Comments on: Refine your searches in fewer steps in new search

By: Andy Hatchett

Andy Hatchett — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:11:14 +0000

Rhonda Re:#73

The easy way is to just ignore all those little wavy green things and ignore other member trees.

Do all research by searching actual records.

If you hit a brick wall, then- and in my opinion, only then – you might want to check on a few documented trees for hints.

Many won’t agree with me and have their own opinion; and they are entitled to that opinion… even if its wrong. *grin*

By: Rhonda Corbett

Rhonda Corbett — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:28:04 +0000

It took a bit to get the hang of the new search set, I am a new member and was just getting the hang of the old one, but once I did I liked being able to filter out everything but the 1 census year or what ever I was looking for.
I love Ancestry but I have 1 area where I am feeling overwhelmed……….the list of people with hints. Alot of these names aren’t in my direct line and at this point anyway I am not really interested in completing those records. It seems like it takes forever for me to locate members of my direct lines to clear their hints. Is there some way to just have direct line ancestors or a “hot list tag” (for lack of a better term) to make it easier and faster to get to the hints you want and need NOW. ?

By: Darlene Steffens

Darlene Steffens — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:55:55 +0000

Addition to #71 – I should have included in my previous comment the databases where I am experiencing the search result “[See User Comments]“. It will be found on all the US Census databases, the Social Security Death Index and the World War I Registration Draft Cards 1917-1918 to name a few.

By: Darlene Steffens

Darlene Steffens — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:37:32 +0000

Over the last few days I have been searching for families whose surname is SEELEY and spelled in a variety of ways. When I enter a search for last name SEE or SEE* thousands of records are found for “[See User Comment]“. This seems to be a new search response. Could it be the result of recent site enhancements? Is there a method to eliminate the “[See User Comment]” responses from the search criteria? I am using the Old Search tool. Thanks!

By: Andy Hatchett

Andy Hatchett — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:23:22 +0000

Emily Re:#69 & 69

I just went to thge California Death Index 1940-1997 and entered:

Last name: Hammond
Mother’s Maiden Name: Dean

and I got the over 50 hits- Charles Edwain Hammond was the first one.

I then repeated it with “Exact Matches Only” checked and got only two hits- Charles Edwain was first and a Marjorie Colvin Dean was second.

The above was all done in old search.

I went to new search and tried the same ting- in the first case I also got 50 hits- but Charles Edwain was not among them.

When I marked “match all terms exactly” I got 0 results

If I marked only last name :Hammond and Mother’s Maiden Name: dean
as exact I still got no results.

I will say this- until NewSearch can at least duplicate the same results as OldSearch it is not fit for prime time operation.

Once NewSearch can duplicate OldSearch results then we can- maybe- start talking about improving NewSearch’s results – but certainly not until then.

By: Emily

Emily — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:36:34 +0000

P.S. On a positive note, it was very nice to return to this blog and find my comment (#39) had been addressed. Usually if I bother to send a message to a company I never know if it was even read. Anne, I did notice when the census problem I mentioned was fixed. Thanks.

Emily

By: Emily

Emily — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:29:48 +0000

Referring to messages #39, 41, 45, and 46. (Jerry and Anne, thank you for the follow up messages!)

Today I found yet another problem of the same type (see #39) in searching the California Death Index.

If I search with these criteria:

First & Middle Name(s): Charles Edwin
Last Name: Hammond

this fellow is returned:

Name: Charles Edwin Hammond
Mother’s maiden name: Dean

But if I search the same database with these criteria:

Last Name: Hammond
Mother: Dean

zero results are returned.

So I continue to find this sort of problem ever since the “refine” update (and I’m not talking about obscure little databases). I have associated this with the “refine” update because of the timing I experienced, but perhaps that’s just coincidental. And frankly, I don’t care what the cause is. I just can’t help wondering how such seemingly obvious bugs go un-fixed, if not undetected. (Is it policy to rely on customers to do this sort of Q&A? I wouldn’t mind doing it if I were being paid, rather than paying!)

Emily

By: Patrick H O'Brien

Patrick H O'Brien — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:53:36 +0000

Specifying EXACT seems to have un-expected results. Merely specifying the last name to be exact will often exclude all previous results when the the previous result contained correctly spelled last names. Why is so restrictive?

Pat O’Brien

By: Patrick H O'Brien

Patrick H O'Brien — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:16:07 +0000

It would be very useful if you could specify categories to exclude when refining a search. Currently, I can only speciy a category to include (thereby excluding all other categories).

For instance, after I have found all relevent census records, I would like to exclude census records and include all other catregories.

This seems to be a very reasonable request and consistent with how one would normally look for things. After I have found my g-father’s WW-I draft registration. I DON’T NEED to plow through hundreds of other people’s draft cards before getting to the mext possible military entry.

Just change the scheme to specify exclusion rather than inclusion in the list of databases listed when editing the search.

Pat O’Brien

By: Charles Willford

Charles Willford — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:23:37 +0000

64 Jade,

I understand the Census data. That was not the issue.

Any way, the last update fixed the problem and now I can select an individual from the family and add it’s data without having to go back and change the search request.

It’s fixed.

Chuck