Comments on: How many billions of records are on The official blog of Ancestry Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:10:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: lisa lisa Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:14:16 +0000 I have just recently started to look for my family. I am having a lot of fun, but there is something that bothers me greatly. I wanted to join and be a member at ancestry, and to my amazement, I have to pay a whole year at one time. I feel this is more than most people can do and it upsets me. I am tired of the only people that are getting information, here, and everywhere, are the people that have money. That is unfair and gives this web site a black mark as far as I’m concerned. I would pay from month to month, but the whole shebang it way too much for me at one time. Tragic too, as the information that I have in my tree is correct, but unsourced, and it could help others but it’s not very tempting to most as it is stated unsourced, yet it is correct.
That is my opinion, for what it worth.

By: Blog - » How many billions of records are on Ancestry … Blog - » How many billions of records are on Ancestry … Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:31:19 +0000 [...] View original post here: Blog – » How many billions of records are on Ancestry … [...]

By: Jeff Jahn Jeff Jahn Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:39:52 +0000 The problem I see is that you so interested in adding field to info that mistakes are made and not way to get corrections done. A example is the 1925 Iowa Census for Sherman Township, Sioux County. The census images are all messed up some are missing, some are duplicated so index sends you to wrong pages and such. Very disappointing when you cant find info.

By: Shirley Herring Shirley Herring Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:11:14 +0000 I can not find the tab to invite people to my tree since the new update

By: Jesse Taylor Jesse Taylor Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:01:01 +0000 I meant that I am a relatively new subscriber to I uploaded a tree from a Gedcom quite some time ago and promptly got too busy to do more work on my ancestry. Recently I got back into it and now am a paid subscriber.

By: BobNY BobNY Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:40:45 +0000 No, Jesse that is not what she is asking for!!!

When you say that you are “relatively new here,” are you an ancestry employee new to the company or a subscriber new to the blog?
Yes, it does say that “1810 United States Federal Census” is among new records at; however, this data set has been there for a long time. Was it not complete and new records were added? Were the transcriptions changed? Did the search algorithm change? We don’t know, and as Diane said, without that information, do we have to re-search databases we have been through before.

The one that really gets me was the “update” of the 1900 census. In doing this update, ancestry has managed to lose all of the ED descriptions for major cities. Updated for searchers — now totally useless for browsers. Just one example of how ancestry “improves” the utility of their site.

By: Diane Diane Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:34:40 +0000 Thanks Jesse but I am afraid not. Many of those databases have been there for years. But in the last week, those I listed were “updated”. That means that did something to the existing old databases. Maybe there were 2,000 yearbooks previously — now maybe there are 2500 or maybe 2,001 or maybe no new ones and Ancestry just changed something. We have no way of knowing.

For those of us who have been long time users, we searched those databases many times. If Ancestry would state: on x/x/x we added 10 new year books for the following cities (or states even), we would know that we should or shouldn’t re-visit the database for all ancestors in that state. The ultimate would be that they tell us: Added Iowa/Des Moines/Lincoln HS 1905, 1908. Same with the England/Wales BMDs — were new years added? new counties???

That’s what we are looking for –specifity when existing databases are marked “updated”.

By: Jesse Taylor Jesse Taylor Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:06:20 +0000 Diane,
I am relatively new here but I am not sure what you mean. On the Ancestry home page, bottom left, I see a panel that says:

New records on
Annual report of the Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1863-1865
French Deaths by Guillotine, 1792-1796 (in French)
England & Wales, Marriage Index: 1916-2005
England & Wales, FreeBMD Marriage Index: 1837-1915
England & Wales, FreeBMD Death Index: 1837-1915
Report of the Adjutant & Inspector General of the State of Vermont, 1863-1866
1810 United States Federal Census
U.S. School Yearbooks
View all new records

Isn’t that what you are asking for?

By: Diane Diane Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:41:22 +0000 For the umpteenth time, when an existing database is “updated”, customers deserve to know what was updated. We realize the SSDI and Obituaries are updated regularly for recent updates.

However — in the last week, the following databases have been “updated”:
-Eng/Wales FreeBMD Marriage Index
-Eng/Wales FreeBMD Death Index
-US Yearbooks
-1810 US Census

Every other genealogy site that adds new records also itemizes the additions or explains the revisions. Why can’t

How is updating an existing source helpful when customers have no idea what was added? Do you really expect us to search previously searched resources for each ancestor “in case” you added something relevant? And in most cases, you probably didn’t add new records; more likely, the “updates” were indexing corrections, etc. Yet you tout “updates” as if you are adding new records.

In the last year or two, I feel as if every search I do is sending a probe into outer space with little hope of return. You have the details of what you update — why can’t these be shared?

By: Peggy Bibby Peggy Bibby Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:02:29 +0000 i think anything that is stored in files is a record. I just can’t enough of they to help me.