Comments on: New search category pages http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-search-category-pages The official blog of Ancestry Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:51:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: portalbernihttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45990 portalberni Wed, 19 May 2010 04:45:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45990 Me, too. I absolutely DON’T like the changes to the searching historical document feature. As it was, I could be on the person’s page, click on “search historical documents” and matches or possible matches would pop up in various categories and, if I had already added them to a person, it would be checked. Now, when I click on “search historical documents”, I get a list of categories, and more lists, and more etc etc. Being extremely new to this searching and to this site, I find that I am spending hours just trying to figure out where I want to begin looking for a name. Has sure taken a lot of the fun and excitement out of doing this research and added a ton of frustration.

]]>
By: J. Fulmerhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45953 J. Fulmer Sat, 15 May 2010 02:23:26 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45953 Despite all these “improvements” the “Old Search” engine is still the best! Least confusing to use and consistently gives the most relevant results.

Now I see you’re promoting some type of “hybrid” engine between “Old Search” and very poorly received “New Search” introduced a few months back.

It’s going to be a shame when you dump “Old Search”, which you seem insistent on doing, one way or another. Pity!

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45952 Andy Hatchett Fri, 14 May 2010 23:04:57 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45952 Question….

Since when did Ancestral Quest *ever* a priority status with Ancestry?

This is the first I’ve heard of it.

Since they make FTM I’m surprised they would consider another software package to be a priority.

]]>
By: Nancy Ann Normanhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45951 Nancy Ann Norman Fri, 14 May 2010 20:57:57 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45951 I AM COMPLAINING!!! I THOUGHT ANCESTRY.COM WOULD WORK WITH AQ A LOT BETTER THAN THEY ARE. When you change pages around you all have knocked out, us that use AQ to access ancestry.com, and we are no longer a prority? Please put us back on priority. I am really angry, what am I paying for anyway?

Update! 5-13-10 It is our understanding that Ancestry.com made some changes around April 22, 2010 that caused this page to be removed from their site. As of May 13, 2010, this is a statement we received from Ancestry.com: “[Ancestry.com] says they are not getting any significant complaints about this problem, so they are not planning on fixing this in the immediate future. They will prioritize this fix if some customers complain.” If you are a subscriber to Ancestry.com, and you want to use this feature in the future, you will need to complain to Ancestry.com loudly enough to get their attention.

]]>
By: Chuck Willfordhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45942 Chuck Willford Thu, 13 May 2010 22:14:24 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45942 Regarding #6 and #7 above.

I switched back to old search to see what difference there is in the maintenance searching I’m doing. By using the old search, I get the default “restrict to”; since, it has a “Historical tab”. But I cannot restrict to Canadian files only. The mouse travel distance and clicks are fewer with old the right census’ come first.

So, if the “restrict to” blocks would default to the last use and not all blocks; I think most people would get a better first search result.

Chuck Willfor

]]>
By: Sherryhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45935 Sherry Thu, 13 May 2010 01:37:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45935 I was invited to try the “new search experience” and provide an opinion.

When I joined a few years ago, I could find records quickly. With every “enhancement” this becomes more and more difficult.

I wish ancestry would stick to content and spend less time trying to draw in new customers by a bazillion meaningless search results.

With the family search pilot site catching up, (as an example, BC images of births are online, I traced my Vincer family in England through their site none of which is available on ancestry – and this is a free service), you should concentrate on adding meaningful records and fixing indexes.

Your search engine worked fine a year or so ago. I fit ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

All being said, I value the information that you provide. Can you imagine having to do this on foot?

Many thanks for all that you do.

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45932 Andy Hatchett Wed, 12 May 2010 19:12:59 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45932 Pete,

If you click Search in the main menu bar and select Search All Records the page that comes up has the toggle for switching between OldSearch and NewSearch. It is at the top right just below the “Hire an Expert” and right next to “Add to Quick Links”. If it shows “Old Search” that means you are in New Search and need to click that link to switch to Old Search- and vice versa.

]]>
By: Pete Pinckneyhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45930 Pete Pinckney Wed, 12 May 2010 17:28:53 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45930 Re: Mr. Hatchett, #22

I didn’t consciously switch to or from anything. Maybe that’s the real problem here. I’m not a very experienced user of this site and may not be picking up on some of the subtleties. All I know is that what had been familiar to me and working well for almost a week suddenly went away on May 6th, and no matter what I tried I couldn’t get it to work the “old way.”

I didn’t find a single piece of useful information during the three or four day span that the “new search” was running. So I just used FamilySearch.com and DigitalArkivet.no instead.

I can also tell you this, when you’re viewing a family member’s profile here, there are three possible places you can click to begin a search. #1) that’s too many, and #2) it’s not clear that they might give you differing interfaces or results. I never saw an option for “new search” or “old search.” Again, maybe I’m blind, but I am a competent web user, a programmer, and like Bob Wilson (#27) I am an IT professional with 26 years of experience–NOT one year of experience repeated 26 times.

People like consistency. The fewer options you present, the better. It also limits the number of snakes you have to chase through the bushes if your support staff is trying to de-bug a problem. If I was having difficulty with it, I can guarantee you that the average user was as well.

Everything is back to normal now, I’m still pleased with the experience of “being” here.

]]>
By: BEEhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45924 BEE Wed, 12 May 2010 12:13:38 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45924 Hi Andy, in the case of an uncle on the 1920, and my Mom on the 1930 census, they were both listed as the wrong gender on the census.
In this particular case that I wrote about above, I don’t know if it’s the right person. Besides the similarity of the man’s name, that of his widowed mother and those three children, some of the information is so conflicting – as well as the information that I found on the next census – again, with my “page by page” search, I have no way of knowing if this is the family I’m looking for, but thank you for answering my question.

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-search-category-pages/#comment-45923 Andy Hatchett Wed, 12 May 2010 02:11:35 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3806#comment-45923 Bee,

Was the person actually listed as a she but was really a he or was he merely mis-transcribed as a she?

If actually listed as the wrong gender on the original document then obviously no change should be made but the mistake can be noted in the comments tab on the right hand side of the the document next to the source tab.

If the sex was mis-transcribed I’d add an alternate “americanized” name and not the error about the sex there.

]]>