Comments on: The Card Catalog: What’s in it for me? http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-card-catalog-what%25e2%2580%2599s-in-it-for-me The official blog of Ancestry.com Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:13:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Stevehttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-41069 Steve Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:20:35 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-41069 Anne #25 – “Just because it’s documented doesn’t mean everyone uses it, even on sites like google, or even a majority of users do.

“”Just because ancestry does not include this does not mean folks are unaware of it”"

“That said, it is on the list of items to look at and try and find a solution for. But as I previously stated, it’s not our highest priority at this time.”

“”I have found that people do not use Boolean operators simply because they are unaware that they exist.

I am a hero at work because I can find pertinent data very quickly by using same. They think I am some kind of a whiz and it is something so simple.

I honestly cannot believe you said this as you are supposedly “all about search”. Why are you trying to re-invent a system that has a proven track record?

Essentially what you are stating is that instead of using a system that has been proven, we have to use ancestry’s system that of late does not have a very good track record.

Would it not be better for your customers to include Boolean searches and explain how to use them rather than clogging our screens with useless search results.

Not a priority……and you are on the “search team”?…..scary indeed.

All being said, I already know the answer..you are in this for profit and need to plug all of your databases whether they pertain to our research or not.

As I have said in the past, I certainly understand this concept; however, since I am a “paying customer”, I DO NOT NEED IT!!!”"

]]>
By: Del Williamshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-41036 Del Williams Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:31:41 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-41036 As far as the Card Catalog is concerned, I’ll stick to my Old Search options and the State pages rather than wade through the garbage in those searches. Until Ancestry comes up with something that everybody can use without having to somersault twice and spin backwards on their heads while counting their fingers, I’m not even going to try using the Card Catalog again. ‘nuf said.

]]>
By: Del Williamshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-41035 Del Williams Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:27:53 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-41035 Fran,
The person you found could be the same person, the full name could be “Frances Elizabeth”, of which both “Fanny” and “Lizzie” could apply. People weren’t necessarily always listed by the same name in every census if the informant was giving different versions of the same name. You may need to look at other census years or other records to see if perhaps the person you are looking for was in fact named “Frances Elizabeth” or “Elizabeth Frances” or something similar.

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-41010 Andy Hatchett Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:39:26 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-41010 Jerry – Re: #34

Bravo!!

A big part of the problem is that Ancestry tends to apply their own “daffynitions” to things (card catalog, record, etc.) and then expects the world to follow their lead.

]]>
By: Jerry Bryanhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-41006 Jerry Bryan Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:45:01 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-41006 I’ve largely tried to stay out of this particular debate. I did post once to the effect that ancestry’s Card Catalog works quite well for me. And it does. That’s because I only use the Title part of the service. The keyword search part of the service and the filtering part of the service might as well not be there for all the good they do. But even though the Card Catalog works well for me, I wanted to respond to the following quote from Anne’s #21.

“… the purpose here is to find data collections, not to emulate a library catalog search.” My comment is that the purpose should be to emulate a library catalog search. If that’s not the purpose, then the service should be called something else other than Card Catalog.

The names of things are important, and the name “Card Catalog” establishes certain expectations. Most everybody knows what a card catalog is (even if most card catalogs are electronic these days). Card catalogs, whether they are electronic or even if they are still the old fashioned cards, have proper keywords associated with each item in the collection. And electronic library card catalogs universally support very powerful keyword searching. This is not rocket science. Even teeny, tiny little rural libraries have such things.

So I think ancestry should either fix the keyword and filtering part of the service to emulate a library catalog search, or else should withdraw the keyword and filtering part of the service because they don’t work anyway, and to give the service a new name that doesn’t set “Card Catalog” types of expectations.

Finally, if the Card Catalog service is to be valuable to users, it needs to be much more visible. Despite all the clutter that most of the ancestry pages have that make things hard to find, a link to the Card Catalog should be visible on most every page. I’ve made a quick link to it for my own use, but even doing that doesn’t make the Card Catalog visible to me. Since the quick link facility was “improved” recently, you can no longer see your quick links. All you can see is a link to your quick links. Grrr.

]]>
By: Franhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-40993 Fran Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:09:43 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-40993 I tried to email you but could not get the email given to work.

I was searching for family members on Ancestry and discovered one in the 1885 Nebraska Census. The record was a printed index record and there was no original. I was able to find as individuals two children and the two parents named Cunningham, all living in Milford Seward County Nebraska. The page of the records is the same. Anyway, there was a third child, living at the time of the census. I found a Lizzie Cunningham (family name) of the correct age, but the place of birth is wrong. She is on the same page as the rest of the Cunningham’s. her name was Frances, but was called Fanny. I know that Lizzie is far from Fanny, but my great grandmothers last name Cleary became Clackey in one census, due to some loops from the line above getting into it. Since Fs could look like Ls one could imagine how it could happen. However, I would need to look at the original document to see if it is possible. The problem is there are no copies of the original documents in Ancestry. Could you tell me how I might get a copy of the original.

]]>
By: Franhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-40992 Fran Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:04:51 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-40992 I tried to email the following to you but it did not work. Here is my email.

was searching for family members on Ancestry and discovered one in the 1885 Nebraska Census. The record was a printed index record and there was no original. I was able to find as individuals two children and the two parents named Cunningham, all living in Milford Seward County Nebraska. The page of the records is the same. Anyway, there was a third child, living at the time of the census. I found a Lizzie Cunningham (family name) of the correct age, but the place of birth is wrong. She is on the same page as the rest of the Cunningham’s. her name was Frances, but was called Fanny. I know that Lizzie is far from Fanny, but my great grandmothers last name Cleary became Clackey in one census, due to some loops from the line above getting into it. Since Fs could look like Ls one could imagine how it could happen. However, I would need to look at the original document to see if it is possible. The problem is there are no copies of the original documents in Ancestry. Could you tell me how I might get a copy of the original.

I also saw several other Cunningham’s that are living in the same place. While it is certainly possible that there are two families, Milford today is a town of about 2000 and growing, but I strongly suspect that it was much smaller in the 1880s. Probably several hundred. Thus It would seem that all the Cunningham’s might be in the same household. The original document could be helpful in deciding it.

Thank you for any assistance

]]>
By: Tony Cousinshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-40989 Tony Cousins Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:14:06 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-40989 Andy – re your #27

Maybe Ancestry could try a different approach and start a new web site……

namegatherers.com is available ;)

TonyC

]]>
By: Laura Smithhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-40983 Laura Smith Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:31:34 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-40983 I wish the filter process was more stream lined like FAMILYSEARCH.ORG.
How quick easy and useful filter they have! Go to school on them!

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/09/11/the-card-catalog-what%e2%80%99s-in-it-for-me/#comment-40966 Andy Hatchett Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:19:41 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2063#comment-40966 Anne-

Could you please direct me to a public site on Ancestry where my post would be on topic *and* likely responded to by Ancestry staff?

The trees thing was but one example of the Corporate attitude that I, and others, feel is at the root of many of Ancestry’s problems and it seems Ancestry is completely unwilling to talk about their Corporate culture at all.

Be that as it may there are problems- big problems- with search being mentioned on several boards and yet none of those posts are being responded to by Ancestry Staff.

]]>