Comments on: 1940 Census: Add D.C. to That Index List

By: Linda Ruben

Linda Ruben — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:40:21 +0000

I would like to know when you can honestly predict that Pennsylvania and New York will be searchable. Yes, the indexers are probably working feverishly to make all this happen, but let’s not forget the the indexers AREN’T Ancestry.com, who’s really left us twisting in the wind.

By: Suzan

Suzan — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:23:23 +0000

Geez zoolie (my grandma’s favourite saying) Ancestry, are you related to JP Morgan Chase? JP Morgan Chase just lost several billion dollars and report that it’s okay because they still have billions more, t’was just a drop in the bucket loss. You obviously, and I say obviously after watching six weeks of member frustration, believe that those of us you lose through lack of GOOD customer service and communication will be okay because we’ll be that drop in the bucket loss. As stated by Lynn Williams-Murphy, #12, I missed the “Will you help us transcribe the census,” announcement (tongue in cheek). I’ve been a member of Ancestry for nearly a decade, spend several hours a day researching genealogy for friends who can’t afford the $1900+ research estimate by your company, have been a genealogist for 35+ years, and find that 7 out of 10 transcriptions on your service are erroneous. I also believe in offering solutions for problems. You could have set up a simple volunteer test for folks like me who are willing to share their time to help index. Many hands make light work. Additionally, you could focus more on customer communication, we do keep you in business. Why not create a “Suggestion Box,” to encourage communication with your customers? Finally, can you give me a good reason why I shouldn’t cancel my subscription and wait until the end of the year when you may have this 1940 index issue resolved?

By: Tony Knight

Tony Knight — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:22:51 +0000

Yet more searchable states available on Family Search today.

By: Bob Shaw

Bob Shaw — Fri, 04 May 2012 11:06:06 +0000

I can’t belive that ancestry.com just ignores our request for info. We all understand it will take a while, but gives us some some sort of update. If this is to be done by the end of 2012 they will need to do about 6 states a month. We(your customers) are asking for some help. Can we get a responce? Even if its we don’t care about our customers.

By: Jeff Zupan

Jeff Zupan — Thu, 03 May 2012 13:32:00 +0000

FamilySearch has just posted Kansas with 1.8 million records.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 03 May 2012 06:55:05 +0000

FamilySearch now has 13 states @ 100% and 4 states @ 90% or better. All we know about Ancestry is that they have Nevada, Delaware and the District of Columbia.

Come on, Ancestry! Is it all that hard to tell us the status of your indexing project? Your PR staff either is incompetent or hasn’t got a clue on how to keep the customers fully informed.

By: KATHLEEN WHITLOW

KATHLEEN WHITLOW — Thu, 03 May 2012 01:01:39 +0000

Please ancestry.com, communicate with us. I agree with Scott of April 27th. Give us information to “help set reasonable expectations”. I know this is a huge undertaking and I don’t expect immediate results but I do expect some sort of non vague communication from you. Lets face it, what you are giving us now is not communication at all. I know it will take time to do this but you will end up with informed and happier customer versus frustrated ones.

By: Sandra Summers

Sandra Summers — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:52:22 +0000

I agree with Scott at #10. I think Ancestry have been poor at managing both expectations and Information. For me, they have learnt nothing from the UK 1911 Census, released in April 2011. Ancestry spent all of last year promising a searchable census.
What we got was an ‘index’(you try and find Mr Doe), and then the searchable bit, a county at a time. I am not sure whether it is now all searchable, but most people felt that they were being strung along with ‘interim’ information.
Ancestry: tell people the full picture, please.

By: Lincoln Lowery

Lincoln Lowery — Wed, 02 May 2012 01:45:01 +0000

Re: Lynn & Nancy’s comments: Just to check, I typed in last name of “Smith,” and looked at n odd name that cam up. Sadly, Rutt Adams was unavailable for comment… Rutt Adams is a minor typo, but that is what it says… Line 68: http://interactive.ancestry.com/2442/M-T0627-00560-00642/602778?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26db%3d1940usfedcen%26rank%3d1%26new%3d1%26MSAV%3d1%26msT%3d1%26gss%3dangs-d%26gsln%3dsmith%26dbOnly%3d_83004006%257c_83004006_x%252c_83004005%257c_83004005_x%252c_F0006AB0%257c_F0006AB0_x%26uidh%3d212%26pcat%3d35%26fh%3d1%26h%3d602778&ssrc=

ALSO, I tried grabbing the image in the new viewer, and it flew around n the screen. It is acting very hinky. I never liked it, but it is not acting right.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:39:49 +0000

I agree with #12. I have already found at least six errors in transcription. It would better to have a well-indexed census rather than a rushed one.