Comments on: Ask Ancestry Anne: Search Tip #1 : Controlling location in your searches http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/ The official blog of Ancestry Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:13:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2 By: Susanhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-211079 Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:39:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-211079 Perhaps I should also point out that I’m not impressed with being told to go watch videos in order to carry out searches which I have been managing to do for several years.

]]>
By: Susanhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-211074 Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:34:09 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-211074 Well, I followed your link from facebook to arrive here. Doesn’t really resolve the problems found with current search, and judging by the responses here – not for anyone else either.

Ken’s suggestion makes a lot of sense, so Ancestry, if you say that you appreciate feedback, why not actually listen, and more to the point, act to repair or replace the faulty product.

]]>
By: Karen Wilsonhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-209849 Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:50:55 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-209849 This new search is a mess, takes way too long to do any searches, way toooooooooo much info. The old search was so easy to use, even if you only had a first name and location. I have been a member since 2000 and have become totally frustrated with this. I use to enjoy spending my time working on my trees, now I am just ticked off with this. Don’t think I will be staying with ancestry much longer

]]>
By: Ken Hindshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-209174 Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:06:46 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-209174 What I don’t like about the type-ahead location box is that it contains entries that can’t possibly be right. If I’m searching the database “Tennessee State Marriages 1780-2002″, why does the location list have Louisiana, China, Africa, etc? Why should those be available choices when it’s guaranteed there will be no matches? And even more of a hassle, if I’m looking for a marriage in Washington Co TN, it doesn’t show up in the list when I type just “Wash”, or even “Washington”. I have to type “Washington County, T” before it shows up.

OK, so I’m a retired programmer and I know why. The box is just an object you drop on any page, and its lookup code points to a huge table with all known locations. But that’s the “lazy programmer” approach, easy to develop but cumbersome to use. I always took the opposite approach. If I spend 20 hours to shave 2 seconds off a user interaction, that will pay off after 36,000 interactions. With a couple of hundred users doing this interaction even a few times a day, that takes almost no time. (And arguably it pays off sooner because the user’s time is more valuable than mine.)

And in this case it wouldn’t be that much work to do it the other way. Just have a separate location index table for each database. The location lookup box then just needs to know what database it’s in, and use the corresponding index. (And you could use index number 0 for the huge overall table.)

This also solves two other problems that have been mentioned. The West Virginia counties that were originally in Viriginia would show up in the list whenever relevant. Also, the misspelled or mistranscribed variations would show up wherever they occur.

]]>
By: Edith Markshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-208718 Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:40:01 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-208718 I’ve been with ancestry.com since the year after it started and for 14+ years have been addicted to searching for ancestors on ancestry.com. Ancestry.com has just about cured my addiction, this new search is the very worst “improvement” you’ve ever made. The new search is very frustrating, time consuming, inaccurate and probably 50 more words I could use. I’m not a novice, I’ve know for years how to find what I need in very little time, I cannot imagine how new researchers feel trying to find what they need. I spend more time on other websites looking for records now that ancestry.com has taken away the old search. I guess you don’t need your old loyal subscriber’s money any longer!

]]>
By: Barbara Belgerhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-207734 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 01:43:20 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-207734 This will be my last subscription to Ancestry now that Old Search “is no more.” The “new” system to which you have forced seasoned researchers is a waste of time. For novice researchers, you are overwhelming them with often useless information that the old, I suppose to you, SOUNDEX system would have handled. I KNOW who I want to find and normally WHERE I want or need to find them. I do NOT intend to waste my time re-setting parameters for every search, nor do I wish to wade through thousands of useless records.

]]>
By: Rick Biskerhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-207688 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 00:08:02 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-207688 Ancestry really needs to allow the filtered search function to stay at the users last setting until the user wants to change it again. I am spending toooooooo much time having to start over on every search I do. I make a filter adjustment and then continue the search, only to find out it has defaulted one of the filters and I get to many results out of what I thought I had the settings on. There are way too many settings to remember to reset for every search! HELP US PLEASE!

]]>
By: Jean Hollarshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-207298 Sat, 08 Mar 2014 09:44:45 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-207298 Totally frustrating!! (1) Tried the “adjacent counties” for Spartanburg County, SC. Got results in VA! Really? Show me that map. (2) Working through a list of records. Clicked on a record for a closer look. Returned to the list of records and I’m returned to the top of the list – not where I left off. Additionally, there is no change in color to indicate which record I looked at. What a waste of time!

]]>
By: Carollyn Simpsonhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-207001 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:46:38 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-207001 I agree with Laurice and all of those commenting on the AWFUL aspects of the New Search. I usually use Ancestry every day but I probably won’t renew since using the New Search takes forever compared to the Old Search. Researching is no fun anymore and I agree that my addiction is now broken. Evidently the person who designed the New Search cares nothing about time or the people who have been loyal members for years.

]]>
By: Bonniehttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/06/ask-ancestry-anne-search-tip-1-controlling-location-in-your-searches/#comment-206900 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:27:01 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15286#comment-206900 I wish that when you choose to SEARCH RECORDS from an individual’s overview page and the Search populates from their information that it would use the LOCATION information from the individual’s record for the narrowing of the search. Instead, I have to re-type the LOCATION information and chose the exact same location in order to “activate” the search filter pull down.
EXAMPLE: Jane Doe was born in Phoenix, Maricopa, Arizona, USA and this populates her BIRTH LOCATION. But, the pull down filter only provides the chocies of “exact” or “default”. The other filters ares not activated until “Phoenix, Maricopa, Arizona, USA” is re-typed.

]]>