This year one of the things we are focusing on is adding new ways for you to control what’s returned in your search results. Over the past few months, we have already launched improvements to wildcards, Collection Filters, and Record Type Filters
Earlier today Tony Macklin announced that we will be launching a tour to give you a preview of changes to Ancestry.com search.
One of the features that has been most requested is the ability to better control what appears in your search results, by filtering out names and places that don’t match your query – giving you the same kind of control as exact, but allowing you to choose what variations are included in your results.
In this post, I will preview how name filters will work.
Where you will find them
The name filters will be available to you in new search when you are in the advanced mode. Where you currently see the “Exact” checkbox on the current form:

On any search form with a first and last name search box, you will see:

“Use default settings” will work like have no check next to “Exact only”
If you usually check “Exact only”,

you will instead see:

“Restrict to exact” works just the same as “Exact only”
Use default settings
Unless you usually use “Exact Matches Only” you will see Use default settings. What exactly happens when you use default settings?
First, we look through every first name we have recorded in our more than 29,000 data collections, and pull out any record where the first name is:
Then, we look through all the records, and we pull out any record where the last name is:
We add all these lists to a list of records that contain any record that has at least one match for the data that you’ve given to us. Then we evaluate all the records against all the information you entered, and then order those based on how well they matched.
There is nothing new here, this is how ranked search has always worked. And if you wanted more control over what name variations you wanted to see in your search results, you could choose exact.
With these new name filters, we are going to give you a few more options that will allow you to control what you see in your search results.
Now you can request exactly which records you want us to return in your results. If you only want to look at people who have the exact same name as the one you typed in and people with the same first initial, you can request that. If you only want to see last names that match exactly or soundex variations, you can choose that.
Here are your options.
First Name Filters

Last Name Filters

Sticky, sticky, sticky
When you choose a filter set for either the first name and the last name or both, they stay sticky meaning that when you come back to the form, they are still set in that same state. So once you find a set of filters you feel comfortable, you will not need to reset them each time.
When can I try them?
Remember these filters will be available sometime this Thursday. You will only see them in new search when you are in advanced mode.
Happy Searching!
Anne
Anne This sounds good
I assume ticking Default means include all items below OR does it add something else?
It will be good to see Phonetic hits as well as Soundex so we can work out which better fits wanted name
And I do like being about to find an initial without having to do an extra search. And also picking up names like Will – will that include Wm (I think Ancestry does that now) and also the J names have various such as Jos Jas Jho – could the “formula” or table be published in help. Will “Ann” if the option ticked pick up Hannah and Anne. And Frances find Fanny (so many people don’t know that alternate)
This is a good improvement. I’m looking forward to it. Two questions, please:
1. I’m working on a person now where it is the first initial of the last name that I can’t figure out. Will I check ‘exact’ and use a ‘?’wildcard?
2. (And this is my biggest beef with the search) Concerning birth and death dates; If I know a birth date and put it in but no death date, why, oh why do I get results of individuals who were alive and kicking some 150 years later and more? This happens regardless of whether or not I’ve checked ‘exact’. How can I restrict the search to the person’s reasonable life span? Are you going to fix that one, please?
Thanks
But what have you done with the ordinary “old” search? Which fails completely to find almost anything. This is not an improvement.
Searching for Fred* born Kent living Kent brings up such a mish-mash of results that it’s meaningless.
#5 Jay Kay
It seems to be just the 1851 UK census (using old EXACT search) throwing up results which are absolute rubbish, with no correlation to the search terms whatsoever.
The most infuriating thing is that it usually takes Ancestry some days/weeks to fix these stupid ‘improvements.’
Yet again … sigh!
[...] I told you about our name filters which is one of our new filters we are launching to help you create better searches. Today, [...]
Name filters look good to me…blogged about it on http://www.Geneamusings.com. Need to test some of my more complex surnames, though.
Need to do more place name searches though to see if you’ve fixed my issue from months ago.
1851 search problem – solved. Thank you.
Please bring your magic touch to the death index search results (England & Wales 1916-2005): The results do not show the quarter of the event, and neither does the individual record. This can only be seen by looking at the original image – or even just the directory entry at the top.
Mentioned at Olympia London Who Do You Think You Are earlier this year, but still not working quite correctly.
Grateful thanks.
Jay
I agree with Jay Kay! This is NOT an improvement! Why do we always have to fix things that are not broken. I used to search for a name,county abd state–not anymore and the 1930 Census is impossible! Please let us have the old filter back–at least for the U.S.
Here you will find informational, and sometimes fun, posts from the folks behind the scenes here at Ancestry.com. We hope you’ll notice just how passionate we are about family history and about the products we’re building to help connect families over distance and time.
Visit Ancestry.com
Will they be doing this with locations as well?
It’s frustrating when you don’t know the town but know the county? I almost wish Ancestry and FTM would separate locations into city, county state and country.