<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: State and Country Pages in Old Search</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=state-and-country-pages-in-old-search</link>
	<description>The official blog of Ancestry.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 04:38:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Hatchett</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42196</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Hatchett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:57:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42196</guid>
		<description>Ron Re:#7

I hope you have verified each link in that &quot;famous People&quot; thing. It is filled with errors and biological impossibilities. In Fact, it rivals OneWorldTree as a masterpiece of Junkology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron Re:#7</p>
<p>I hope you have verified each link in that &#8220;famous People&#8221; thing. It is filled with errors and biological impossibilities. In Fact, it rivals OneWorldTree as a masterpiece of Junkology.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ronn Sheriffs</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42191</link>
		<dc:creator>Ronn Sheriffs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42191</guid>
		<description>In the past I have been able to take the name of a relative back in 1700-1800 and find famous people related to them - now I can no loner find the site to do this - where is it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the past I have been able to take the name of a relative back in 1700-1800 and find famous people related to them &#8211; now I can no loner find the site to do this &#8211; where is it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42190</link>
		<dc:creator>Jo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42190</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Anne. The 1830 census is fixed now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Anne. The 1830 census is fixed now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Connie</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42186</link>
		<dc:creator>Connie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:02:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42186</guid>
		<description>Anne,

I have to take issue with your statement that old search is working correctly.  Yesterday afternoon, old search (exact) of the 1850 census was giving me no one with the surname Hancock in Illinois.  It finally seemed to correct itself later in the day, but is doing the same thing this morning.  I&#039;m not sure about other census years; I&#039;ve only tried 1850 this morning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anne,</p>
<p>I have to take issue with your statement that old search is working correctly.  Yesterday afternoon, old search (exact) of the 1850 census was giving me no one with the surname Hancock in Illinois.  It finally seemed to correct itself later in the day, but is doing the same thing this morning.  I&#8217;m not sure about other census years; I&#8217;ve only tried 1850 this morning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Beth Marchant</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42183</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Beth Marchant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42183</guid>
		<description>I just wonder why we the poor subscribers have to notify Ancestry about these problems.  Isnt&#039; anyone watching the store?  And when I say &quot;poor&quot; subscribers I am also referring to the amount of money we pay to get these reocrds that we then have to tell y&#039;all are messed up.  Maybe y&#039;all should practice &quot;Zero defects&quot; especially in light of becoming a publicly sold company.  This kind of thing could adversly affect the stock prices of the investors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just wonder why we the poor subscribers have to notify Ancestry about these problems.  Isnt&#8217; anyone watching the store?  And when I say &#8220;poor&#8221; subscribers I am also referring to the amount of money we pay to get these reocrds that we then have to tell y&#8217;all are messed up.  Maybe y&#8217;all should practice &#8220;Zero defects&#8221; especially in light of becoming a publicly sold company.  This kind of thing could adversly affect the stock prices of the investors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Livermore</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42182</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Livermore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42182</guid>
		<description>Anne,

Does anyone at Ancestry even monitor the board in question?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anne,</p>
<p>Does anyone at Ancestry even monitor the board in question?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anne Mitchell</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42180</link>
		<dc:creator>Anne Mitchell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42180</guid>
		<description>Jo, thank you for bringing that to our attention.  I missed that on the boards.

I have notified the team that takes care of that and they are working on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jo, thank you for bringing that to our attention.  I missed that on the boards.</p>
<p>I have notified the team that takes care of that and they are working on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jo</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/11/18/state-and-country-pages-in-old-search/#comment-42177</link>
		<dc:creator>Jo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2485#comment-42177</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sorry to post about a different problem here but is anyone at Ancestry aware of the 1830 census images not showing up at all? See this message board thread, http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry.ancusc/2804/mb.ashx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry to post about a different problem here but is anyone at Ancestry aware of the 1830 census images not showing up at all? See this message board thread, <a href="http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry.ancusc/2804/mb.ashx" rel="nofollow">http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.ancestry.ancusc/2804/mb.ashx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
