Comments on: Updated new search homepage, place pages, recent searches & recently viewed collections

By: Janet Robinson

Janet Robinson — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:16:44 +0000

I agree with the comments about the new search. i don’t want to see lists of all census etc I much prefer to see lists of names so I can immediatley choose the most appropriate – now I’m just toing and froing. I’m not sure who requested it be changed but judging by the comments you need to change it back or risk losing custom.

By: tim noble

tim noble — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:05:05 +0000

hi how do i view other poeples total media photos etc without having to search through individual names for photos

By: Brenda

Brenda — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:43:17 +0000

I really do not like this new interface, when something works why does it have to be changed?

I totally agree with the comments made by Gerry Roff,
Stan Irwin, Dave Fleetham and Andy. This is a backward step and I for one do not appreciate it, it makes mw wonder if it’s time for a change.

By: Gerry Roff

Gerry Roff — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:31:58 +0000

Can I echo comments from other users. Your new interface makes searching for an individual across all collections much more difficult. I hoped that selecting the “old interface” option meant what it said, but sadly this is also amended and difficult to use.

I wish you would maintain an option so that experienced users can access your site exactly as before. The new interface is definitely a retrograde step.

By: Stan Irwin

Stan Irwin — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:25:20 +0000

Just to re-iterate what Sandy (and others) have stated.
It was just right- now it is all wrong.
The source citations took you to the record you wanted- now you get a second page of source citations (with erroneous gobbledygook) and the choice of going to the record (which is where you would already have been if they hadn’t changed it) or the image. This after having to scroll to the appropriate record again. That makes it about 30% less efficient- retrograde or what?
And if you save a second record by mistake; try getting back to delete the wrong one!
I won’t be renewing next time if this stays the same.

By: Dave Fleetham

Dave Fleetham — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:39:05 +0000

I do wish you would leave the search page alone.

I like the old search page. It puts you in control of the options – you can see all the John Smiths in a given dataset and allows you to decide which is the best fit. This new design decides this for you and you will make mistakes.

By: Tom Fisher

Tom Fisher — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:40:47 +0000

1. When will the 1911 Census appear on Ancestry.co.uk

2. How do i delete a Census hint that i have added to someone in my tree.

By: Sandy

Sandy — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:14:23 +0000

When I first saw the changes to the way facts and sources were presented I thought that I must give myself time to get used to it but the more I try to check on information the more irritated I become. It was so quick and easy before, now it takes twice as long.If I just want to check on an address or occupation in a census I have to scroll through to get the right one instead of just clicking on the one that I want, then I can’t get back to where I want to be. As my daughter always says ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!’ What was a very enjoyable hobby is fast becoming very frustrating.

By: Ann Payne

Ann Payne — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:16:17 +0000

I am very disappointed in the latest changes made to this site. The London Baptisms seem to have disappeared or at least are not instantly shown with the other information. It was much easier to see a list of where people appeared i.e. 1881, 1901, London Birth/Bap, England Death – we could then choose which collection to view. Now they are all bundled together. When I say ‘exact matches’ I mean exact – when I say +/- 2 years I mean within 2 years of the quoted date. I have doubts about renewing my subscription unless the format is changed back.

By: Doug Mills

Doug Mills — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:09:00 +0000

I hope that the revisions will overcome one of the most annoying features of Ancestry searches. This is that fact that when I limit a search to +/- a certain number of years from a given date,this seems to be totally ignored. I am presented with huge lists of results which are mostly irrelevant and seem to totally disregard the date limits that I have set! If I request results from, say, 1780 to 1800 that is what I want!