Such a discussion has been initiated on the Ancestry Improvements Message Board and John Bacus, Principle Product Manager has replied.

TonyC

This occurs in the 1891 England Census (RGA12/567).

If someone is listening……please correct so others down the road can find their MIA’s who happened to be listed in the barracks (?) at that time.

Many thanks.

I am also laughing out loud. I was looking for a particular individual in the UK and found that ancestry has indexed some of the 1st Bat. South Wales Borderers (RGA12/567) with the surname of Reynolds, all born about the same time – the head had 96 children!! There must have been some drinking involved

Please keep up the good work with the search issue as it was such a useful tool.

TonyC

So to answer everyone who has put on a comment in the last few days.

1 The issue with the Exact Search is a genuine problem which only occurred towards the last quarter of 2010. Prior to that, if you put a name in for an Exact Search return, you only got results with that name as the principal person.

2 Some searches do SEEM to work on an exact match. For example, if you look for John Smith on a census, you will get returns for John Smith as the principal person. However, if you look for John Smith in a data set such as London Marriages, you will get results for anything with the name John and Smith in it – ie the groom, the bride, and/or either parent. Therefore someone called Henry Smith JONES son of Albert JONES who married Sarah Ann BLACK daughter of Elton JOHN, would come back as a match for John SMITH.

3 I do not like putting things on totally disconnected blogs. However, neither do I like being fobbed off by Ancestry or ignored. I pay my subscriptions, and have for about 10 years. The least I deserve is the courtesy of a proper answer. I have emailed Ancestry, emailed individuals at Ancestry, and the best I have had is a reply with a hyperlink to the FAQ pages.

4 I am not “stuck in a rut” with the type of searches I do. Exact Search is only one of the searches that I use. It is (was) particularly valuable with some kinds of search. As stated previously, it depends on which kind of data set you are searching as to which kind of problems you have.

5 Pat Secord #40 and Deb H #41 – 100% agreement with you. I don’t always agree with what Andy Hatchett says, but I will defend his right to say it, and his intent always seems to me to be helpful.

6 Ancestry may be US based, but it sells itself as International. There is no point in having international records that cannot be effectively searched. The same problems from English records also apply to other countries’ records. Try searching on

http://search.ancestry.com.au/search/db.aspx?dbid=1779

This is the Australian Deaths’ Index. Put in Mary Smith, and see what you get back and how exact they are. The more data sets added, the more the problem has the potential to grow.

I fully intend to continue inputting this complaint on to every blog that comes on Ancestry. The only exception since I made this decision is the one opened on Elizabeth Taylor and that was simply because it would have been totally disrespectful of me to do it there. I will continue to make such exceptions, but consider every run-of-the-mill blog fair-game.

Anyone who has a problem with this stance, please feel free to complain to Ancestry.

TonyC