Comments on: “What you want, Ancestry.com’s got it” – Part 1 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=%25e2%2580%259cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%25e2%2580%2599s-got-it%25e2%2580%259d-%25e2%2580%2593-part-1 The official blog of Ancestry.com Wed, 22 May 2013 16:27:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Bette http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42942 Bette Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:43:54 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42942 I think some of today's genealogy is the lack of doing ones own research, it seems to be in a copy-cat mode! I blame this, in part, on the Ad's that Ancestry is running in the media. They give the impression that all a person has to do is submit their family name and all their ancestors pop up, just copy it to their Family Tree! Not so ~ Example; one census record has a two year old child in the household of an elderly man and the man's sister. Despite the fact that their last names are not even the same, the child is listed as the man's son. (we know this should have been a red flag) This relationship was entered in a Family Tree. Their source is entered as the "census record." And, it looks like it was copied to other Family Trees. How far will this mistake go? Just a little research shows the child's rightful parents and siblings are listed on the adjacent page of this census record. My effort to alert the Tree owner of the mistake has, so far, been ignored. And, yes, I did leave a comment for the census record. It really saddens me to see the direction genealogy has taken!! I think some of today’s genealogy is the lack of doing ones own research, it seems to be in a copy-cat mode! I blame this, in part, on the Ad’s that Ancestry is running in the media. They give the impression that all a person has to do is submit their family name and all their ancestors pop up, just copy it to their Family Tree! Not so ~ Example; one census record has a two year old child in the household of an elderly man and the man’s sister. Despite the fact that their last names are not even the same, the child is listed as the man’s son. (we know this should have been a red flag) This relationship was entered in a Family Tree. Their source is entered as the “census record.” And, it looks like it was copied to other Family Trees. How far will this mistake go? Just a little research shows the child’s rightful parents and siblings are listed on the adjacent page of this census record. My effort to alert the Tree owner of the mistake has, so far, been ignored. And, yes, I did leave a comment for the census record. It really saddens me to see the direction genealogy has taken!!

]]> By: BobNY http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42941 BobNY Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:29:52 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42941 Since this blog has been here for 14 days, it will automatically close to new comments at the end of the day -- WITHOUT THE NEW PRODUCT MANAGER FOR U.S. CONTENT MAKING A SINGLE COMMENT -- in a blog entry ironically titled "What you Want, Ancestry.com's got it." What we want, Mr. Home, is some honest communication from the people who are responsible for the content that is here. You have joined the long list of ancestry staff who use the blog as a puff piece of PR and when the comments come back, ignore them all. Since this blog has been here for 14 days, it will automatically close to new comments at the end of the day — WITHOUT THE NEW PRODUCT MANAGER FOR U.S. CONTENT MAKING A SINGLE COMMENT — in a blog entry ironically titled “What you Want, Ancestry.com’s got it.”

What we want, Mr. Home, is some honest communication from the people who are responsible for the content that is here.

You have joined the long list of ancestry staff who use the blog as a puff piece of PR and when the comments come back, ignore them all.

]]> By: Andy Hatchett http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42924 Andy Hatchett Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:58:48 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42924 Jan Re: # 49 Ancestry can't even give us search results that are sortable by column so I find it highly unlikely that you will ever see such a CPU/server intensive feature as you are describing. Jan Re: # 49

Ancestry can’t even give us search results that are sortable by column so I find it highly unlikely that you will ever see such a CPU/server intensive feature as you are describing.

]]> By: Jan O'Leary http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42919 Jan O'Leary Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:42:34 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42919 A appreciate all of the additional sources and the improvements to existing sources that are planned and that have been implemented. That having been said, I'd like to point out that there could be an expansion of the functionality within individual databases that could be very useful. For example, I think it would be very helpful if there were a way to search for all individuals within my family tree who lived in a specific geographic location. Likewise, being able to look at all individuals who lived during a certain timeframe would sometimes be helpful--and being able to combine the two--to see which people, whether directly related or not, lived in a certain place during a certain time period would be awesome. Any plans for something like that? A appreciate all of the additional sources and the improvements to existing sources that are planned and that have been implemented. That having been said, I’d like to point out that there could be an expansion of the functionality within individual databases that could be very useful. For example, I think it would be very helpful if there were a way to search for all individuals within my family tree who lived in a specific geographic location. Likewise, being able to look at all individuals who lived during a certain timeframe would sometimes be helpful–and being able to combine the two–to see which people, whether directly related or not, lived in a certain place during a certain time period would be awesome. Any plans for something like that?

]]> By: Andy Hatchett http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42915 Andy Hatchett Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:46:45 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42915 Mary Beth Re: # 46 Mar Re: # 47 Added content depends on what Ancestry has access to - and that access is, from what I understand, drying up pretty quickly as more and more states become less and less willing to grant access to their records. The same is true for Footnote and Familysearch; although Familysearch has a *huge* amount that it can produce over time. What would be interesting is for Ancestry to publish a list of ALL the content that they already have under their wing that has not yet been processed for online display. That said, I think we must all realize that most genealogical records are now, and will forever remain, in local archives and will never been seen on the net. At least that way we could see what's down the road. I do wish that Ancestry would drop that stupid phrase "census substitute" from their vocabulary. The things that they are claiming as census substitutes simply aren't! Most don't show dates and places of births and family relationships which is, of course, the meat of almost any census you can name. My report card for Ancestry for 2009: C-. Although they recently have shown signs of significant improvement, there is still a vast gap in the expectations they generate in their advertising and the actual results they deliver. Let us hope 2010 is much better. Mary Beth Re: # 46
Mar Re: # 47

Added content depends on what Ancestry has access to – and that access is, from what I understand, drying up pretty quickly as more and more states become less and less willing to grant access to their records. The same is true for Footnote and Familysearch; although Familysearch has a *huge* amount that it can produce over time.

What would be interesting is for Ancestry to publish a list of ALL the content that they already have under their wing that has not yet been processed for online display.

That said, I think we must all realize that most genealogical records are now, and will forever remain, in local archives and will never been seen on the net.

At least that way we could see what’s down the road.

I do wish that Ancestry would drop that stupid phrase “census substitute” from their vocabulary. The things that they are claiming as census substitutes simply aren’t!

Most don’t show dates and places of births and family relationships which is, of course, the meat of almost any census you can name.

My report card for Ancestry for 2009:
C-.

Although they recently have shown signs of significant improvement, there is still a vast gap in the expectations they generate in their advertising and the actual results they deliver.

Let us hope 2010 is much better.

]]> By: mar http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42913 mar Sat, 26 Dec 2009 00:40:55 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42913 Welcome to Eric! Now, I hope Eric gets busy making US databases a huge priority for ancestry. I have a subscription to ancestry for one primary reason: primary source research. I need southern United States Records (actual images: death, marriage). It would be nice to see pre 1850 records too! Most of my ancestors arrived on these shores in the 1600 and early 1700's. I hope ancestry will keep the focus on research and forget about trees, and all this other junk. Welcome to Eric! Now, I hope Eric gets busy making US databases a huge priority for ancestry. I have a subscription to ancestry for one primary reason: primary source research. I need southern United States Records (actual images: death, marriage). It would be nice to see pre 1850 records too! Most of my ancestors arrived on these shores in the 1600 and early 1700′s. I hope ancestry will keep the focus on research and forget about trees, and all this other junk.

]]> By: Mary Beth Marchant http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42911 Mary Beth Marchant Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:33:33 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42911 So, Mr. Horne, I still do not see any new US Content. Your job must be easy since rarely does any new US content show up. Oh yes, I see so-called updates to US content-don't know what was updated though since Ancestry never reveals that. Maybe a misplaced comma somewhere? All I see is the never ending mostly German language OLD BOOKS" with a little French and Italian thrown in for good measure. Could we perhaps have some new US content this year including state census records, all the existing Mortality census records and the Agricultural records that are completely lacking from Ancestry. Watch out-Footnote and Familysearch records are gaining on ya! Familysearch has most of the US census images now-soon no one will need Ancestry for census records. So, Mr. Horne, I still do not see any new US Content. Your job must be easy since rarely does any new US content show up. Oh yes, I see so-called updates to US content-don’t know what was updated though since Ancestry never reveals that. Maybe a misplaced comma somewhere? All I see is the never ending mostly German language OLD BOOKS” with a little French and Italian thrown in for good measure. Could we perhaps have some new US content this year including state census records, all the existing Mortality census records and the Agricultural records that are completely lacking from Ancestry. Watch out-Footnote and Familysearch records are gaining on ya! Familysearch has most of the US census images now-soon no one will need Ancestry for census records.

]]> By: John Atkins http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42906 John Atkins Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:43:13 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42906 #23 Andrea Nelson - I DID work for the Census Bureau last spring. We were mapping "Living Units" and updating roads and road names with a specialized GPS. I worked a rural area in NE Alabama, and it was VERY interesting. I met only two or three semi hostile people, but we didn't have to speak to people - just get close to the house and capture the coordinates. I did work a Hispanic area of about 450 LUs, and many people did not speak English. However, a local Pastor gave me his business card in case I really needed some help. The kids also helped me communicate with the adults. It was physically demanding for an older person, but enjoyable. I made a point of stopping by the town halls to let them know I was in the area. I also often wore an orange vest ( to show I wasn't "skulking" about the neighborhood.) A smile and friendly attitude went a long way. Finally - The Census Bureau just might have a job you could do. #23 Andrea Nelson – I DID work for the Census Bureau last spring. We were mapping “Living Units” and updating roads and road names with a specialized GPS. I worked a rural area in NE Alabama, and it was VERY interesting. I met only two or three semi hostile people, but we didn’t have to speak to people – just get close to the house and capture the coordinates.

I did work a Hispanic area of about 450 LUs, and many people did not speak English. However, a local Pastor gave me his business card in case I really needed some help. The kids also helped me communicate with the adults.

It was physically demanding for an older person, but enjoyable. I made a point of stopping by the town halls to let them know I was in the area. I also often wore an orange vest ( to show I wasn’t “skulking” about the neighborhood.)

A smile and friendly attitude went a long way.

Finally – The Census Bureau just might have a job you could do.

]]> By: Donna http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42891 Donna Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:34:59 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42891 I agree with the comment that I would much rather have more birth, marriage and death records from states than a lot of stuff from foreign countries. Also I wish I could find a way to show parents of a child, when they were not married. I've got several of those in my family tree, but when I try to enter them by putting in the child of one parent and then add the other parent, it automatically lists the mom as having the dad's last name... NOT APPROPRIATE in some cases. I agree with the comment that I would much rather have more birth, marriage and death records from states than a lot of stuff from foreign countries.

Also I wish I could find a way to show parents of a child, when they were not married. I’ve got several of those in my family tree, but when I try to enter them by putting in the child of one parent and then add the other parent, it automatically lists the mom as having the dad’s last name… NOT APPROPRIATE in some cases.

]]> By: Paul Smith http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2009/12/14/%e2%80%9cwhat-you-want-ancestry-com%e2%80%99s-got-it%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-part-1/#comment-42887 Paul Smith Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:19:57 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=2604#comment-42887 The images are now more difficult to read in most cases. Bad move. The images are now more difficult to read in most cases. Bad move.

]]>