
I think I liked the old method better! I hope you can fix some of these problems soon.

November 15, 2008 at 1:11 am
Robert Henderson 

On the John S. Darnall search, George Thomas keeps showing up as “other family member” but he is not listed on the recap or the original document, and the actual people on the original document are not accurately shown on the recap and do not show up at all on the “other family members” page.

November 15, 2008 at 7:16 am
Evangelina Guedea 

great, but sometimes someone’s name is spelled incorrect and it has to be corrected and does not match what is on the document exactly ………

November 15, 2008 at 3:47 pm
terri rochier mcmurphy 

i can’t seem to find any korean war files where should i look for this? thankyou

November 15, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Jeannine Sills 

Oh my goodness! I used to be able to make corrections.I look at the original and know exactly how the names are spellec. Now, I’m stuck with this spelling by the transcriber.

November 15, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Anne Hagler 

I’m having a problem with two different people (father and son) with same name. Even with correct date of birth, the son is listed as the father. How do I fix this?

November 16, 2008 at 8:23 am
Jane Green 

I like the new method a lot, but sometimes I think it should pick up matches that it misses. This seems particularly true with female spouses–the software doesn’t pick up the maiden name of the spouse in order to make a match.

November 16, 2008 at 9:16 am
debbie Giroux 

The merge is great to add other family members – but when you’re merging a child with a census it may show his siblings but not allow you to merge them as you “have to add parents first” but there is no option to add the parents? solution?

November 16, 2008 at 10:15 am
debbie Giroux 

Also, would like to see a “print format” available as you work with the matches. You no longer have this option when you’re working with a possible match and looking at it.

November 16, 2008 at 10:17 am
debbie Giroux 

its harder to move around. For instance if you’re working on a hint, follow it up, and ask to return, it returns you to the tree rather than the other hints or whatever – so the “return” screen should have options of where you want to return to pls.

November 16, 2008 at 10:18 am
Tarra 

merging family information has saved me tons of time. Usually when you are searching for ancestors, you mostly want your direct line but feel you should also put their siblings and such (even if there is eight or more!). But now when I find a connection, it just takes me less then a minute to add all the family members!! I really like this feature. thx!

November 17, 2008 at 12:54 am
Jeanne 

Why doesn’t merge feature include everyone in the Census?

November 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Lynn 

When it pulls up the family for you to merge why can’t I change a persons name instead of it always showing them as a new person. Like Elizabeth would be in my records already as a wife and on the census I pull up to merge she is Eliza…she only shows up as a new person and there is no way to merge them together before it goes on your family page…then you have to change everything including children to the old named wife.

November 17, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Selma W Ashley 

You have 2 different mothers for Lillian Sussman

November 18, 2008 at 1:02 am
Julie Fonvielle 

Gove and gore are the same

November 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm
katy 

Do you really expect us to look through all 1000+ comments to see that you are addressing issues with the site? I have issues all the time and can’t get a response to the emails to “HELP”. What gives with getting the information in another language? This site seems to be way overpriced for the performance issues we continue to encounter!!!!!!! Now I had to “zoom” out on this screen to see how to submit this comment because the right side of the screen doesn’t fit due to the enormous number of complaints filed here.

November 18, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Robert R Kling Sr 

Hi to you all: I am plugging away trying, with all your help to complete the family ancesry document fo the families down to the great-grandchildren.So far so good. For the past several months I have been at it 8-10 hours/day. It takes a lot out of me butwith your help I expect to complete the project before Father Time comes knocking. Blessings & Thanks – Bob Kling

November 18, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Arlene Siefert 

No this does not work!!
Nor can I attach a record to any person already in my tree. This has been a problem I have requested help on before and Ancestry.com has ignored me. Please help!!

November 18, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Jenifer Penfold 

Wow! I am well impressed – my family history is a closed book, with all my father’s side either dead or disappeared and my mother not remembering very much at all about either side. I found my grandfather’s death record – knew where and approximately when he died – also found his medal stuff from WW1 as I knew he was in the Devonshire regiment and suddenly, thanks to the record merge function, I have a whole bunch of (deceased) great aunts and uncles that I never knew existed! I will have to run them past mum to see if any of the names ring bells, but I could be well on the way to the next generation back in time – thank you!

November 19, 2008 at 1:26 am
Leslie Leggett 

I believe William Hiram Iverson married Robert William Pitkin’s daughter Marie Lafayette Pitkin.

November 19, 2008 at 3:46 am
Tracey Hoy 

When accepting ‘hints’ and merging that info, sometimes it shows people as New Person when they are already listed.
Until the gliche is fixed, perhpas if it’s trying to add new person when it’s not a new person, you could have an option to Merge with existing person (and a possible name match).

November 19, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Lela Haraway 

On one of the census records for an individual family group, I have found other related family groups that I am researching. These family groups are listed on the same census page but so far I have been unable to locate a way to link them. How do I link or get back to this page in order to link it to the other family groups that were living nearby but in different homes?

November 19, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Reg Taylor 

Charles Latter, Mary Latter (wife) and Fanyy Later are on the same Census Page in 1861 but I cannot find them on ancestry.

November 20, 2008 at 10:07 am
dave 

Understand that software may add rather than merge but now have a multitude of duplicates with no easy way of making them merge, or connect with parents and kids and/or delete.
Dave

November 20, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Carol Coerber 

I don’t think I have a website.

I have been using my two free weeks on your website, and I am having so much fun! Not getting a lot of work done, but having fun!

I have a couple of questions:

I cannot seem to find the 1890 census, which would help me a lot to find some of my great grandparents.

Also,I have names of some people who I think are siblings of my great grandfather. I cannot find a way to add them anywhere, because I don’t know his parents’ names. Is there a way to add them somewhere?

Thanks so much for providing this site. I think I will do a year of the world ancestry, because everyone that I don’t have now was born in Germany!

Carol

November 20, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Donald 

The article is great and I think the feature is great. There is however one thing I wish you guys could somehow change. When you do select show relatives and begin attaching the hint to multiple family members, there should be a way to tell if that hint has already been attached or it should not let you duplicate a hint. I’ve duplicated several now and had to go back and remove the duplicates. I appreciate the upgrades and hope you guys can get this problem resolved soon.

November 21, 2008 at 4:43 am
Mary Pennington Rushing 

Would like to see things more consistant, such as having family listed when adding information off a Census Record, some time you get this wonder tool and others not. Frustrating.

Could also like to be able to search Census for just one year and in one county/state. I want more control over where and what I’m searching. Same for Birth, Marriage, Death.

November 21, 2008 at 5:34 am
Jennifer 

The last name of Dorsett Lee Waldrip should be changed to Waldrep. As well as their Children (Alvis (not Adis), Zelmon, Francis Estelle, Cecil Doss, Melba Clyde.

November 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Donna Welsh 

I just wanted to say that there was an error on the children of Robert Fish and Lucy Sparks. Here it is listed as Delma M. Fish born in 1914. Her name is Della M. Fish born on July 6, 1913. She’s my grandma. :)

November 22, 2008 at 8:51 am
Verna Mosby 

Can you please tell me how to remove the name Thomas Walter Dupes from my initial home page….he is not a relative and I had only looked him up for a cousin. I want to correct it before I add more info. I appreciate your help. Verna Mosby

November 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Rachel 

Can I view the records or contact the person with the hint?

November 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Kimatha Phillips 

I am new but like the others I experience sluggishness. Perhaps a new computer system is in order?!

I am also finding info that is evidently transferred wrong from handwritten Census Records. I do not see a way to correct that to provide proper feedback.

November 22, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Teresa Thompson 

When merging if the two names are not the same how can I go on? In the case I am speaking of is the father and grandfather of Emily B. Colbert, and mother and grandmother of Emily B. Colbert. There is incorrect information here.

November 22, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Teresa Thompson 

When trying to merge info for Emily B. Colbert, I found that it was set up to merge the father and grandfather, and mother and grandmother. It wouldn’t let me go on until putting in a parent. What’s up? Also when scrolling down to check which ones to merge, one side moves unevenly without the other. what is going on?

November 22, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Margaret J. Schulte 

The first example is of father and son. John L. Thurston is the son of Lester Thurston. Sorry.

The second example is Hannah was the wife of Zephaniah Thurston. She was Lester’s Mother. Thank you!

November 22, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Barbara 

It would be nice if the “new person” button allowed us to correct the fact…such as when the name was simply transcribed wrong, but we know its still the same person (not a NEW one). Otherwise, this is a great feature.

November 23, 2008 at 3:01 am
Malcolm Ward 

THe Census record merging feature is great – many thanks. Just noticed however that the system selected a child born abt 1895 for merging with the 1881 census;this reinforces your point about “merging with care” !. Many thanks.
Malcolm

November 23, 2008 at 3:39 am
Douglas King Ogden 

When attempting to attach a new source which is similar, but not identical, it only gives a choice to leave record as it is or revise to the new source. It does not add the new source.

November 23, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Deb Soracco 

Adding relatives is a TREMENDOUS help. It saves me so much time as well as eliminating potential errors during transfer.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

November 23, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Rita D Schafer 

This hint does not match anything I know of my uncle Some of us have never been to North America(RDS)

November 23, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Rita D Schafer 

This hint does not match anything I know about my uncle. Some of us have never been to North America (RDS)

November 23, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Amy MacLean 

Usually, the merge button works fine, but I’ve been trying to merge siblings in the Census area and am being told that I must first select at least one parent in order to do so. In one case, I had already selected a parent; in the other case, there was no parent to select.

Other than this time, I have LOVED this feature. It is a great time-saver.

November 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Amy MacLean 

Each time I go to a historical record, the same relative is showing up as a possible addition. Somewhere is a glitch!

November 23, 2008 at 8:31 pm
CC Caldwell 

I appreciate the addition of this new feature. It has saved me HOURS of time! Good job.

November 23, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Patricia Shade Lotus 

I tried you new site, but it is confusing. It has many family members, but some are on my Dad’s side and some on my Mom’s side. When I tried to click and learn more about my great grandparents Henry M Devoy and Ella Devoy, and selected my grandfather Gillo_ _ _, it tried to put papa’s info merged with great grandpa’s info.

November 24, 2008 at 12:24 am
DebbieJP56 

Love it, love it, love it! What a time saver. This is a wonderful addition but needs to be tweaked to allow mergers with existing people in the tree whose names are spelled slightly differently than the index(an “e” rather than and “a”, soundex, etc.). I wound up with many duplicate people whom I had to remove one by one. Possibly show siblings or children for that person so you can select them if you know that it is a mispelling, nickname, etc.

November 24, 2008 at 10:05 am
Jennifer Stanford 

OMG!! I LOVE the new feature to add family members from the census. Where has this been all my life! This makes things SOOOOO much easier. THANK YOU!!!!

November 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Sandra Miers Carr 

Sounds good. I still would like to put some records in a shoebox so I can figure out later if this is the right person. I might not be sure at first but I don’t want to lose it if I don’t save it.

November 24, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Jim Stone 

When merging records, you should show the records from both sides of the family(s) being merged. Let the user decide whether it is wife or daughter and which children belong where. The census takers often misspell names and groups of names.

For example look at the family of Rubin Gorin of 1910 and Ruben Goren of 1920. The dates on too many of the family agree and it appears they are the same family despite the spelling differences. There are also problems of nicknames versus formal names and the computer often can not reconcile the two, but the user can. What are the odds a husband, wife and 5 children have the same birth dates in 2 families?

It is pretty obvious that the 1910 census taker misspelled both the parents names as well as some of the children.

Lizzie Goren was my wife’s grandmother.

November 25, 2008 at 10:23 am
Hillary Jessup 

Love this feature!!

November 25, 2008 at 10:30 am
William 

This sounds a great facility and I can’t wait to try it. By the way, is there going to be a facility to rationalise a family tree by looking for obvious repeats of details about a person, i.e. same name, same date of birth, which would lead to the conclusion that there may be instances of the same person appearing several times in a family treee.

November 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Elizabeth Rivera 

It would be nice if there was also a correction link on the hints. I am adding a hint under the name of Dance which is a mistranscription of Davee. The way it is set up now I have to go in separately to correct it and all the names need correction!

November 25, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Jean 

This is a WONDERFUL feature. I love it. I think, as long as it is used carefully (as you recommend) it may actually reduce errors. Meaning, I think there is less room for error than when one has to go back and forth between the census record screens and one’s personal information. I have made the mistake a couple of times of duplicating names so I’ve learned how to avoid that. Thanks. It’s great.

November 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Rick Turner 

I love the ability to attach Census records to other members of the family. It saves several steps.

Sometimes it attaches the same record twice.

November 26, 2008 at 3:30 pm
dee 

The Records merge feature used to work very well but lately it’s been missing too many household members.

Today, I went through 3 censuses for one family. Two offered the Merge feature so I clicked on it. Only 1 sibling showed up, though. There should have been 2 parents and 8 siblings.

All of the names were listed on the page which lists the household members so I’m not sure why the Record Merge didn’t pick them up.

November 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Wanda Honaker 

Why do I keep hitting enter and the file does not merge or several merges or adds several of the same names

November 27, 2008 at 5:41 am
Shirley Barrow 

I am very happy with the new things that have been added, when I fist started it was so hard to find my
family and make good connection,
Thank you so much for all of your
hard work that you have done,
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your
family. sweetthing68

November 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Robert Highfill 

I think this information is for the wrong generation. The children listed are actually the siblings of Robert Earl Ford in my tree. His father was William H. Ford according to my mother who would have been the daughter of Robert Earl Ford. I will be seeing her later today and will check with her again. I will let you know after I talk to her if your data is correct or if not.

November 28, 2008 at 4:27 am
TD Wilson 

excellent feature.
In the same way, one thing that would be great would be to see anyone in your own tree that is similar too to prevent duplicates.
thanks

November 28, 2008 at 10:06 am
Fred Montgomery 

Thomas Cook 1920 census should read as follows Thomas, Elizabeth, Clayton, CARRIE, Hattie, TARZAN, Margaret, MANELLA, Rosamond, Roosevelt, Delorah. These people were my G-Grandparents and G-annts and uncles. Roosevelt and Delorah were my grandparents.

Thanx

November 28, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Kim Washington 

And This all sounds great! -However I too would Like to have the site fixed so I can view the actual documents (census, military records, etc.)again, immediateley.
I like that it allows me to view the other siblings on a record.
My comment, is even if I already know d/t other confirmed sources that are acurate, & shown on my tree. But neither parent is shown/ named in the particular source. It does not allow me to add the info as a source for the additional sib. Ugh………..

November 28, 2008 at 4:12 pm
lonnie r pender 

Seems to work well most of the time but for whatever reason the 1860 census records regarding Henry Childs Simmons and Nancy Ann Pender Simmons will not allow merging of the children of that union.

November 28, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Leslie Leggett 

Sarah Lafayette’s mother’s name is misspelled. It is Celina, not Celia.
Thanks

November 28, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Betty Morgan 

I love this feature of making it possible to add census data to the entire family at once. It adds accuracy and saves a lot of time. Thank you,
Betty Morgan

November 28, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Penny Reed 

This is a great feature! However, it very often only includes one or two of the family members listed in the review. My relatives tended to have many children, so I would like to be able to review/add them all.

Thanks!

November 29, 2008 at 10:14 am
Lori Beatty 

Great when the merge feature works, but!
Crashes when attempting to save information. I have tried all sorts of tricks including manually entering all peoples and births before attempting to save. It appears to be worst when your system is slow, but not always.

November 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ann Sanderson 

When merging hint on a census there were no parents given only siblings and Ancestry wouldn’t accept it because it needed at least 1 parentis this something anyone else has come up against

November 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Steven A Myers 

If I “ignore” a “hint” on an individual’s page, then move on to something else, but then decide that I’d like to go back and review the hint that I’d previously ignored, there’s no way for me to do that.

November 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Steven A Myers 

When I want to add a parent to existing children, the pop-up allows me to enter the name of a new parent, nicely allowing me to choose which children the new parent belongs to. If, however, I choose to go to an “existing name” then that choice is lost, and I have to go through the tedious task of adding children to the new parent.

November 29, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Mattie 

I am trying to find out how to change a name. My grandmother’s name is listed correctly as Jane Butler Jackson on the 1880 census but for some reason is listed as Jack B Jackson in 1900. Her children and mother appear to be listed correctly. Also I am unable to get the image for 1880 census. HELP!

November 29, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Gail 

Why doesn’t the 1900 census allow you to merge information to other family members. Other years work well (1880, 1910, 1920, 1930) but the 1900 year only shows what is on the census record and does not display what is in my family tree so that I can merge the information. It really saves a lot of time when you have a large tree. I really like the merging capability.

November 29, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Huey M. Graves 

All I can say is…Thank You! This is such a great time saving feature.

November 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Bruce Stange 

Nice feature!
Found some great hints but since the first names were spelled differently on two of the seven children, I couldn’t or probably shouldn’t add them. I’m sure it’s the correct family Steef for Stephen and Annie for Anna, close match for sure!
Thanks You,
Bruce Stange

November 30, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Darlene Douglass 

I really like the merge with extra people option but when names are spelled wrong in the transcription it would be nice to be able to change them so they can be merged or have the information merge without name to the right person. Great feature!

November 30, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Steve 

Why is it that you only have the option to add family members sporadically instead of all the time? I only get the option to do that about half of the time.

November 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Thora Goodnight 

when trying to merge Michael Goodnight’s family, only a sibling Susanna comes up and the merge feature won’t work. Tried it several times, went out of the site, then back in with same results.

December 1, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Val G 

Hi Kenny, great job… Like you said, the computer system can’t know everything so we have to watch for it and ‘out’for our own selves.

But I’ll accept the computer getting it right at least half the time… that’s half the typing & time it would have been doing it all myself from my notes… heheh… I just have to look at my notes, verify what matches, blank out what doesn’t & “click to accept”….. COOOL! So what if I have to enter a little data “manually”…. ugh… manual data entry some people on here complain of ….. poor them….

I got to doing this with the mindset that I’d have to enter every itty bitty piece of data… was willing to do that… most of these people were too, at least to begin with… but, there are just some people that have a hard time with continuous, redundant work… takes too long…. Me? I’ll do it either way… But believe me…. I’m very grateful for every little “extra” help I get… Like careful merging… when it works…

Yeah, the “buggy’s’ in the system get really annoying… but you guys work on them “continuously & redundantly” because there is no other way for you… I feel for you people at ancestry.com and the gripes you get… I know how it is on this end of the game… it gets frustrating when things don’t go right… BUT… how much more so on “your end of the stick”… We get headaches from this when it goes wrong…. YOU guys get MIGRAINES!… I know, BEEN THERE! So has my son, a computer tech.

So chin up, keep up the good work… you guys at ancestry really are appreciated… ALOT…. just some people have a funny way of showing it…. or not so funny… heheh.

December 2, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Robert Dorrell 

I love this feature. I love finding a Census with a list of children or parents that I didn’t have before. Sometimes the “Merge Family Member” isn’t there. Sometimes the name on the left side is linked to the WRONG NAME on the right side of the screen.

Sometimes the Census identifies relationships to head of household. I.E. Boarder, Inlaw, ETC. I would like to be able to add those notes for each person at the time I am merging them, or to link or unlink the name on the left to a different name on the right. The way it is, I sometimes get one person, who’s name may have been misspelled, listed mutiple times on the main parents page. There needs to be an easy way to “Merge” those names, the way I can in “Family Tree Maker”.

Thank you for all the good you have done so far.

Bob Dorrell

December 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
R Smith 

In the merge section it would be useful to be able to pick up all the data on another site.

In some cases you need to be able to link a name from the document being merged on to an existing name.

December 3, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Lara Rasmussen 

I love this new feature. It makes adding children to a family much easier. Thank you!

December 3, 2008 at 10:29 pm
spud_chick 

Type your comment here.

December 4, 2008 at 5:53 am
spud_chick 

This feature is a tremendous help. The only real flaw is that when a person on the census is not automatically matched to an existing member of the family, it cannot be manually mapped. The usual reason for this is spelling or nickname differences. If you could add a way to manually link a census person to an existing member from the same family (or even to a selected member of the tree, related or not) that would be wonderful. But this has been a real treat otherwise.

December 4, 2008 at 5:59 am
Johanna Hyland 

I can’t add any new people to my tree. I click on the add to tree button and it does nothing. I can only cancel it??? or add to the shoebox. I have to add new info manually. why is that happening?

The page changes are also going really slow.

December 4, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Marjie 

Merging 1871 Isle of Man Census and finding Ann’s son’s wife listed as child and 4 grandchildren omitted entirely. Family of widow Ann Quaggin 63, farming 27 acres. I’m just learning to merge so will compensate by adding these persons.

December 5, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Dan Remick 

Sometimes the document and the computer generated name do not match-up and therefore a new person would be created if merged. Two solutions would be for someone like myself to be able to send a message to Ancestry.com with a note of an error and then Ancestry.com could correct the error (ie. Celia s/b Julia); and, maybe a “save to another individual” button available so the document can still be save anyway to the correct person. Dan Remick

December 6, 2008 at 7:00 am
MarshaMacBride 

KennyFreestone
Ithinkthisfeatureisamazing.ItsavessomuchtimeandfindsrelativesthatImayhavemissed.
AsIplaywithitmore,IwillgiveyouanysuggestionsthatImayhave.

December 6, 2008 at 11:51 am
Judy 

I do SOOOO agree with those who do NOT like the new homepage!! I have sent two emails to Support in the last week, requesting help & information as to why my ‘browsing’ within Ancestry.com has become so slow and cumbersome. All I get back are “Auto-Response” emails with a bunch of links that lead me to suggestion that either don’t work or don’t apply.
I’ve NOT had this problem until the past month or so, and it doesn’t occur on other sites I visit, so I truly suspect all the changes on the homepage is causing it.
Have others had this happen??

December 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Matt Saxton 

The listing I received for Cora Chamberlin had her husband listed as her and her listed as one of the children???

December 6, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sherian Connelly 

When you run across names that are misspelled there should be an easier way to correct the spelling. For instance when I go to the 1900 census I can see the last name is Turgon but the way the census taker made his letters makes it look like Fergon.So that is the way it comes up on the historical search. thanks for listning.

December 6, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Annice Lewis 

If you look at my list of people, you will see that numerous people are there many times. When a person is attached, there should be some way to save it when it is attached so it doesn’t come up over & over. For months, I thought Attach meant Save. Imagine that!

December 6, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Malcolm M Taylor 

I really like this feature.

December 7, 2008 at 3:52 pm
MJ Bowman 

Excellent way to add siblings and confirm data from other sources. Keep adding it to every record you can! Thanks

December 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Noel Irby 

A comment before I’ve actually tried it out — I think it’s a wonderful idea which will be of great help to me. Thank you!!!

December 7, 2008 at 10:32 pm
N Zierman 

This is a very nice feature. However, it doesn’t deal as well with minor name discrepancies. Here’s a specific example: I wanted to apply the census record to Albert B Halvorson. The 1920 census says Albert B Holverson and wife as Annis Holverson instead of Annie Halvorson. When adding family members, it did not give me the option to say this was the same wife, so adding the kids was problematic because it was acting as though there was a different wife. I got around it by adding the record from the perspective of their child Earl A Halvorson, which recognized the parents’ names as close enough matches to allow me to decide to use them. I still had two other sibling matches that I had to add the record to separately because the names were not close enough: Laila and Gaylord / Garhard.

It would also be nice if other records recognized family members. One specific example is the Minnesota Territorial and State Censuses, 1849-1905 only recognize one person at a time. I look at the record itself and see the other family members’ names (which helps me confirm it’s the right record)then I go search for it under the other names and attach to each person in the record (as I identified from viewing it). I much prefer the way the US Census records are done, where you can see all the family members and then use this nice feature to merge them in.

I hope this feedback is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions.

December 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Don Monaghan 

This is a feature I’ve really wanted, but the current implementation doesn’t let me match up with other family members if they names aren’t a close match. For example, I have an Amanda but the census record lists her as Mandy. This merge will only add Mandy as a new family member, rather than letting me view existing family members and pick out Amanda as a match for Mandy.

December 8, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Glenn Law 

Much of the information I presented when my program got downloaded to famtree maker. So now, I am remerging old finding online and into new data. I am getting confused and will have to print up many pages so I can keep up with where I am. Now! how do you distinguish between a junior and a senior family members son and father respectively.??

December 8, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Susan Davies 

Like the merge section a lot !! Saves a lot of time and mistyping the wrong information.
The one thing that has just come up is it says one of my ancestors has a parent on the census living with him, I know it’s his older sister who is 12 years older. There is no facility to change and correct it.

December 9, 2008 at 9:21 am
Roger Bruso 

I find this feature useful ONLY in the event that the information in the census matches EXACTLY with a member of your tree. If you don’t catch just one letter,(which is SO common with the transcribers, it adds a whole new person to your tree and then you have to go through the trouble of removing that person and adding them individually anyway. Not worth the time; I add them one by one to be sure I only have to do it once, since this site has been so slow to respond lately.

December 9, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Roger Bruso 

Wouldn’t it also be nice to have a “Description” box on the page where you add this member to your family tree? [like the 'Events' pages]. It takes extra time to wait for the addition to go through and then click on the same item you just added to add a description.

December 9, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Annie White Del Conte 

I’ve noticed that when I try to add people from the cencus (or even just add the census information for other family members) that it frequently tries to create a duplicate entry, especially in cases where a married woman has a different name than her maiden name. This results in the addition of an additional spouse and the children all being listed under both creating considerable duplication. I know that I’ve made that mistake several times without thinking about it, and it is difficult to back out once done. Will there eventually be a fix for this to stop it from happening moving forward, or even an option to note that even though it says “Nancy Ball” for example on the census that it is really “Nancy Vanover” by her maiden name.

Thanks!

December 9, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Elizabeth Law (Elizellen007) 

Has the facility been suspended? Today when adding census info it is showing relatives but not adding the box to tick and add their info or add them as a new member if born since the previous census.

So today I am having to copy/paste all the info from one very prolific ancestor complete with second wife and stepchildren into Notepad and plough through details of a dozen new members adding them manually!!

It was so much easier the other day when the check box allowing me to add relatives did appear!!

December 10, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Bev Kerlin 

Ah – I see Elizabeth Law is also suffering! I’ve been going crazy today too – to the point of logging out and coming back in – to no avail.

You must be doing a fix on this (please?) – it saves so much time and I love the facility.

Thank you to the brilliant IT folks.
Bev

December 10, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Lesley Bentley 

The idea is briliant but it does not seem to be working today, the box you tick or untick to merge family members is not available.

December 11, 2008 at 7:27 am
Selma W Ashley 

Won’t let me transfer anything on to my tree. Couldn’t transfer anything from David Lambert 1850, Blanche Lambert 1890, Emma Lambert 1887 etc

December 11, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Walter G. Montford III 

How do I include siblings with out parents on this page. Siblings are shown but without parents, this is a problem and hopefully you can correct it.

December 12, 2008 at 12:45 am
Herman Cummings 

On this record – http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/MergeFamily2.aspx?dbid=7602&rpid=35126464&ssrc=gr_t3725936_p-881027181_g0%2c48_r-881027181_h-1242861490_l-881027181

Maetha has two children, but when you merge the record the kids aren’t there.The last name is the same as her married name in the record. All the people in a record should be shown so we have the ability to add them even if it says they aren’t related. They might be cousins.

December 12, 2008 at 7:52 am
Harry Selsor 

New merge feature not working with SAFARI browser on my MAC. The box to check to add/include is missing now?

December 12, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Darryl Bryant 

some things are a little confusing, overall I like what I have seen.

December 12, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Jeannine Hall 

I love this feature…it not only saves valuable time in recording, I often find missing information that I had ben looking for! Thank you so very much!
EJeannine

December 12, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Rochelle Gereg 

At first I had a hard time getting use too the new format, however the more I use it the easier and better it gets. I have found a lot of ancestors and hope to combine relationships , with each other and mine. Thank You R. Gereg

December 13, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Thora Goodnight 

I love merge. BUT, occaisionally it won’t allow me to merge from a census because it did not pick up the parent’s names. Only the children appear in the merge feature. I am looking at David and Mary Moon on the 1860 census from Bennington, Vermont.

I wrote you previously regading the same situation on another relative, but no answere. This has happened many times.

December 13, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Lynn 

Why are there times when it won’t offer to merge all family members? Even if they are the only ones in the household and all in order?

December 13, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Rubyann Darnell 

What happened to the merge family members button from census records? It was there a few days ago but not there today! Very frustrating.

December 13, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Gernot G. HENKE 

AUGUST Klie

He could be a brother of my great grandfather born in LUETHORST (now a part of DASSEL in lower saxonia – Germany.

GeHe

December 14, 2008 at 4:24 am
nancy lefler 

I might be missing something but when it comes to like a family tree from hints all I can save is the main persons info and not relatives.
I have to write their names down on a sheet of paper then add. We have no check boxes to add people. Or am I missing something?

Thank you!

December 14, 2008 at 9:04 am
Tina Alhorn 

The adding other family members is not always there. I am entering them one by one. It used to work better before the change. Thanks for trying. Also, could there be a “select someone else in the tree” as an option when adding other family members? The record may say Joe and my record is Joseph or the other way around and I end up with extra people in my tree that I have to delete. Thank you.

December 14, 2008 at 11:20 am
Sidney Hanson 

When I copy my Family file to a disc it comes out as a PDF file and shows all pictures. If I copy it as a Ged file others can work with it but it has no pictures. Is there a way to copy my file to a disc so all recipients can view pictures and also add and alter files? Thank you for any information you can give me. “Sid” Hanson.

December 14, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Joni 

I love this section of the search. It makes it alot easier to research with out all the clicking back and forth. I sure hope you keep it on.

Joni Martines

December 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Wm Pearce 

If whoever entered the census data spelled the name incorrectly, or if the service that Ancestry contracted with to type in census data made spelling mistakes, then there is no way to merge family data. You can’t select the “right” family members because the “merge” function lists the incorrectly spelled family member names as “new” or “unknown” family members. There should be some way to correct this data.

December 14, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Clyde K. Taverner 

Every time I try to show relatives on the record I come up with one relative whether he is on the record or not. None of the other relatives or siblings show up nor do the parents.

December 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Valita Randolph 

Why? In a census record with two children, one called Cathryn and the other called Nelda, born two years apart–and the actual names of the children are Frances Cathryn and Nelda C–does Ancestry want to merge Cathryn with Nelda and ignore Nelda completely? I’ll never figure out your system!

December 15, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Bryan Eagan Jr 

Thomas Foster Rhoades (13 July 1794) is son of Daniel Rhodes (5 Oct 1755) but is listed under Daniel. I wish we had a “save to another person” option.

Rick Eagan

December 15, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Myra Reece 

Having a great time using the new search feature! Only thing . . . once I view a historical hint but don’t attach it at that time, IT DISAPPEARS from all future searches! I need to be able to go back to review all hints not attached at a later time once I’ve confirmed the information jibes with my records. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! It’s getting better all the time. Keep it simple though. Simple is good for simple people like me. :-)

December 16, 2008 at 9:09 am
Myra Reece 

Oh, yes . . . When we pull up parallel records, sometimes variations in spellings makes one person appear as many. Need some way to merge all the variants as one person rather than attaching as several different ones — the only option now.

December 16, 2008 at 9:12 am
Audrey Marlow 

The merge family members option is a wonderful tool to speed up your research! The fact that it grows your family tree with sources is a jewel!

Thanks so much!!

December 16, 2008 at 9:27 am
Denise Goodale 

I love the merge feature and would like to see the next improvement be a feature where I can select a family member that is spelled differently on the census. The current member that I am working on has a spouse and his middle name is spelled out on my tree and it is an initial on the census. (or it is a nickname or a misspelled name) Thus it does not come up in the feature for me to add the record to the spouse (or other family member). I would like to be able to type in a name (or a partial name) and have it come up when the program doesn’t offer it.

Thanks

December 16, 2008 at 11:18 am
Shirley Horst Walker 

Every time I attempt to check to determine the correct names and relationships, This—-blankity BLANK decides to tell me that I must do, as I just DONE. cHOOSE AN ANCESTOR. APPARENTLY THE DIRECTIONS ARE UNCLEAR. I am old and not really computer literate, I do not understand your site.

December 17, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Robin 

This is lame. How about spending more time on aquiring Irish records instead, since a HUGH percentage of Americans have Irish ancestry.

December 19, 2008 at 12:02 am
anita 

I love this feature and have been using it quite a bit lately.

Tonight was the first time I ran into a little glitch that you may want to check out – It mismatched the parents – wanted to merge the dad record to the mom record – and I had to give up because there was no way to correct it.

But mostly it has worked GREAT!!!!
Thanks,
Anita

December 19, 2008 at 12:41 am
lara banta 

need help finding ancestors from back in history and how we are related do i have indian in me and how much and what kind

December 19, 2008 at 1:23 am
Elizabeth Holen 

I need some help in keeping my tree tidy. There are dupicates names all over the place, which seem dificult to correct. that’s why I have some many unattached hints. some help and advice whould be appreciated.
Thanks
Eliabeth Hollen

December 19, 2008 at 7:34 am
Jeffrey Alan Mills 

I’ll add my comment to those who have previously noted… if a name isn’t very nearly identical this system wants me to add a NEW child/person to my tree. I’d like to be able to select an existing person when I know for certain it is simply a spelling/data entry error. Thanks for a good feature though!!

December 19, 2008 at 11:58 am
robert hope 

I don’t consider myself totally ignorant but I am truly havong difficultly in following the direction in completing these forms to create the family tree. Wish me good luck..

December 19, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Karen 

I love the relative addition feature – it saves so much time. Now – if you could just add SORTING to the column headings I’d be a happy woman.

December 19, 2008 at 7:11 pm
J.W. CUNNINGHAM 

THIS IS A GREAT FEATURE!! AND EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN SHOWING LINKAGES AND RELATIONS.

December 19, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Annie White Del Conte 

Is there a way to add the additional relatives information on things like birth and death records. I know that I was just looking at one that gave the husband’s name, and both parent’s names (including the mother’s maiden name). There doesn’t seem to be a way to automatically add that information, or link it easily.

December 19, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Linda Clater 

I really like this feature. It’s a huge help and saves so much time.

December 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Christina 

Can you ass a feature that allows you to select which family member to merge to? I have a family member that went from Prospero to Prosper ot Casper over time… this feature doesn’t pick him up with the rest of the family – but if I could CHOOSE to match Prospero to Prosper!!!! How great that would be!!!!!

December 19, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Marissa O'Dell 

I for one am very grateful to have the ability to add information about other family members so easily through finding the record once…. I hope to sign on one day and find that all the records I pull up have that feature… *sigh* a girl can dream…. thank you for making these wonderful things available to us…

December 20, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Helene 

Great facility. Only problem I’ve encountered so far, is that, if someone was living with a brother or sister of different surname, then it won’t list them under the ‘relatives’ facility. Also a glitch in one where parents weren’t listed but a missing brother was, but when I selected the missing brother, it wouldn’t allow that because the parents weren’t listed! Go figure.

December 21, 2008 at 2:02 am
Allitree.son Hoopes 

When I try to merge a whole family, I often get siblings and others, whose names were simply misspelled by the census taker, listed as “New.” I then have the choice to either add new children, with misspelled names, to a marriage, or leave these children out. That choice is simple, but if I omit them, I then need to go back into the census and add each one separately, searching through my entire index of names. Your system obviously doesn’t always make the connection between the person in the census and the person with a strikingly similar name and date of birth in my tree. I’d love to be able to take off the “New Person” label when one of these pops up. Maybe under a “More Options” function? Please??

December 21, 2008 at 8:32 am
keithsewellstaples 

Hi Kenny
I really enjoy the new merge feature. My only suggestion to date concerns the issue of names which have several spellings in the records, a not 8uncommon problem.

While I can find and attach Eliza Sause from the 1881 Census with Eliza Scouse (her correct name) it is not possible to do so for her children who the database does not recognised and I do not wish to add a new range of children identical in all but their surname.
As far as I can see there is no way of alerting the database to generalise the initial connection/attachment.
I’ll just have to go back to doing it individally which defeats the purpose of the merge function.
Cheers, best wishes for the festive season, Keith Sewell-Staples

December 21, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Don Albers 

New person is not always true.. May be a name spelling variation and makes it hard to correct when you want the census record attached to that person when they are a family sibling.

December 22, 2008 at 4:27 am
Don Albers 

From the 1920 Census
————————
Herman L Albert
Birth:
abt 1867
Iowa
Death:

Residence:
1920
Hillrose, Morgan, Colorado
——————————-
same person. My grandfather..
as entered on my records
________________________
Harmon Louis Albers

Birth:
15 Jan 1866
Garnavillo, Clayton County, Iowa
Death:
11 Mar 1946
Pueblo, Colorado buried Brush, Morgan, Colorado
Residence:
1920 new
Hillrose, Morgan, Colorado
______________________
NOT new same person
****************************___________

December 22, 2008 at 5:04 am
Richard Petersen 

On censuses with years married, it would be nice to have that as an option to merge as well. Thanks for what it already does too.

December 22, 2008 at 3:38 pm
cheryl 

why doesn’t it let you add the death dates, on the hints page?

December 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Phyllis Cata 

I think this feature is wonderful. I wonder if you could help me in this regard! I belong to ancestry.com. I have over 2,500 people on my TREE and a lot more to enter. I have spent my life doing research. I would like to get it all “said & done” while I can. I cannot get ancestry to fix the feature where I can email people under the “connection feature”…to ask them questions on a person in their tree or dates, etc. and vise versa…people I guess cannot contact me either. I have called 2 x’s & NO reply. I wish they would do me the courtesy in replying. Is there anyone you can contact for me & tell them I have called them 2 x’s in the past month and one half and the problem is never resolved. I love the other features of Ancestry and the program, it’s wonderful. Please see if you can help me in this regard. Thank you, Phyllis Cata …phylliscata51 at ancestry

December 22, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Arlene Siefert 

Please, please, please…..this feature does NOT work anymore!!!
It originally worked fine, but no longer.
I can only create a new person with an attachment or adding a record.
I have been requseting help on this for a couple of months.

PLEASE!!!!

December 22, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Viki Steiner 

It is a real time saver to be able to view other family members on a record. I love it.
Viki

December 23, 2008 at 12:20 am
Natialene Schopf 

Often times there are nicknames for individuals. I would like to be able to merge those people with the people I already have in my tree. Best I can tell it will create a new record, but will not let me merge to the people already existing. Please help.

December 23, 2008 at 8:40 am
Flora Hamer 

Like this feature.I think it will prevent duplication and resulting deletion. Looking at each new member of family added helps in relationships to other family members added.

December 23, 2008 at 6:28 pm
George E. Clifton, JR. 

This record shows that Edith Carns’ father is “George W. Carns.” His Middle name was Grant so the initial show be “G” not ‘W.’

December 24, 2008 at 4:53 am
Tony 

I like the new feature but have colour vision problems and the colours you are using are very difficult for me to see the other relatives, also the green and yellow look the same.

Tony

December 24, 2008 at 3:30 pm
MarkLHopkins 

You talk about being able to merge duplicate individuals, but how?

December 24, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Sharon G. Whitney 

I agree with PR McCullogh who wrote on 5/29/08 that Ancestry thinks there is a new person if the spelling is slightly different, and if it isn’t a new person then merging makes it look like it is a new person, which then means the duplication has to be removed. It would be nice if we could do the merger but say it is the same person rather than a new person.

December 25, 2008 at 8:09 am
JENNIFER OVINK 

Is there a way to add additional spouses and “half” relatives with this feature? For instance my great-great grandfather had a first wife and several children who died with tuberculosis. I see no way to add them to my family tree. Also, how do you add second and third marriages to the SAME person (ie a great-grandfather married and divorced the same woman 3 times). I don’t see any way to do this in the options.

December 25, 2008 at 8:21 am
sandra harris 

Sometimes when I check for other relatives it shows me those that I already have in the database for that census and if I check them it seems to make duplicate source records that I have to go in and delete. Am I doing something wrong?

December 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Andy Matt 

I would like to be able to select from my tree who to merge relative’s information with (especially spouses which can throw off all the children’s parent information).

Sometimes this option is available, and other times it is not.

December 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Don Albers 

Is it possible to add a tab in the Online family tree to go directly to the
‘Hint” file in the family tree member index? Also a “back button” to go from the last entry to the “hint index”?. I have about 150 hints to do and one HINT
leads to another or more and would like an easy way to get back to the “HINT”
member index.

***************************

December 26, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Jane Green 

I love the new features and haven’t had a problem with slowness. Just now, tho, I tried to add a family record to my tree that only contained info on two siblings. It wouldn’t let me add the info on the second sibling, because it said that I had to check at least one parent before I could do so–but there were no parents to check. This is a minor thing in the grand scheme of all the simply wonderful changes you have made that have made the system easier to use and more versatile.

December 26, 2008 at 8:13 pm
melissa 

Many thanks for an invaluable help!!!!

December 26, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Bruce Casner 

This is a wonderful feature, but it doesn’t seem to be offered in each case where it could be. I have searched census records that have the whole family, but the option of merging the source with all members is not offered.

December 27, 2008 at 9:49 am
Toni 

It was a great idea, but you must have changed it within the last week because now when I click on the census and go to review the additional family members – it adds them as a NEW person. I just want the census date to appear on the family members ALREADY listed. Clicking on the box ADDS them as a NEW person. It was showing as their residence in the year cited, now … It would also be great if you would go back to the method of being able to copy the document in addition to saving it. Your changes are not always the best and not always welcomed. VERY frustrating.

December 27, 2008 at 10:09 am
Nancy curtin manifold 

several items by bdkane are in accurate my grandmother Esther Maria
mCKEE WAS BORN IN aUGUST AND HER BROTHER IN dEC SOMEONE ENTERED THEM WRONG
mY GRAND FATHER WAS BORN IN mIDDLETOWN ,CT NOT FARMING TON
HIS FATHER dAVID lIVED IN pORTLAND
TOO BD HAS ATTACHED THEM TO WRONG FAMILY

December 27, 2008 at 10:17 am
Lisa 

I have noticed that if the name is different on the census it creates a whole new person. If William is Willie on one and William on the other it does not give you the option to merge them. I end up creating a whole new child on the list. I would like the option of merging. If it asked about those closest to the date above or below that child it would help, or maybe the option to choose a person not listed. : )

December 27, 2008 at 10:30 am
Shannon 

what about mistakes I KNOW.. such as calling my great great grandmother “endora” instead of “eudora” Or another great great “Eleiny” instead of “Emily” When it’s obviously just bad handwriting on the part of the census taker or misread by the person transcribing. I know there are others doing the same family trees and I’d like to be able to help with their searches

December 27, 2008 at 3:36 pm
shirley Greet 

why is the website so slow I have so much reaserch it takes so long and drives me mad

December 27, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Felicia Brown 

Love the ability to see family attached to searched member. However, would like to be able to merge family member with existing member. Found wife’s name to be listed as Berte. Her name was Roberta. Berte shows as a new person while the child shows as either child of Berte or unknown spouse.

December 27, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Caral Mechling Bennett 

It’s a wonderful feature, being able to add the rest-of-the-family at the same time, on many census. One problem I’m having: some family are listed as NEW PERSON, because of variation of name, I’m assuming. When I review/change all the info to match my saved info on the person, it would be great to have the NEW PERSON designation disappear. If I continue, a 2nd person with same name is saved, or one must go back thru the old method to add the new info to the saved person. Thank you. cmb

December 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Greg Ganio 

I think it would be very helpful to add a spot for maiden names. As there are a lot of documents that have one name or the the other. Even more that show children of “unknown spouse” only because I left her maiden name on to allow me to search the past better. I apologize for my poor grammar
Otherwise, this is such a great resource.
Thanks
Greg

December 28, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Paul Garland 

Good feature – used it all the time. For some reason, as others have noted, it is no longer working. Gives you either no relative link, or the link brings up one sibling and no parents.

December 28, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Linda Burns 

I am having issues with this new feature. It wants to add “another wife” with the wife’s married name, because it does not recogonize the maiden name and married name are the same person.

December 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Michael Guin 

I originally signed up with Ancestry.com because of your 14-day free trial, but I really see the advantages to my research!!

Many thanks to those late-nite programmers (I used to be one). Great ideas and great links!

Mike

December 28, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Glenn Law 

I found the information that I had on my original search. The merge needs to be implemented. Also name modification was found. Family members use nicknames and told census takers those names possibly. So merge with consciousness.

December 28, 2008 at 7:53 pm
John 

This features saves much time and links the tree with data to the cencus records

December 28, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Stephen Schermerhorn 

Thank you Kenny for this enhancement to the website. I am very happy to be able to merge multiple family members from one document or tree. However, it seems that sometimes when I am merging family members from an original document (census form) the software offers all family members, but at other times, it offers only the subject of the search. Am I doing something wrong, or am I just confused about how this should be working?
Thank you again.

December 29, 2008 at 6:49 am
Laura Brown 

Hello, I have recently started compiling information and I am putting it together into a family tree on Ancestry.com. What do we do when we come across information that is posted incorrectly ? For example, I have the 1930 Population Schedule taken in Dearborn City, County of Wayne for the state of Michigan where it lists Nora and Francis Munday,i purchased last year this copy, the name is hard to read and therefore it has been posted as “Nara” but being that it is my grandmother i know her name was Nora even though it is hard to read on the sheet. I have come across a few other typ-o’s like this, wondering who to write to get them corrected ?
Sincerely,
Laura Munday – Brown

December 29, 2008 at 8:01 am
Sue Kervin 

Sometimes the data type randomly changes to German. This time it was on the 1880 US Federal Census, but it’s happened on other Federal Censuses also. These are copied and pasted from the search result form:

Geburtsdatum
Geburtsort

Sterbedatum
Sterbeort

Wohnort – Datum
Wohnort

I can figure out where the info belongs, but this shouldn’t happen. And it’s random. I’ve used my back button on browser to return to a page to have it show in English instead of German on the second time around.

December 29, 2008 at 10:20 am
Chris Adams 

Hi I think this update is great except that it is not recognizing people already in the tree and it wants to add new people instead of connecting to existing people already in the tree. EG I have a match to James Tait. It also shows his wife and daughter Margaret and instead of connecting to these existing persons it wants to create new persons.

December 29, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Janice 

Hello – Ive been having trouble merging from the 1841 census, particularly the Suffolk area.

When I try to add a spouse & their children, the only option shown to me is the Sibling of the person I’m researching at the time.

This has happened on 3 different records. Just thought you may like to know.

Happy New Year

Janice

December 29, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Becky Villareal 

I love this option! I am able to find family members so quickly now.

December 29, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Susan Tate 

1891 census info. RG12/2499 page 42: surname reads WALTER C PREER etc. YThis should read FREER> Please look, as the boarders name I believe should read Haynes

December 30, 2008 at 7:48 am
Susan Tate 

1891 census info. RG12/2499 page 42: surname reads WALTER C PREER etc. This should read FREER. Please look, as the boarders name I believe should read Haynes

December 30, 2008 at 7:54 am
Helen Reynolds 

This worked well for me once. However here is an example of when it doesn’t work: 6 family members; census “summary sheet” has misspelled one name and misinterpreted the middle initials of three others;and because the rest are siblings and not parents or children they do not show up. Some of these old families just lived together a long time. It’s a great feature which I was excited to see, but the “summary sheet” accuracy has been the biggest reason it hasn’t worked for me. could we be able to correct names/ middle initials for our own use?

December 30, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Shelia troughton 

Dear Sir
I love your site and find it easy to add and merge people in my tree
Is it posible to down load my tree to my family ancestry on my computor
regards
shelia

December 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Tammy King 

I think someone made a mistake transcribing this record that I am trying to add to my tree. Bulah Bell is (I believe) a daughter-in-law. I’m not certain how this works, as far as connecting you to the record I am referring to, or if this is just general e-mail for you about this concept of saving records from the census to families. E-mail me back if you have a question or comment or you just don’t understand what I am talking about.

December 30, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Lora York 

I’ve been wanting to suggest this–great (now that I’m done). But what I do want to pt out is that when one merges from someone else’s tree, if the place does not have placeholder commas, the program apparently picks up the last-entered place. I wondered why everyone born in Wales in 1000, 800, 1300 all died in Y,Somme,Picardie, France. Now they all have to be fixed manually. Also, it will attach Ohio, USA to an entry of Belgium if the proper ,,s aren’t entered. Default them when entered, pls!

December 31, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Alice Alderman 

I like the merge feature; merging with census records, works better than merging with the trees, especially if the trees are numerous (more than 4). Perhaps the World Tree, could come as a separate merge, when trees are very numerous or the trees could be grouped according to star ranking, or there could be an option to group the trees, so one can be more selective on the trees. If one has already merged on a family tree there should be a block or message advising on the previous merge, as there is with census records. And for marriage records a message stating that the merge has worked for the spouse, as well, might save some steps. It seems like grouping the photo display by types in the tool bar might help, as one usually does not care to linger in a rebrowse the death certificates, marriage certificates, etc. It is useful to have photo’s of documents such as death certificates for primary picture, when no family photo is available. One would, by the same token, like the actual images of the other certificates (enlistments, military service, marriage, etc.) made available, by option, perhaps. The primary photo serves a schematic purpose in some views, but one does not particulary like to see those non photo images, mixed in with the photos. It would be a big advantage in the cosmetcs of the photo view to break them those images off in a separate catgeory. Alice

December 31, 2008 at 6:37 pm
barb 

It would be helpfull if you would also offer another option to the Attach or Ignore buttons. I would like to see a Look Closer Later button. This way I know I have already gave a quick look but would like to look again later. Maybe a color change to the little leaf that lets me know that I have looked once,but have not dismissed the info. That way I don’t keep clicking on the green leaf for the info I have alread Peeked at. I know that the shoebox is for the look at later,but that is so disorganized I don’t use it. Also I would like a filing system in the “Shoe Box” Division of family names,Rating system for good likelyhood of matches. Very Strong,Strong,Likely, Not Likely. I don’t much use the shoebox because there is no organization in it.How about a copy and paste that allows a person the add directly to the proper person in the family tree. Thanks Barb Ward

January 1, 2009 at 10:31 am
r green 

Love new merge feature. But it does not come up with every search. and there should be a warning about duplications happening when combining the census years.

January 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Becky Gentry 

There was an error in the translation of this Census. This is a family of Banes not Bauer.

January 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Tracey Hoy 

Another addition to the show relatives button could be a select all relatives check box.
But as long as you could still check through the details bvefore submitting.

January 1, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Kate Wertime 

I love the record merge feature, but it is not recognizing when a residence has already been logged from the same record (typically census) for relatives. Therefore, I find that I am adding the same residence for the same year over and over for relatives and not realizing it until I go back to their records. Then, it’s a pain to remove them all from the timeline.

January 1, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Lorraine 

What a wonderful new feature. What would you think about making a soundex match. This way if the information on the “index” is spelled different from what we have on our tree, we could still connect to an optional name without having to back and forth?

January 1, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Judy Gimple 

The only problem is….you can’t merge the names of relatives. It asks for the name of a parent. Huh? Also, the site is now terribly slow!

January 1, 2009 at 10:08 pm
marie licciardello 

I am stuck so where do I go from here?my ancestries of john duvall came from france what town did he come from and how do I trace this information?any thing I cant find
where gilbert duvall is buried.? I will have some more great information of this family after I visit one of my mons first cousin who I found out is still alive at 80 some years old.thanks marie

January 1, 2009 at 10:09 pm
A.Lane 

its lots better adding family this way rather than writing it down first

January 2, 2009 at 3:07 am
Katrina 

The merge feature is nice, but the search engine is not recognizing family members very well at this point. For example: I have a couple, Nettie Bell who married Thomas Nelson Coleman. Nettie Coleman has a “hint” that is the 1910 census. The search recognizes the children of the household, but wants to create a new husband named Thomas N. Coleman. It was apparently unable to find Thomas Nelson Coleman (though it does list him at the top of the screen.)

Nevertheless, I am very pleased with the new tree updates. I was unable to upload GEDCOMs with the old tree pages.

Thank you for the continued improvements.

January 2, 2009 at 8:49 am
jjhargraves 

I am amused that the relatives shown for a baby age one are his wife and children rather than his parents. His last name was also fractured by the interviewer. It was Haberstroh, Martha A.Haberstroh was his mother and J.J. Haberstroh was his father. His father was a German immegrant and no doubt had a strong accent resulting in the incorrect spelling. I could not find the place to make the correction that used to be available on the page. Also they lived in a rooming house listed verically, that type fact would be most interesting to include.
Thanks
Jan Hargraves

January 2, 2009 at 11:21 am
amanda crabtree 

aaahhhhhggggg! PLEASE, when trying to merge other relatives, and the christian name of spouse is the same, even though maiden name is not, why not show this person as possibly correct? Do not assume it is a different person. Without the option to confirm this connection, the rest of the family cannot be added. Allow me to dismiss possible connections as appropriate.
Thank you

January 3, 2009 at 6:47 am
Alison Schmitz 

Hi I love this feature but it’s annoying ho when one letter is off in a record it won’t recognize that the person. Then it tries to make a new person. Any chance of fixing this?

January 3, 2009 at 7:28 am
Cheryl Singleton 

Keep up the good work and adding new features — hopefully we can merge ALL census information with relatives rather than one by one –
Couple of suggestions — It would be fabulous if we could determine two persons “relationship” as we do in Family Tree — I have hundreds and hundreds of relatives posted and their relationship would be fabulous.

January 3, 2009 at 7:47 am
Hilary Billinghurst 

The Information for the 1901 Census for Samuel Clegg and his wife Florence Clegg – Dewsbury Yorks is flagging up Florence Boocock which is the name directly above this family in the original census. Hope this is helpful.

January 3, 2009 at 7:47 am
Claudia Riley 

I really like this feature. It is a real time saver and help as there are usually more than one person listed. Now if we could have a merge feature for duplicate persons in the database, it would be appreciated. Seems we are never satisfied.

January 3, 2009 at 9:11 am
AJ Satter 

I reiterate # 12. This is a wonderful addition but needs to be tweaked to allow mergers with existing people in the tree whose names are spelled slightly differently than the index(an “e” rather than and “a”).

I had to bypass persons that I did not want duplicated, and that were only available as new people due to name variations.

January 3, 2009 at 11:14 am
Judy Holley 

Wife of John Frnaklin Holley is misread in the census. It is Martha, not Marsha. How do I relate this information to the correct people.

January 3, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Glenda Holmes 

When I have clicked on the link for the census to show relatives on the census, it brings up one sibling that is not always listed on that census, and does not include the wife, and children that are listed. This has happened several times with several family members.

January 3, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Lara Rasmussen 

I love this feature, but often when I try to connect siblings it tells me to connect with the parents first. I can see no way to do this on the page. The siblings are shown with boxes to check but the program will not let me check them.
The other aspects of the program are great.
Thank you!

January 3, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Margaret Cline Harmon 

I really like and appreciate this new feature on the Ancestry.com Family Tree site. It would save even more time if one could add the record and family to another one of their trees.

January 3, 2009 at 11:02 pm
darlene7771 (Darlene A. Walker) 

I found it interesting that you offer the two siblings and then tell me I must choose two parents without offering me the choice. I had to disallow the siblings in order to accept the record as a source for my person. Now if I missed something,and if it is because I haven’t taken your tutorial, I probably won’t. It is too much like learning computer, (too much for this 64 year old grandma to contemplate.) I probably won’t ever learn the new way unless you incorporate directions into each step of the old way, ie. step l, step 2. and to do thus and so for more detail (or whatever) click here. I’m sorry, but you are making things too technical.

January 4, 2009 at 4:55 am
Steven Myers 

I just bought a new hard drive with 3GB RAM because it was taking such a long time to navigate your site. Guess what? You’re still extremely S-L-O-O-O-W! This snail’s pace can really take the fun out of visiting you. Please get some new servers, or something.

January 4, 2009 at 12:36 pm
George Post 

How do I find ancestors of mine who I’ve found in your census records. Example, George Butt of Suffolk, N.Y., born 1885, married to Florence Butt. I want to find Florence Butt’s family. I know her maiden name was Valois but cannot find that in records. Any ideas?

January 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm
VERA ELLEN RICH 

Hi!

I was just given a hint for a Lou Caughman who was supposed to be a child of George Martin Coughman the son of a man, also George Martin Caughman. If you check the birth dates of Lou Coughman- yu will see this child belongs to the Senior, not the Jr.

January 4, 2009 at 11:32 pm
VERA ELLEN RICH 

Love the functionality. It helps keep the trees cleaner and more accurate!

But, I am getting a whole lot of “Hints” that later won’t let me into them to perform the updates. And, the computer system itself needs some serious updating. It is beyond slow- recognizing that there are some huge files but this is still not acceptable performance.

Thank you for your continued services to the geneaology community.

January 4, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Monroe McAnally 

This is great. I can’t believe the time it saves, and the long travel to a large city library. Thanks a million.

January 5, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Karen Parker 

I am in the 1860 census. I am attaching a record to a person listed on that census. It says click here to shown others in this family or somesuch thing. Anyway, this is the 1860 census, you don’t know if these people are all family. Secondly, I clicked just to see who would come up. The persons daughter came up and she is not on the census, it is 1860 and she was not born until 1875. It is showing me the record I have on file.

January 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Judith Buck-Glenn 

This thing works great when it works, but so often it leaves out realtives that should be incorparated, that i already have on the tree, and then if I choose to selct the ones you DO match up with, the rest of them end up “children of an unknown father” so I end up having to do it one by one. Why on earth, if the mother is named Sarah, and he clearly has a wife named “Sarah Smith” did it not grasp that “Sarah Crawforth”, his wife’s maiden name, is obviously this Sarah Smith? why did Ann Lydia Smith, their daughter, not get taken up, even though you have her as Ann Sydia Smith? Why did most of the kids get left off, but three get taken? It’s infuritating.

January 5, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Barbara E Brown 

I would like A way to add info to my tree that I know to be A fact.

January 5, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Hazel Gore 

We need a way to determine which person is new and which is simply misspelled. Perhaps some way to delete the “NEW PERSON” label. I am delighted with all the new features being added. Saves a lot of time. Thanks so much.
Hazel

January 6, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Stuart Tait 

The place of residence for Sarah Elizabeth Collison, who was married to Joseph Tait, was in Brooke Township, Lambton County, Alvinston, Ontario NOT Grenfell. She died April 26,1936 in Alvinston,Ontario.
Joseph was my great-grandfather and the first Tait born in Canada.

January 6, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Stuart Tait 

Sarah Jane Collison was born Feb. 1, 1862 in Warwick Township, Ontario: Married Joseph Tait Aug. 18, 1882 and died Apr. 26, 1936. Sher was married and died in Lambton County, Ontario (Alvinston.
Therefore the above dates shouild be used in this blog rather than those you have included.

January 6, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Kathryn G Warren 

Sometimes census data shows family members outside the nuclear family. It would be helpful to be able to link this information to other family members to show that Grandma emigrated to America with son #2 after Grandpa’s death, or that children were living with aunts and uncles, as a couple of examples.

January 7, 2009 at 5:53 am
Albert Treado 

Maybe you should give us the option of which family members to add the information to. There are a lot of spelling errors between Census takers, etc…

January 7, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Rhonda 

Great feature! However, quite often this option is not available even when other family members are in the record.

January 7, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Christine Miller Brings 

Love the new merge feature as it speeds up many searches. However, every now and then it develops this glitch, where a particular name shows up as being a relative listed on EVERY record. Always the same one, two, or three names, no matter what the record or who the record belongs to. Today it happened after I’d been checking hints (accepting some, rejecting others) for 17 people. Though I had not worked with this particular person, all of a sudden he was showing up as an option to add as a family member for every person that had a hint — showing up as an option on censuses, but also on SSDI listings, MN death listings, etc. (records that do not list that type of thing.) Gave me the option of adding him usually as a sibling to whomever the record pertained to, though he was NOT a sibling.

Don’t know if this is a universal thing or unique to my computer. When it happens I shut down ancestry.com and come back to work on it later to prevent my frustration level from rising too high.

Otherwise I am greatly appreciative of the improvements you’ve made.

January 7, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Delia Holloway 

Sounds much easier as long as we are sre the hint is our family.
It gets better and better or is that gooder and gooder. ha ha
God bless,
Delia

January 7, 2009 at 5:07 pm
pam darby 

On the family merge, often the name of the spouse and/or children are not recognized as the same as already known. It would be nice if, when the program finds no match, we could go through names already on the file and select the correct one. Thanks

January 7, 2009 at 7:31 pm
ken noto 

nice addition – but it doesn’t work right –

you need to link it to gather all the family, not just the children of.

In my situation, I searched on my Great-great grandmother. She lived with my Great-grandfather, my grand aunt and my grandmother. The add to only came up for my great-great grandma and her son, my great-grandpa. It didn’t show my great-grandpa’s children, even though he was head of household, and even though your program picked it up as a FAMILY GROUP on the Census.

Also, for some reason, when it picked up my Great-grandpa, it said he was the son of my g-g-gram and an unk spouse. I thought that was weird.

Otherwise it’s a good program, and it will be a great program once you have all the bugs caught.

Ken Noto

January 7, 2009 at 10:38 pm
C Fry 

When attaching a person to a tree. Why not have an Occupation Box in the Show Advance Options or Hidden Options.Then you could add all the occupations of one family altogether after opening Show All Relatives On This Record. It would save a lot of time.

January 8, 2009 at 10:27 am
Alice Alderman 

There does not appear to be a way to force a merge in those cases where the misspellings in the census records are too much at variance from those in the record. Couldn’t more of the census events be captured in the record, such as occupation, post office address, and even the date of the census survey, and name of the surveyer, page of the census record, etc.

January 8, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Gerald Blakley 

Sometimes it associates a person in the record with the wrong person in the tree. Can you put in a tab to let me save to a new person, or to a different person? Sometimes it doesn’t associate the record with anyone in the tree, even though someone is there. Can you put in a tab to say, Choose person to associate record with? Otherwise, I think it’s great!

January 8, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Rovella Wales 

I can’t save or Merging info now I have been working on this family tree for a long time now and now i have to write it down thin put it in why

January 8, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Troy Hattermann 

I agree with Comment #12. I would like to see a way to merge people with existing people in my tree to avoid duplicates because of misspellings, etc.

January 9, 2009 at 11:56 am
Rex Bavousett 

I agree with #12 and #1273. When adding sources, there should be a way to merge the file with existing people in the tree. Call it merge or call it linkage… whatever.

January 9, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Jem 

Unbelievable!

EIGHT MONTHS after this “feature” is added and it still isn’t fixed??

I just spent an absolute age sorting out multiple spouses and ‘half siblings’ where there should be none. All thanks to this so-called ‘time-saving’ merge idea! It’s a royal pain in the a**!

Get some decent testers on board PLEASE! It’s not rocket science!

January 10, 2009 at 12:12 am
Jacki Frank 

When I attempt to attach a historical record to a person, the program doesn’t seem to recognize family members. So it’s trying to create “New” people on my tree who are duplicates of existing people. Is there a way to associate relatives in a record that I’m trying to merge to people in my tree without doing them one at a time?

January 10, 2009 at 9:19 am
Susan Davis 

There needs to be a way for me to connect the names of people who are slightly different from the census listing, i.e., the census has been transcribed a child as (hypothetically) Nellie instead of Mollie. I have a Mollie in my tree, but Nellie doesn’t automatically connect, so I have to save her as an aditional child or go to a search and search for the record and then attach it to Mollie. If I could just have a link in the census suggestion that let me “attach to someone in my tree” (as elsewhere), it would save steps and probably prevent errors multiplying as people add info from each others trees.

January 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Lawrence Hedrick 

The 1900 federal census looks like the children on this should be Tharp nor Thamp as shown. The orginal record looks to me to be Tharp. I was looking up William Preston Tharp when it came up. Thanks!

January 10, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Clar 

As mentioned several times before, the ability to tweak the additional records to the records on my tree would be great — I just added an uncle, and the program wanted to add his 3 siblings as his children (although their birthdays were only a few years different from his).
So, now I have to write down their names so I can add them later properly – frustrating…
Additionally, I have a problem when a relative has multiple marriages. If I add the record for the second marriage from the database, rather than adding a second life event of marriage, the program just changes the date of the first marriage. Again, I have to write things down and add manually…
Last gripe — is there a way to attach parents to children when the parents are not married? It really irritates my son, especially, to have the mother of his child listed as a wife — not to mention that there are no applicable marriage or divorce dates..

January 10, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Jennifer Dill Ovink 

On one of my records, this records merge really messed up. I wanted to merge the 1860 census record for someone who was a young child. The initial page showed her parents and siblings on the same record. When I clicked to attach then view relatives, it only showed her “future” child with an “unknown spouse.” These records were not in the 1860 census and the child was many, many years away to be born!

January 11, 2009 at 10:45 am
Doreen Thomas 

actual record of 1851 England Census for James A. Measures shows him as 1 year of age not 7 as shown on Preview. this makes him born about 1851 not 1844 as listed.
Parents are correct.
Cit. Class HO10, Piece 1748 Folio 410 Page 20GSU roll:1936-48

January 11, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Sarah 

This is fantastic! It makes using Ancestry.com so much easier and more enjoyable.

The only thing the I don’t like is what PR said in comment #12- slight misspellings result in duplicates in my tree. Other than that, the new feature is great!

January 11, 2009 at 2:49 pm
joan eversole 

I am having a lot of difficulty merging information. For instance, I have pulle information of Joseph W. Eversole and have tried to merge his parents from the family data collection but it shows siblings and will not let me merge them because it says I must select a parent which it does not allow.

January 11, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Harold Davis 

Type your comment here.

January 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Dave Stacey 

The merge feature is saving much time until I accidentallly merge duplicate information. Then deleting becomes a nightmare. For some reason I can not delete one “John Doe duplicate” without losing “John Doe original” too. This ruins things “upstream”. How do I delete one without losing the other? Thanks

January 12, 2009 at 8:33 am
Amy Poupore 

When merging family members from census records I’ve found that in some cases Ancestry does not recognize the a member is already part of my tree. Example: I have a wife, IDA, and her husband is Leonard and is listed as such in my tree. However, the 1935 census record that i found for her lists him as L.F. Ancestry does not show him as her husband on the merge window and instead wants to add him as a new person. It would be helpful if in the Advanced Options we could select a person from our tree in which to merge the info to. For now I just don’t select him, or their children, and go back in to each one manually and add them seperatly. Just a thought for future upgrades.

January 12, 2009 at 8:44 am
nicola phillips 

Saves so much time and transcript errors. well done

January 12, 2009 at 11:07 am
Marvin Denny 

It does not work when either the census taker or the transcriber does not get the names right. For example, my aunt Eva (Haluk) Denny’s mother name was Elena but in the 1920 census the index has her Adlena, I think was.

January 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Maree Warner 

In the 1861 UK census, I had a hint for Skidmore Ashby b.1841. When I viewed original document it clearly had his mother as Emma Fowler, but when I went to merge & add relatives, Elizabeth Gunther came up as his mother. Needless to say I didn’t merge the family. I just want to bring the error to your attention. Otherwise keep up the great work.
Maree

January 14, 2009 at 5:22 am
Laurel Hutcherson 

Your new merge system is very good in many ways. One way it is not good is that there is no way to choose an existing person in the record, when there is a name mistake or inconsistancy. When that happens the system sometimes does not recognize the person as being in my chart, and offers to add them as a “new” person.

Something like a link to a list of people in the chart – to add an existing person – as is done when a mother or father is added to the chart might be useful.

Thanks…

January 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Rex Bavousett 

I have come across a bug in the merge. When you choose to see other family members on (say a 1870 census) a document. Occasionally just one sibling will appear, with no parents. If you check the checkbox, the website then tells you that you have to select the parents first.

January 14, 2009 at 9:40 pm
sheryl fullner 

I love this new feature
EXCEPT
is there a way to know if you have
previously attached, say a 1910 census report to this extra set of people? I used the feature and ended
up having to spend almost an hour deleting multiple records of the 1910 census for each individual. Very helpful with that one major exception. keep up the great work.
I am on dial up so toggling back and forth between people makes it so I don’t want to look back and see if each of those 8 children all have the 1910 census attached.

January 15, 2009 at 10:01 pm
pat clary 

New to Tree: three comments

1. I still can only save 1 person at a time and only limited info. When seeing a cousin’s tree & want ALL info and people that I know are true…I need to easily save all of the info
2. Can’t we have a few Microsoft features like “drag and drop” what a time saver that would be
3. I am probably missing something because I’m new, but I really don’t want to have to retype things that are already in place

January 16, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Hartley L Hubbard 

I like the new method very much because it saves a lot of time, however, there is a problem because
didn’t match up Hubert Camp b. Abt 1906 with my John Hubert Camp, b. 29 Aug 1904. Is it because the birthdate had a two year variance? It consistently misses him regardless of what censes I am working on while he was with his parents.

January 17, 2009 at 1:05 am
Bob Tyghe 

Fantastic enhancement! Plodding through every person – for some families, 10+ names!! – adding census details was extremely time consuming.

Is it possible in the next version of this function to provide a matching facility for family members that may have recorded a different first name in the census e.g. in the current version, a person in our tree with the name Elizabeth SMITH doesn’t get a match option with a Betsey SMITH in the incoming census data?

January 17, 2009 at 3:47 am
Frederick Sieber 

Overall this feature is VERY helpful.

Sometimes it won’t add people because it says their parents were not selected, even if no parents were found or even existed (maybe they had died).

A nice feature would be to add the option of having the user match a relative that the program could not match, often name spellings being a small bit different causes this.

January 17, 2009 at 5:12 am
Mickey Staton 

Boy, even THIS link ties to something else! My comment is on the show relatives records merge. If Ancestry doesn’t find the spouse correctly then I end up duplicating the children. That sucks and results in a mess to be cleaned up at a later time. How about a link to persons with hints FULL TIME on all pages? As it is now I have to go through three steps to see the hints you’ve found for me. Not convenient at all. Thanks, mickaleen

January 17, 2009 at 10:05 am
Diane K Bicjan 

The parents for Joseph Wojchek listed on the website are incorrect. They do not match the actual census record which I know to be correct as Joseph was my great uncle. His parents, per the 1910 census record wer John and Katherine Wojchek which is correct but your database/website shows them as being Jospeh and Molly Czokallo. I’d appreciate some feedback from this email to know what if any action you may take on this. Thank you so much!

January 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Beverly Miller 

Hi Ken,
Exciting to see my family on line, Shirley Viola Davis is my mother. I am in the process of getting all the dates on line.

Thanks for all you do.

Beverly

January 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm
leohnora 

I love this tool as i find it very useful but i do quite often come up against a problem when a persons details dont quite match yet i kniow they are the same person but the tool will add the person as a new individual. I think it would be very useful if i had the ability when adding other family members from a census to be able to chose who to merge to when a person is not recognised by the program (merge to other instead of new person)

January 17, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Stephen Missel 

It would work a lot better if we could align all the relatives with the correct person. i.e. siblings instead of spouse or children. When it lines up with everything it’s a great feature.

January 17, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Robin Borchers 

Great idea. Should save time and open up more information.

January 18, 2009 at 6:42 am
allan smith 

love the new merge feature, but as commented by others mis-transcription and spelling errors causes problems. I would also like to be offered details of all resident at the addres – not just those with same surname – in my case
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, children by previous husband.

January 18, 2009 at 8:12 am
Terri Christy 

It would be great if I could merge 2 people together. For example, I have a relative Bernard Urbanczyk who was born 1896, but a census record shows a Ben born abt 1894. When I try to add that record the current system adds him as a new person, then I have 2 people listed for the same individual, and it is difficult to go back and add the record to the correct person and delete the extra entry. If there was a “add to someone in my tree” feature like there already is when you search and add records, it would make adding records to whole families easier. This also happens when names are misspelled. This occurance happens when you click on ancestry hints, attach record, and then “view other family members” members from the record.

January 18, 2009 at 9:48 am
Delores Waller Worrell 

1930 census wrong spelling of my uncle name .

There is on child name Katherine, this should be my uncle Natheniel Hall born 16 month after my mother Margaret Christine Hall who died 2002. Christne Shepherdson Hall dob was 1892. My mother didn’t have an Birth Cert, so he birthday is either 1918 0r 1919. I love the new upgrade.
I haven’t master every thing yet.
I still trying to find Jacob Shepperson/Jefferson wife Nelly last name or where she came from. Jacob Shefferson from Oral History was President Thomas Jefferson son, our name was changed to many versus

January 18, 2009 at 11:21 am
Linda Hagerman 

The site is sooooo slow now. I have not been working on it for some months due to remodeling a house and no time so when I went into it lately I thought it was my computer.
I have had the computer at the repair shop, called my provider to complain about the slow internet and now discover it is just the site.
Going to try the merge feature and see how I like it.

January 18, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Jolene 

love this feature!!!!!!! Great job, thanks so much!

January 19, 2009 at 1:51 am
Alice Alderman 

The merge function is great. I wish it would capture more information for the record, or provide space in which to manually copy the information from the census view.

January 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Katie 

Is there a way to link 2 family trees from 2 different users? IK found a link to another tree and it will only pull in that one person and her parents. It would take me forever to add the info that is already on another tree.

January 19, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Mary M Carnes 

Yes! Great idea. Good help. I really do appreciate all the many improvements you have made in Ancestry.com since I stopped my subscription 2-3 years ago.

Keep up the GOOD WORK.

As I write this, President Obama is making his Inaugural Speech. What a Dat! YES!

But you also contribute to ongoing civilization with your establishing persons firmly in their own personal history, and the bonds of family.

Thank you. Mary (Troysdau)

January 20, 2009 at 10:23 am
Mary M Carnes 

Oops. I didn’t realize that my name would be made public. O, well. What the heck.

Best Wishes,
Still Mary

January 20, 2009 at 10:26 am
Connie Moulder 

This function of adding relatives on a census record is not working like it was before. It leaves off the parents and therefore does not allow sibs to be added.

January 20, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Jeff Wood 

I like the feature allowing me to tie documents to several family members at once. However, occasionally when I use the merge feature, it wrongly identifies a spouse or child as a “new person” when they are already created in my database. I recommend a better means of either deleting members inadvertantly added or a better means of merging information of identical people listed multiple time within my database.

January 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Mary Anne Moore Wilson 

Homer Oliver Moore’s father was Mosco not Moses, I’m Homer’s daughter.

January 20, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Lynda S Pullen 

Acorn Schmutzler Name is Anna Schmutzler I am her great niece

January 20, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Pauline 

When a spouse dies leaving a widow, existing children are shown as spouse unknown, can’t that be flagged as children to mother and deceased father?
Also when are we going to get 1911 england census????

January 21, 2009 at 9:53 am
Meredith Lane 

It would really help if the merge feature would recognize that women had to change their names when they got married!

Example: I just added the 1930 census for John F. Anderson, who married my great aunt Laura Emily Shilling. Obviously, in the census record, she appears as Laura E. Anderson.

BUT, if I use the “add other relatives” feature, it would add her as a NEW PERSON to my tree instead of connecting the census record to her existing record.

My tree already has the relationships clearly indicated, etc. The search and match feature ought to be able to use this information to realize that Laura E. (Shilling) Anderson is the person cited in the census.

January 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm
GLENDA JO SCOTT 

THE SPOUSE AND CHILDREN INFORMATION FOR LESSIE SIMMONS IS INCORRECT. THIS LIST ON THIS LEAF IS INCORRECT. LESSIES MOTHER IS EMMA L. SIMMONS, LESSIE FATHER IS BENJAMIN J. SIMMONS.AND THE REST OF THE NAMES ARE ACTUALLY LESSIE SIMMONS SIBLINGS. THE ARE OTHER INFORMATION AND HER THAT YOU CAN CHECK THAT IS CORRECT. BUT THIS ANCESTRY HINT IS NOT CORRECT. I HOPE THIS IS THE PLACE THAT WE CAN CORRECT ERRORS. I HAVE FOUND IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THESE HINTS ARE CORRECT.
THANK YOU
GLENDA SCOTT

January 21, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Jane Warrington 

I love ancestry.com and have no problems at all. In fact, everything is working great for me. Keep up the great work! I feel like I hit gold when I found this site and the information available just goes on and on. Thank you

January 21, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Betty Sue Pickelsimer 

Richard Pickelsimer is not Ellender P. Pickelsimer’s husband, he was her illigitimate son. I know this because Richard was my grandfather. He was married to Lula May, my grandmother. Ellender was my great-grandmother.

January 21, 2009 at 9:47 pm