Which as Bekko stated – it is a simple and clean search screen which brings results uncluttered by the ‘pretty’ but irritating stars rating.

Wicked Witch – what a wonderful example using the paint, but then I think if the others were too difficult for CousinCeCe to comprehend then this one will be way over their head:)

The last post in these blogs about the search issues was on December 8th 2010, which just about highlights the importance Ancestry are putting on that subject. Maybe they are still looking for a replacement for Anne Mitchell who was(is?) the product manager for search at Ancestry and was very active on the blog. Not heard from her since then.

TonyC

What used to be pleasurable anticipation when beginning research on a ‘new’ ancestor now feels like a chore.
 

An exact search is a great search option when you know a few good details including exact names, and dates regarding your ancestor.

Source: Ancestry.com

Your answer displays just about what I expected it to, with the addition of an unnecessarily supercilious attitude – in an ideal world we would all narrow things down more, but unless you use the 100%-Accuracy-Guaranteed-See-All-Crystal-Ball (or just copy from a tree already online), you are going to have to trawl through piles of data at some point.

The examples I used were 2 extremes. You didn’t get the Harry Potter one, so I used the John Smith one. I don’t really know how to make it any simpler, but shall we try a paint chart?

You take your car to the garage and ask them to paint it red. You pick the exact red you want on the chart and point it out them. But when you go back it is done in three stripes – one purple, one orange, and one brown. When you complain, saying you wanted it red, they reply that they cannot understand your problem, as all of those colours have red in them.

Let us not lose sight of the basic problem here. It is not that I am asking for something totally new and innovative. Exact Search USED TO WORK – Exactly. It worked for years. And now it doesn’t.

So we don’t actually have an option which meets this research need any more.

If you want to see only the 6,581 John Smith’s who were married between 1850 and 1870 use New Search. It works exactly the way you seem to want it to.

It’s nice we have options to meet our varying research styles and needs.

This does bring back only Exact Matches on spouse given and surnames. However, it is not listed for the spouse, it is listed for the principal person who is the bride in this case. Therefore looking for the name of the man and his birth year is not possible.

Exact = Exact

What we want is an Exact Search match, ie if you want records only related to people called John Smith, that is what you should get. In the Name column. As the Exact search used to do before someone messed with it.

The Harry Potter example was just that, an example. However some people (like me) are descended from people called Smith. In fact lots of people are descended from people called Smith.

OK, we will do the search for
London Marriages + John Smith + 1860(+/-10 years). I get 12,033 results.

By page 38 I am still only at the surname Fittall (Charles Fittall married Anna Matilda Smith who was the daughter of John Smith). I can only go 4 pages forward at a time so it is taking some time to advance.

By the time I got to the marriage of John Howe son of John Howe and Johannah Golden dau of Joseph Smith, I was on page 58.

Four pages at a time, I finally reach p70 and William Shadrach Bullen (son of Shadrach John Bullen) marrying Susannah Lovell (dau of Edward Smith). But let us plod onwards and upwards.

Finally by p103 I reach my first John Smith. However, things are still not plain as the list is sorted by Surname then Estimated Year of Birth, and not by Surname then first name, so after John comes John Owen, then Jessey, then Joseph, then Henry, then another John, then Maria, then Charles, then William, then another Maria, then William Sidney, then another John, then Mary, then Susannah, then William, then David………..

How much more do you need to understand that this is not an Exact Search. This is a General/Universal Search. If I want John Smith in either the father or spouse field, the option is there to put it in. I want to use it in the main fields to bring back records with a principal person of John Smith and to list records with John Smith as the principal name in the Name field – JUST LIKE IT USED TO DO!

Please ask further if you still do not understand what the problem actually is.

I tried Tony’s suggested James Ingham search and received exactly the results I would expect to see. There are 55 results returned – 28 of them are men named James Ingham, 27 of them are men named James with mothers whose maiden name is Ingham. Your exact query – give me every record containing the names James + Ingham, born 1925 +/- 10 years in Lancashire, was answered exactly.

If that is not what you want – and apparently there are some who agree with you, hence the changes made by Ancestry – do the same exact search in New Search. You will only get the 28.

As for me, I often want all possible name combinations. So, even though I use New Search predominately, I appreciate the way that Old Search works when I want those kind of results.

I would imagine (though the Harry Potter example she gave is not duplicatable)that were WW to actually look at the records returned by the search she is performing (rather than just the search results) she would find that both the given and surname she searched on were found in every single record.

Where is the problem, exactly?

Thanks for the supportive comments. I know that you have raised this issue before, and I have been one of those agreeing. Since then I have contacted Ancestry, and all they do is refer me to the FAQs – which are as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as Exact Search is concerned – or ignore the question. And before anyone suggest it, I have been polite and informative in trying to explain the problem and ask for a solution.

The ones I like (hate!!) the most are the London marriages. Eg here you can search for all marriages for Harry Potter on an Exact Search. You will get (sorry HP fans in advance for the examples):

Harry Potter marrying Hermione Granger
Harry Snape marrying Dolores Potter
Ron Dumbledore, son of Severus Smith Malfoy, marrying Myrtle Shunpike, dau of Mundugus John Weasley

Exactly where, (Ancestry), are the exact searches, exactly?