Comments on: Scheduled Site Maintenance for Tonight, Wednesday, February 17

By: David UK

David UK — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 07:40:06 +0000

I wonder how much longer before the General Search Index is updated. Can anyone guess?
It is now fourteen days since I removed a story from my tree and added two stories with different titles to the one removed. But today if I do a general search for this ancestors name, neither of the two 13 February stories are there. The search index gives me the story name that was removed on 13 February – and if I click on this then the result is the following apology

“Ancestry.com – The No. 1 Source for Family History Online

“Please excuse the inconvenience

“There was a problem servicing your request — the details have been automatically logged to our servers. Please click here to visit our online Knowledge Base and find up to date information about any possible website errors we may be experiencing.

“Check out our other great websites while you wait:

“MyFamily.com – connecting and strengthening families through the World Wide Web.
Rootsweb.com – the oldest and largest FREE Genealogy Site.”

By: Virginia Dunham

Virginia Dunham — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:51:03 +0000

With your original search (yes, I am referring to that Oldie but Goodie “Old Search)…after you entered your search perimeters, you were presented with ONE page of results, sorted by category, and then sorted by the records in each category. You did not need to have a wall mounted screen to see the results…you could select one record…search and with one click go back to the original search results.
IF you had spent the time and energy on the original search engine, we would probably have a well organized, user-friendly “machine” today.
BUT, if your original “game plan” was to add additional searching hours so people would have to continue their subscriptions, well then, congratulations, you have been successful.

By: Robin

Robin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:24:25 +0000

The comp glitched before I was finished – I did this on purpose to prove what a WORTHLESS search engine this is. That record should have been on the first page. I am FED UP

By: Robin

Robin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:22:08 +0000

This is to the people at Ancestry. You haven’t listened yet, so I will try one more time. I have a page for Merrill Turner. Have 5 census records, SS Death Index and Maine death Index all showing he spent his entire life in Maine. I attached his marriage record to wife. So assumably the search engine knew I was looking for a Maine marriage on a specific date with two specific people, whom I had spelled correctly. From Merrill’s page I did a search historical record assuming his Maine Marriage record would be on the first page. I gave up scrolling at record #1200 – I AM NOT LYING, I AM NOT KIDDING, I AM NOT EXAGGERATING.

By: Susan

Susan — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:54:36 +0000

#114 I agree with you and cat25129 and if the family trees are useless, hard to find (by name and quality) and filled with errors than how sad that we are all making family trees. Our trees are important, please make them easier to find by name. These changes do not seem for the better.

Also I thought I read that in the new merge option most of the pictures and stories would not be included?
I actually believe the stories and photos are some of the most original material. This is where I place new documents, that have never been online. Also I use the stories to explain problems.. I am confused why they put so much into the adding media tools if most of this won’t merge anyway. And now it seems like it is harder than ever to locate a tree by name, so most of the pictures and stories will never be seen. This could result in a lot of missed or incomplete information. Is this true that most of the stories and photos don’t merge?

By: Susan

Susan — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:10:30 +0000

#34 I am not sure why you were talking down to Johanna. I have had this problem for the last two days and I have never had this problem before. Let someone with an actual answer respond.

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:02:32 +0000

In reply to Jesse #41
It doesn’t matter how often or little we choose to use Ancestry. We have PAID for time to search. They have taken our money and take away our time to search. I have no problem with a 2 hour down time once every few months. I have lost approx 15 hours of time I would have been searching in the past 3 weeks, and its down again today (2/25). Am I going to get reiumbursed for unuseable time? I am in a race against time to get my tree done for my granddaughter before I die. That is how important the time I pay for is.

By: Doreen

Doreen — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:03:10 +0000

Maintenance hasn’t even begun…. might as well because I can’t access any of my ancestry trees now!

By: Macyle

Macyle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:25:26 +0000

I agree with cat25129, I can never find a tree that was helpful again, even though I know the name of the tree. And what’s with the disappearing ancestors? I had to put them all in by hand after uploading for one hour.

By: Macyle

Macyle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:24:55 +0000

I agree with cat25129, I can never find a tree that was helpful again, even though I know the name of my tree. And what’s with the disappearing ancestors? I had to put them all in by hand after uploading for one hour.