Comments on: Reminder about tonight’s webinar on Search Strategies http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies The official blog of Ancestry Tue, 21 Apr 2015 05:37:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Barbarahttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41568 Barbara Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:31:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41568 Type your comment here.

]]>
By: Mary Beth Marchanthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41560 Mary Beth Marchant Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:48:30 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41560 To Sherry-#31-and others. Even though I do not research Michigan, I am glad to hear that their vital records are available through the Library of Michigan. I wish other states would follow those examples. It would make research so much easier for those of us who wish to find those vital records. Some other states records are available as well-such as Missouri. I am not aware of too many. Hopefully, others will point those out too.

]]>
By: Sherryhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41556 Sherry Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:33:28 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41556 Donna #1 – further to Mary Beth #2

The Library of Michigan has 99% of death images online from 1897-1920 (not covered by the LDS site that Mary Beth mentions)

http://www.seekingmichigan.org

HTH

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41555 Andy Hatchett Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:40:19 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41555 To the best of my knowledge there was no requirement to keep track of those leaving the country – only thohse entering it.

Outgoing passenger manifests were kept by the individual shipping companies but I know of none that are online.

]]>
By: Bob Hittingerhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41554 Bob Hittinger Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:04:58 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41554 I have been able to trace most of my relatives coming into the United States, but can’t find any info on passenger lists going out of the US.

Is there any sites out there that provide this info?

]]>
By: Barbhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41544 Barb Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:23:34 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41544 Thanks for the Webinar class. I have to agree with some of the people that thhose of us that have been using this site for over 5 years have learned by experience. Finding state information, because of privacy laws is difficult, especially if you are looking for current information. You almost have to go directly to the State depts. The Webinar was a good overview for me and I did find some helpful hints that I have not used. Thanks and look forward to maybe a “Searching for Advanced” people.

]]>
By: Pat Wilsonhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41541 Pat Wilson Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:54:36 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41541 I thought that the slides and conversation of the webinar would be posted, instead of having to view it all again. So I didn’t take much in the way of notes. It would be helpful if the main points were posted at least; if they have been, I can’t find them. I am at least computer-literate enough to slog my way thru the website trying out various combinations of things to find what I am looking for, but my 86 year old partner is not. This leads to a lot of frustration when they try to ‘try’ to find things using different methods and can’t get back to something they found earlier. Any way you could post the slides as part of the help or learning center????

]]>
By: Jadehttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41535 Jade Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:52:17 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41535 Roger, #25 and Dave #21, this problem is not limited to UK. Place-name specifity has many obstacles for searching in the US as well.

In addition to the Search Engine’s inability to distinguish between a State and another location by the same name, there are countless instances where the database indexes give wrong/nonexistent place names.

And retaining the gedcom-platform model fails to distinguish between, say, Mannington Magisterial District and Mannington, a village within the afsd. District.

These problems are compounded using New Fuzzy Search User Interface, when millions of purported search results are not helpfully sortable.

Only Anne Mitchell had the gumption, close to 2 years ago now, to ask about the significance of distinguishing between place names such as Beats, Magisterial Districts, Hundreds, and so forth.

Overall there have been many user comments on this general problem. And no perceptible Ancestry Solutions.

]]>
By: rogerhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41533 roger Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:16:23 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41533 Dave

#21. I have made your points about UK and Counties many times on the message boards and it has always been ignored by anyone at Ancestry.

It would seen that Ancestry aim the product mainly at the US market and don’t really care too much about the rest of the world. I could give lots of examples, but just look at the start time of the Webinar – peak time in the US – middle of the night in Europe.

The meaningless Place, Country, UK, appears to be used because it fits in with the Ancestry database design for the US. Consequently the rest of the world has been stuck with it.

It all seems to come from the fact that a County in the US is a sub-division of a State. Whoever initally set up the database failed to realise that the UK County is the equivilent of a US State and seems to think that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are will do instead.

When it comes to Ireland many of the databases fail to recognise the difference between Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and the Republic of Ireland (and independent Country). Dublin is not in the UK, as many searches would have it, rather it is in the ROI. While Belfast is in Northern Ireland and is part of the UK (but not of Great Britain).

Come on Ancestry, at least someone could ackowledge that this is a problem. It may not be easy to sort out the database now that it has been so heavily populated with data but the least you can do is accept that there is a problem to be looked at.

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/14/reminder-about-tonights-webinar-on-search-strategies/#comment-41531 Andy Hatchett Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:51:54 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2236#comment-41531 Carol Re: #22

LOL!

Thanks for the compliment , but no, no teacher here; just someone who believes that correct information should be presented in an as clear, concise, and detailed manner as possible with no spin or hype. This is, of course, anathema to most organizations and their spokespersons.

]]>