The search pages referred to have reverted back to the previous version. Thank you.

More on the subjects you all have been discussing, I too would like to be able to exclude records. I have a last name of “Baptist” to research. Imagine the thousands of records I get for every Baptist church or minister in the world. I hate getting thousands of telephone listings for people living before the telephone was invented. I dislike having to start over again when I find a record and save it to my family tree and then start searching again I might have found the record way down the line at 10,001 or something like that and have to page through all the records again to get to it. I find that the less info given the more likely I am to get hits for my tree but it is a paining searching through so many. In most cases, I too would like to be able to restrict the search to just Canada (or even Ontario, Canada) or just Ohio or just Washington State (this gives me a whole bunch of Washington cities usually on the east coast).

Ancestry has issues and I trust they are doing their best to please everyone, however bottom line is fix what is wrong; stop putting bandids on the problem; stop adding bells and whistles at the expense of time that could and should be devoted to records, enhancing records, adding records for the small counties in the southern states..some are being tossed..The record search is a hit or miss and I haven’t found any of the upgrades to be any better.

As for putting any information in an online tree, no way. Not even to make it private. To me private is private and in no way should anyone be able to access it or see any Living information, but glitches do and have happened. Otherwise, my Living family would never have shown up on someone else’s tree. Ancestry can not control everything with a 100% certainty.

Yes, a filter that could focus on only one state, when that particular state has been entered, i.e New York.

The yearbooks are, in my personal opinion, the second greatest waste of Ancestry’s resources ever seen (the first being the creation and maintaining of that ungodly OneWorldTree).

Aren’t Parish Records usually Church of England records? The CoE is, and always has been a government entity; at least that is what I’ve been told.

These were filters that were useful.

Finally, in order to make a change, the edit input box (now at the bottom of that screen instead of on the left side of the results) now has a very limited selection of inputs.

Apparently you’ve simplified the historical records search inputs from the PROFILE page to the same inputs as on the HOME page. It contains only the basic data choices on the HOME page. Selecting the Advanced search choice requires you to input even the names again (from a new web page). This is just like the Advanced click from the HOME page. So – this was easier for your programmers, but bad for the CUSTOMERS.

THIS IS A GIANT STEP BACKWARD. WHAT WILL YOU DO?

Since last week I’ve become EXTREMELY dissatisfied.

Fellow customers: This was written in haste and irritation. I hope I wrote reasonably clearly.

“The category “Historical Records” should only contain those items which are the official records of, and produced/published by, a government entity.”

So where would you put Parish Records then? (Baptisms, Marriages, Burials) They are not Stories and Publications, Family Trees or Photos and Maps.

The only issue that comes to mind is the specification of Washington County, Ohio in New Search. Sometimes when I type a place name into New Search, it fails to match even though it seems that I have typed the place name correctly. New Search seems to work better if instead of typing the whole place name myself, I choose the place name from the drop down list. In this case, type enough of the name so that you can see Washington County, Ohio, USA in the drop down list and select it. If that doesn’t work, then I’m not sure what else to try.

The drop down lists for place names are one of the least endearing features of New Search, by the way. They seem to work a lot better now than when New Search was first released. But they still sometimes seem to cause problems.