Comments on: Focusing your search with the collections options The official blog of Ancestry Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:57:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: Selhawke Selhawke Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:20:47 +0000 I won’t be renewing my subscription until there’s a return to some of the “good old features” – like being able to find the UK Census returns without all the other stuff I never use and am never likely to use getting priority.
When I eventually get into the UK Census returns I find they don’t work properly any more, like whole parishes now gone missing somewhere.
Ancestry needs to stop trying to be clever and get back to basics.
Presently the site is a mess!

By: Donald Sleeper Donald Sleeper Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:32:25 +0000 This is great, but when i found who I was lookin for, the only record was a private family tree and did not want contact. GRRRRRRR

By: Connie Connie Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:57:49 +0000 I, too, have experienced the same problems with the search as the other people have. BUT, this sure beats reading rolls of unindexed microfilm. I’ve been chasing dead ancestors for 35 years, and what we have now is a vast improvement over the way things were.

By: Clarkbar1952 Clarkbar1952 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:47:28 +0000 I haven’t been able to input info onto my family tree because of an “error on Page”. Can you help??

By: Sharon Sharon Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:08:48 +0000 I just signed up for and will not be going any further than my 14 day free trial. When I want to search the 1850 census in Luzrene Co., PA for a particular name, I don’t want to look through 15000 records all over the world. If that person is not where I asked for – just tell me that and I’ll make up my own new search. This is crazy.

By: Marysue Marysue Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:02:54 +0000 Ancestry is TOO SLOW loading all sites and pages.
It is absolutely impossible to utilize any of your sites. When clicking to a any page, I wait and wait for some advertisement to load. I am not interested in your big fancy side type ads that you are using at the expense of my limited life time here. I am interested in
sharing my quarter century family research and filling in some unknown data.
I and others will seriously think twice on a subscription renewal!! Then see who reads your big, slow, loading ads……
I did write to Ancestry Support last week and this is their reply, which tells me nothing:
“We regret any frustration you may experience due to ads on Ancestry. Banner and other advertisements display on Ancestry because of key sponsorships with other companies. These sponsors help support the site. Since the Ancestry site is partially advertiser supported, you may not turn off the advertising that appears on pages of this site, but you may opt to be excluded from any email advertising. Please read about these options in our privacy statement, which you can access by clicking the appropriate link at the very bottom of most pages on our site.”

Before I end, I want to draw attention to a comment from:
Posted on:
November 12, 2008 at 9:40 am
Who has TIME to use a new tool when you experience the following: I feel like I am living in the dinasaur age of dial up. Have you guys sold too many subscriptions that your servers are unable to handle via your leaf commercial? This last week has been ridiculous!!! PLEASE, PLEASE FIX THIS PROBLEM BEFORE ALL YOUR SUBSCRIBERS DIE WHILE THEY WAIT FOR A RECORD OR PAGE TO LOAD. It has not escaped my attention that as I use your service, each page I load comes up SLOWER and SLOWER. Are you attaching too many tracking cookies? I have tried clearing them and it doesn’t help much. I can sign off, reboot my computer, sign on again and then I am much faster at first, until the whole process repeats itself again!! It’s maddening and EXTREMELY TIME CONSUMING!!! I would have my entire family tree done right now if it were not for the SLOW SLOW SLOW page loading. I have premier ISP service and I fly everywhere but here. HELP!!! SPEED IT UP PLEASE!!!! It does not encourage me to correct bad records on census either!! Please fix the BASICS like SPEED and ACCURACY ON SEARCHES BEFORE YOU ADD NEW TOYS THAT ARE ONLY GOING TO MAKE YOUR SYSTEM SLOWER!!!!

By: Dirk J. Bindemann Dirk J. Bindemann Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:39:30 +0000 I don’t get any reference to any Bindemann in Africa, although the family or families emmigrate to South Africa in the early 1800.

By: Jerry Bryan Jerry Bryan Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:04:46 +0000 This comment is off topic from “collections” per se, but the “collections” thread is the last thread that Anne started. And my comment is about search and Anne is in charge of search. So hear goes.

As several others have reported and as I have previously reported, I have been having considerable trouble in the last few weeks with searches that get no results when there clearly are results. I’ve actually had more trouble in this regard with Old Search than with New Search. However, the results have not been repeatable, and often simply repeating a search with no changes will produce the desired results. Lack of repeatability is clearly frustrating.

Now I have a repeatable problem with New Search that doesn’t happen with Old Search. I’m looking for the Tennessee Marriage record for Daniel Taylor Harrison and Rebecca Ann Bryan.

With New Search, I set the search up as Dan* Harrison married to Bryan. There were no matches. Changing the search to Dan Harrison married to Bryan also produced no matches. Changing the search to Dan Harrison married to Rebecca worked. The results are for Dan T Harrison and Rebecca Ann Bryan.

With Old Search, looking for Dan* Harrison married to last name of Bryan worked just fine.

This problem seems to me to be a “first/last name” problem with New Search rather than the more frequent “no matches when clearly there are” problem that has been reported.

Back on the “collections” idea for a moment – I suppose there’s no real harm in the idea of collections, and considerable good that could come of them if they work. But I think it’s a misplaced effort and priority.

The fundamental problem with ancestry’s search is that far too high a percentage of the time there are things that match when they shouldn’t and that don’t match when they should. That problem can never be solved completely because of the nature of the data being searched, but the matching process could and should be a lot better.

Simply prioritizing poor matches therefore seems to me to be an unwise allocation of resources. Rather, it seems to me that search resources should be allocated primarily (or almost exclusively) for a while to improving the matching process. And the matching process involves lots of stuff – including the quality of the indexes, the quality of the search interface, and the quality of the search engine.

By: Lindy Lindy Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:52:10 +0000 This last week or so when I do a search I keep getting “no results” when there clearly are. for example if I click on 35 records for 1851 Census I get the no results page. If I keep going back and trying again eventually I get the results to show up but this is happening nearly all the time now. What is going on?

I agree with other complains about the search, especially Newspapers. If I search for a name and a state I don’t expect to find every other state showing with hundreds of results. Adding a date to limit the results has no effect either.

Occasionally I get a result I want but it feels like it is in spite of not because of the search engine.

I don’t want to search through hundreds of random results looking for one that meets my search criteria buried amongst them.

If I can’t find anything in the state I want I might try widening the search but I want to be able to choose to do that not have it forced on me.

By: 网站建设 网站建设 Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:30:57 +0000 怎么都是英文,怎么不写点中文的东西呢