Comments on: Thanks to everyone who joined us for the search webinar http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar The official blog of Ancestry.com Sat, 18 May 2013 15:09:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Larry Van Wormer http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41786 Larry Van Wormer Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:25 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41786 Just wanted to say, the more flexible use of wild cards in the search fields is greatly appreciated. I find searching much better now! (Don't actually know when the improved version was put in place, I only found it a few days ago...) Just wanted to say, the more flexible use of wild cards in the search fields is greatly appreciated. I find searching much better now! (Don’t actually know when the improved version was put in place, I only found it a few days ago…)

]]> By: Malcolm Northrup http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41661 Malcolm Northrup Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:28:45 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41661 Let me re-ask a question I asked two days ago directly to CS. When will you do something about Phantom Leafs (or Leaves)in FTM 2010??? Starting with 2010 I have useless Trees (meaning they are duplicates or unsourced)that show up in a majority of individuals although sometimes I do get great historical recorde as well. After I click on the Leaves and merge them or mark them as ignore there are still Leaves on my people. Often there are supposed to be 8 hints and only say 3 show up in the search screen. I go back, the leaf is still there but when I click and return to search --nothing. CS suggested I change the name, which I did and sure enough the leaf disappears. But when I restore the correct name---Theeyy'rre Baack! Considering the Tree is 3000 individuals I need a fix as well as a method to get out of Finding Trees Automagically. Right now Search is useless to me!!!! Let me re-ask a question I asked two days ago directly to CS. When will you do something about Phantom Leafs (or Leaves)in FTM 2010???

Starting with 2010 I have useless Trees (meaning they are duplicates or unsourced)that show up in a majority of individuals although sometimes I do get great historical recorde as well. After I click on the Leaves and merge them or mark them as ignore there are still Leaves on my people. Often there are supposed to be 8 hints and only say 3 show up in the search screen. I go back, the leaf is still there but when I click and return to search –nothing. CS suggested I change the name, which I did and sure enough the leaf disappears. But when I restore the correct name—Theeyy’rre Baack!

Considering the Tree is 3000 individuals I need a fix as well as a method to get out of Finding Trees Automagically. Right now Search is useless to me!!!!

]]> By: Mary http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41640 Mary Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:33:56 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41640 What happened to searching? This new change is not helpful. Where is the great content box with family members, dates? That small little box doesn't do it! The type is too light and small. Why are you forcing us to relearn something that's not helpful? Looks like you just went backwards in service. What happened to searching? This new change is not helpful. Where is the great content box with family members, dates? That small little box doesn’t do it! The type is too light and small. Why are you forcing us to relearn something that’s not helpful? Looks like you just went backwards in service.

]]> By: Rhonda http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41595 Rhonda Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:06:15 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41595 After viewing this webinar, I tried the NEW search and was able to find more records with the OLD search than with the new search. The NEW search provides too many records when searching for common names and includes areas that I am not looking for. When I say exactit does not show the records that I find in the OLD search. It would be nice though if when searching from an individual using the old search if one had the ability to drill down to specific collections like the NEW search. On another topic, it would be great if one were able to search the Shoebox especially if you have a large amount of data saved to the Shoebox (more than 10 pages). After viewing this webinar, I tried the NEW search and was able to find more records with the OLD search than with the new search. The NEW search provides too many records when searching for common names and includes areas that I am not looking for. When I say exactit does not show the records that I find in the OLD search.

It would be nice though if when searching from an individual using the old search if one had the ability to drill down to specific collections like the NEW search.

On another topic, it would be great if one were able to search the Shoebox especially if you have a large amount of data saved to the Shoebox (more than 10 pages).

]]> By: Sherry http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41591 Sherry Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:10:12 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41591 Would someone kindly answer the question - (Steve #4) Would someone kindly answer the question – (Steve #4)

]]> By: Bettie Wheat http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41577 Bettie Wheat Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:10:13 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41577 The 1870 census of Clay co. Ill. page 59 family 63 Furgeson, John E. Was left out of the index. How do you change this. Also since I can't find some of the people in census records. I wonder how many more are left out. Bettie Wheat. The 1870 census of Clay co. Ill. page 59 family 63 Furgeson, John E. Was left out of the index. How do you change this. Also since I can’t find some of the people in census records. I wonder how many more are left out. Bettie Wheat.

]]> By: Tony Macklin http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41576 Tony Macklin Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:57:50 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41576 Hi Bill #1 The slides for the webinar are now available <a href="http://c.ancestry.com/Affiliate/Knowledgebase/Webinar/images/ancestrycom_search_webinar_20091014.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> regards Tony Hi Bill #1

The slides for the webinar are now available here

regards

Tony

]]> By: Sharon Tabor http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41565 Sharon Tabor Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:37:44 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41565 I am SO glad to see others who find the New Search functions undaunting and less user friendly than the New Search. I'm not sure Ancestry has changed for the better. I find the New Ancestry extremely frustrating. If I try to use a range of birth years (ex. 1892 = or - 3 years) and 1889 shows no results, than why can't the other years be displayed? The old search engine didn't care - it would show all results within the specified time range, even if there was not a hit for a specific year. I spend more time online with fewer results than the Old Search function. It appears that the team assigned to this part of Ancestry aren't researchers and don't have any idea of what is needed. I have cancelled my subscription (again) due to the frustrations resulting from waste of time I find using this site. I am SO glad to see others who find the New Search functions undaunting and less user friendly than the New Search. I’m not sure Ancestry has changed for the better. I find the New Ancestry extremely frustrating.

If I try to use a range of birth years (ex. 1892 = or – 3 years) and 1889 shows no results, than why can’t the other years be displayed? The old search engine didn’t care – it would show all results within the specified time range, even if there was not a hit for a specific year.

I spend more time online with fewer results than the Old Search function.

It appears that the team assigned to this part of Ancestry aren’t researchers and don’t have any idea of what is needed.

I have cancelled my subscription (again) due to the frustrations resulting from waste of time I find using this site.

]]> By: Teresa http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41564 Teresa Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:46:57 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41564 I would be interested in Searching for records in the South and/or Searching for Civil War records. My county courthouse burned twice, during the critical years I'm searching of course. And there are hundreds of George Webbs during this time period. I don't even know if he fought for the CSA or the Union since east Tennessee was split in their loyalties. I would be interested in Searching for records in the South and/or Searching for Civil War records.
My county courthouse burned twice, during the critical years I’m searching of course. And there are hundreds of George Webbs during this time period. I don’t even know if he fought for the CSA or the Union since east Tennessee was split in their loyalties.

]]> By: BEE http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/10/16/thanks-to-everyone-who-joined-us-for-the-search-webinar/#comment-41562 BEE Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:49:48 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2267#comment-41562 I watched the webinar and even tried - or should I say "tried" to try "New Search" again.....all I can say is, I'm so glad I've had the "old search" from the time I started my trees to the present, and found so many documents. For me, it's MUCH easier and far less complicated then "New Search". I watched the webinar and even tried – or should I say “tried” to try “New Search” again…..all I can say is, I’m so glad I’ve had the “old search” from the time I started my trees to the present, and found so many documents. For me, it’s MUCH easier and far less complicated then “New Search”.

]]>