As I was browsing the blogs this week, I found an article on the Ancestry Insider blog in response to a question regarding Ancestry’s posting of databases that aren’t complete. The Insider does a good job of explaining the reasons that this happens and it also brought up a couple things to keep in mind.
First, always be sure to check back periodically on databases that you have previously searched, but in which you have been unsuccessful in locating an ancestor. There may have been updates. While I do try to include major updates in the newsletter, I can’t always fit all of them. You can also keep tabs on recent updates by checking the Recently Added Databases page. I do include a link to that in every issue of the Ancestry Weekly Journal and here on the blog each week, just below the new databases.
Secondly, don’t forget to read the database descriptions that can be found just below the main search box on the database page, and click through when necessary to capture all the pertinent information. You may find the reason why you haven’t been able to locate that ancestor was there in the description all along.
Â
As Uk Church Records are not yet on Line would it be possible for you to advertise email addresses for members who have access to these resources.
Are there any databases or records available for the following places, firstly 1840 – 1870 and then later: Demerara, Surinam, Barbados, Antigua; also Missionaries in Hong Kong and China, any period. Look forward to seeing records for New Zealand and their newspapers.
If I could make one wish for these databases which evolve online, I would ask that the date the record (not the database) was added to the database. I then want to be able to add this field to the search criteria.
Now I can make a search today, research the results and finding nothing relevant, come back later.
However when I return, maybe a year later, and make the same search, I get the same “hits” I got before and more. As I am researching the hits, I realize that I ran down some of these people a year ago and they were not related.
If I could bring up only the new records that had been added since the date of the last search, I would save a lot of time doing redundant research.
It this too much to ask? Is this too complicated an enhancement?
In response to Jo Davies request/suggestion about access to UK Church Records..
There is already a nationwide look-up exchange for UK records.
See:
http://www.parishregisteruklook-upexchange.co.uk/
The 1820 census index for Lycoming County, Pennsylvania is incomplete. Most of the townships, such as Muncy, Muncy Creek, Washington, etc, include in the index only names in the first half of the alphabet.
This is because the census enumerator used two columns per page with the beginning of the township in the left column and the end of the township in the right hand column.
The persons doing the indexing for Ancestry.com only included the names in the left hand column and not in the right hand column. Thus, the names up to L or M are included but those after it are not.
Several years ago I alerted Ancestry.com to his fact and the response I received was of the nature, “We’ll get to it when we get to it.â€
I’m hoping that my comment in this blog will get better results.
Are any of the programers actually using the databases they designto search for their ancestors? How are they working for them?
WWII enlistment & discharge records: I have been told that a fire destroyed some records for the period of 1941-1944. Is there a method by which these records may be found. The enlistment was in Denison, Grayson County, Texas. Name: LESTER COLE ISBELL, age 17 at time of enlistment. Served in 8th Army Air Corps as a pilot. That’s all I know. Any suggestions appreciated.
Carroll Isbell, Widow
[email protected]
Virtually all the indexes that Ancestry.com has done (census, military, etc.) are defective if you are looking for someone names George, BECAUSE when typing the name George, one frequently types Geroge instead. There are 110,289 Georges indexed as Geroges in the census indexes, 12,857 in the birth-marriage-death indexes, 3,794 in the military indexes, and 7,987 in the immigation indexes. Geroge is not a name–it is only a typo. I can do “find and replace” on my computer–why can’t ancestry.com do a find Geroge and replace it with George on their computer? I pointed this problem out to Ancestry.com over a year ago, and nothing has been done. I confess, I am baffled. At the very least, they should create a place where they list the typos in their indexes so that people can check and see that, oh, if you’re looking for a George, be sure to check also for Geroge.