Comments on: Preview of Changes to Search The official blog Sun, 05 Oct 2014 09:45:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: Charlene Chen Charlene Chen Thu, 06 May 2010 10:58:12 +0000 Thanks for your comment. Currently, it is not readily apparent what county you are searching when you select Shrewsbury, England, United Kingdom from the type-ahead. When there is only one county option that a city can be in, counties are not specified in the type-ahead in order to save space. We are aware that our members are keen to see the county listed and are in the process of looking at ways of improving the place filter functionality.

Please be assured that if you do a search, say in the 1901 UK census, and choose ‘Restrict to this county’, you will only see records where the residence is Shropshire, with the records that are from Shrewsbury appearing first in the list.

I hope that helps!

By: bromaelor bromaelor Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:23:51 +0000 P J Burton #1, I’ve expressed the same opinions to Ancestry on several occasions! Take this example:

I used the type-ahead feature and accepted:

Shrewsbury, England, United Kingdom

and chose “Restrict to County”. But what county?? Ancestry, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen to remove all counties from English places when using search-ahead!!! We do get the superfluous “United Kingdom” though, presumably to help those Americans who are not quite clear as to where England is? Does the “United Kingdom” add anything that England, Wales, Scotland or Ireland did not already tell us???

So instead I chose “Restrict to Country”. But which country, “England” or the “United Kingdom”??? I don’t believe that Ancestry recognise the difference?

The notes in the US Blog state:

“What if I choose a county in England?”

But what if I chose a county in Wales, Scotland or Ireland? Does this not apply???

Perhaps it’s time for a geography lesson for the Anglo-centric Ancestry team?

By: judy judy Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:50:32 +0000 i take it you are both using NEW SEARCH in my opinion that is a waste of time! as you have found out. my advice and i know ancestry wont like me for this you need to use OLD SEARCH. you will find you have much more control than you do in NEW SEARCH what many of us have constantly told ancestry was a mistake in the first place to roll out.

(go to second tab.. search.. in the top right it will either say old or new search. if it says old click on it when the search form changes make sure you tick exact.)

this is the link to the blog for and message boards where we have made frequent comments.

By: J DaSilva J DaSilva Sun, 25 Apr 2010 02:28:53 +0000 I agree with the previous comment.

It would also be helpful to have a choice in “LOCATION” of “CONTAINS” so you can enter a word and it will narrow the search. We used to be able to but it doesn’t seem to work anymore.

By: P J Burton P J Burton Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:24:52 +0000 Whatever the new front end has done, it has not got rid of the odd search engine you use, which has produced worse results as the years go by. If I search on a surname I have much data on, and try to specify London, I get results for other locations in England. If I use Middlesex as the location, I get a few from there, but many more from Kent and other locations.

When I try to edit the search you provide an odd set of “collections” which show no relationship to Civil Registration in the (current) UK!

I can choose from: Australian and UK; Canadian; English; German; Italian; Irish; Scottish; Swedish; UK and Irish; United States. It would seem that whoever decided on these categories for collections has only a hazy idea of the UK/Great Britain. Where, pray, is Wales?

How, exactly, do you define UK? You do need to state this.

Most people researching their ancestors this side of the pond would like to search England; England and Wales; Wales; England, Scotland and Wales, and then perhaps include Ireland. And what about Northern Ireland?

Back to the drawing board, methinks.