Posted by on September 16, 2010 in Website

I am excited to announce a new feature that we hope will make it a little easier for you to find more records about your ancestors.  When you look at an index page for the “1900 US Federal Census” or the “World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918,” you may see a section on the right hand side called “Suggested Records”.  If you see this, check out the other records in the list to see if you find new records about your ancestor.

Sample Census Record with Suggested Records

When you are looking at an index page, we check to see if that record has been saved to any trees.  If it has, we look and see if there are other records attached to those same nodes.  If we find matches, we show them here.  We hope this will help you find new records about your ancestors.

Right now, we are testing this feature so it is only on these two collections: “1900 US Federal Census” and the “World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918”.  We plan to add this feature to more collections later.

We only show this if there are matches so, if you are looking at an index page that has not been saved to any trees, or if no one has saved any other records to those people in their trees, you may not see anything on the right hand column.

We hope this will help Ancestry members find more success in their family history search.  Please try it out and let me know what you think.

Happy Hunting,

Brian Edwards


  1. BEE

    It would be nice if I could actually see the “World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918” for four men on my tree, registered in Pgh, PA – I’ve “reported problem” numerous times.

  2. D A Fox

    I might find some more hints to records if I could shut off the Ancestry family tree hint “leaves”.
    The suggested record hints might be a good thing if they actually pertain to my ancestor, not a mistaken identity attached to my ancestor in other peoples trees. –DAFox

  3. Tom

    Not being able to copy and paste on Ancestry is one big freaking drag.
    And when is Ancestry going to fix the WW II Draft Registration Cards for the four states with the wrong backs it has been several years?

  4. Jade

    Why would anyone care how many other tree owners have saved X record to their tree?

    Is this the same thinking that sorts search results by “popularity”?

  5. I agree with Tom about the “big freaking drag” of not being able to copy and paste from FTM 2011 searches in Is this just an oversight or the inability to program what is a natural function in all the other software thaqt I have used. FTM has been bugged since the rewrite in 2008; however, I will admit that they have made a lot of progress since then.

    The odd thing is that I can leave FTM 2011 and open, locate the same record and copy and paste into FTM at will! This is nothing but an unnecessary waste of time.

  6. Kathleen Brammer

    When saving a record from a newspaper clipping or other record, I would like to be able to crop and save the actual part that I will use, instead of saving the entire page, and then having to go in and crop with my photo editor. Thanks.

  7. sue coleman

    It would really be nice if each record on BIRTH,MARRIAGE,DEATH was separate, instead of them being combined in one catagerory and having to search through everything. Sometimes I just want a marriage or death record and it takes forever going through all the others to finally locate what looking for. Thanks

  8. Brian Edwards

    Sue, you can easily search on only birth, or marriage, or death records.

    This page will search all birth, marriage, and death records at the same time:

    If you look on the right hand side of that page, there are links to search forms that search only one of those categories. For example, you can search only birth/baptism/christening records from this page:

    By the way, have you tried out the new Suggested Records? I would love your feedback on it.

    Brian Edwards

  9. Katherine Swartout

    I have used your service for many years and this new setup is very, very, very time consuming. When I click to GO BACK TO THE OLD FORM nothing changes.

  10. Lewis Wesley McKinstry Jr.

    I am with you Sue, I was told how to search the B,M,D, useing the card catalog that does not work it bring’s up ALL the information they have. I was looking up ship’s passenger useing the card catalog. Put in ship passenger list, south carolina
    I, was looking at ALL the passenger list, when I, just wanted south carolina I looked for five or six
    hours. They need to seperate ALL the information for each state. If I had the money I would go to the state that need information from in person!

  11. Lewis Wesley McKinstry Jr.

    I have been looking for John McKinstry lived Richland, South Carolina, His land grant was dated
    August 21, 1785, My cousin gave me that he has a wife Jane four son’s Samuel, John, James, Thomas. I am still trying to find the ship that they are on.

  12. Lewis Re; #10-11

    When looking for something in a particular locality I’ve found the State Pages much more useful that the card catalog.

    If you click on the Search tab from the menu bar and scroll down to the map and click on South Carolina you are taken to this page.

    Scroll down to the Travel and Immigration Section and you get:

    South Carolina Immigration & Travel
    Directory of Scots in the Carolinas, 1680-1830 334
    South Carolina Naturalizations 1783-1850 261
    Ship Passenger Lists to the Carolinas: Miscellaneous Ships 171
    A Compilation of the Original Lists of Protestant Immigrants to South Carolina, 1763-1773 163
    Scotch-Irish Migration to South Carolina, 1772 138
    View other Immigration & Travel collections related to South Carolina.

    Click on the Ship Passenger Lists to the Carolinas: Miscellaneous Ships and you fo to a search page for that particular database:

    Hope this helps.

  13. Denice

    I tried the new suggested records and really liked it. I thought it was potentially a great short cut. It only takes a few clicks to explore and everything is on the same page. If it doesn’t match for me, oh well. I would like to see it expanded.

  14. Hello we really like it. I’m going to write more posts like this one and try out your suggestions. After all, we have new things to learn and being humble, I came here to learn. put it in my favorite.

  15. Jo

    I’ve looked at the new Suggested Records but haven’t used it for anything, mainly because I have almost all of my relatives found & attached already. The other people who are listed as having the records attached are the people who are coming along after me and using my research, so it’s no help to me. What it will do for them is make it *even easier* for them to find whatever records they don’t have already, and what that really does is take all the fun of discovery away from them. It seems to me no one coming to Ancestry these days has to do any work of their own, it’s all just copy, copy, copy. First it was the trees, then it was records through Member Connect, now it’s this new way. They miss out on the satisfaction of making discoveries after long hours of searching. What fun is that? What are they going to do after a few weeks when their trees are all done & all records are attached? This doesn’t seem like a good plan for keeping members long term. Unless you expect them to get hooked on adding ever-more-distant branches until the whole world is connected into one big tree. Sure is a lot of that going on and maybe that’s your ultimate plan.

  16. new things

    I have been here before and if you put along side how many trees have taken a certain census as a source and you just take the census as a source without looking at it yourself anyway then your tree could get really messed up if someone has incorrect information. Yesterday just for the heck of it I entered my father’s name to see if anything new was there since I went private because of incorrect information being attached to a family photo I had uploaded and that is why I went private; well, like I said yesterday I looked up my father and there was info about him, my mother, my grandmother, etc that was all wrong; all; now if my son or someone should have came along and attached the tree his tree would be wrong and yes, we all know that is happening and people are not actually checking sources. I put comments next to the tree this incorrect info was entered to let others know it was wrong and I wrote the person who had put it up letting her know I was their daughter and I have every document concerning them and she had all wrong info; I do not even think she was attached to them but she did have 35,000 people in her tree. No matter what you do if people do not even bother to actually look at the source in the original form when possible there are errors; I am sorry to bring this up but it is true; the tree was removed by either this person or ancestry I do not know but I sincerely hope no one else has copied that info to their tree or it is definitely wrong. I would not even recognize the people’ s information if it was not for such unusual names and two photos I had uploaded before I went private. I want to help others and I still do when they write me and I give them sources or tell them they have never been found by anyone. Ancestry needs to change that type of thing; not just having people attach entire trees to save time researching because then they are not researching: they are just taking someone else’s research that could be and at some point will be in error.None of us are perfect. I almost felt yesterday that this tree with my father was totally made up; that is how bad it was. I know everyone really wants their trees to be correct and some are too trusting to understand that when you just attach a record without reading the original and taking time and thinking like ” Well now wait a minute he could not have died in 1874 when I have found him living with his son in 1880 and that does happen. Today another family that I was researching had a lot of public trees and you could see where they all really came from one tree or at least the ones with a death date without one source for the death. I have that person in my tree also and they have her dead in 1842 when she was alive and well in the 1850 census with her children and her husband so there you go; please check all the sources especially if you attach another tree to you; check the sources they have used and think about the common sense of a death date when the person is in a census after the so called death; way after the death. I hope people do not get really upset about me saying this but it is happening and I do so wish Ancestry could stop some of that; just because a name is the same does not make it the same person. Be careful if you want your tree to be as correct as possible and want to give it to your descendants as your work that you have put in and make them proud of their ancestry and if there are incorrect items and you want to join anything like the D.A.R. you will not be accepted without really good sources. I know a lot of people do not care but a lot do so I really hope you know I am not being critical; I am trying to help. Why do you think there are so many private trees now?

  17. 16 new things
    I spent time reading your entire comment and have two words: I AGREE!
    It takes a discriminating genealogist to care, examine, and thoroughly analyze records as well as take the time to attach sources that provide true evidence.
    Best wishes~~

  18. Carol A. H.

    Some people just want instant gratification. We are weaned on it by the mass media, and Ancestry, good as it could be, is advertising: “You don’t even have to know anything, just enter a name.” Surely you must have seen some of their TV ads.

    We all want “MORE” and we want it “NOW.” Sad but true. The folks who really do research possibly are in the minority.

  19. Atreegrowsinbrooklyn

    Am I missing something here? I use the ‘old search’ that I’ve been using here for a long, long time.

    I then narrow down the results if the name is a common one.

    I guess what I want to know is whether when I put the name in the old search are records not being shown in the results that I would receive in another kind of search? I do soundex and exact BTW.

  20. Tom

    I’ve noticed that people with private trees do the same thing like copying photos and records as people with public trees, only we can’t check out their trees for sources or correctness. I’ve even tried to contact a few of them with no responses, I do all the work they take and share nothing so I just stopped putting photos on my Ancestry Tree. The records they can get from Ancestry anyway. Some people merge several other trees to their trees then end up with 2 to 4 duplications of husbands, wives, and children. They just want to have the largest tree, I’ve seen some with over 100,000 people in their trees and with only a couple of years researching, (Or should I say Merging) It’s about like our Gov when Ancestry started out we had a bunch of good folks now it’s just full of nuts. Ancestry is a good place to look for records and a backup place for our trees in case of computer woes so I guess I’ll be going private too,

  21. Bobby

    Unfortunatley is such a mish-mash of features, its not funny. Frustrating, really is. Basic searches bring up a mixture of results that i have to leave because relavence is not included.

    And other features that i’m not going into here because i’ve mentioned some before somewhere.

  22. BEE

    It’s always exciting to receive a “hint” for a document about an ancestor, but I have to wonder what the marriage record for a “widow woman” has to do with my husband’s great-grandfather besides the fact that she has the same last name and born “about” the same year in the same Canadian location, especially since he had been living in Maine with his wife and 10 children for 30 years.
    This is just one example of “hints” that have to be reviewed and “ignored”. Perhaps I’m expecting too much.

  23. Ann J.

    Jo, I disagree somewhat as genealogy has IMO always been a field where people worked together and built on the research of others who came before. I would not have nearly the amount of information I have on two of my lines had it not been for an elderly relative who had spent years digging and shared her information with me. On the other hand, the people who do not do further research bug me as well, because they keep repeating the same errors — children born before their parents, women in their 60s and 70s giving birth, clicking on the wrong geographic location from the drop-down box (if I see one more family member being born or dying in Fort Bend, Missouri, Texas instead of the state of Missouri I am going to scream!). Even if some people never go further than researching on ancestry, there are records on the site that are not being looked at that could confirm marriages, birth, military service, work history, etc. For me, and I am guessing for you as well, it is not just about gathering names, but digging down further to find out more about as many individuals as I can, because everyone one of them connects them to me and to our shared past as a people. But, no one can dictate to anyone else how to use this site, so my feeling is that all are welcome here.

  24. Jo

    Ann J, build on the research of others who came before, yes, but it’s easy enough to do that on Ancestry without having it shoved in your face. Seriously, what is left for a newbie to do? Click, click, click, that’s it. The “easier” Ancestry tries to make it for people, in the sense of having it done for them by others, the less fun it will be for newbies. I would rather see Ancestry put effort into making a real search engine that is easy to use and works properly and efficiently so when newbies do a search they find who they’re looking for and get that little rush of adrenalin! Imagine (or remember) the thrill! They could even get bit by the genealogy bug and stick around for awhile, doing further research. 🙂

    As for dictating how to use this site or anyone not being welcome here, I have no idea what you’re talking about, or why. I was letting Brian know what I thought of the new “Suggested Records” feature, per his request at the beginning of this blog entry.

  25. Bettyann Reed

    I have one very simple, practical complaint about the new Hints feature: it has drastically reduced the size of the window showing the actual census information I’m searching for! If I do find the record I’m seeking and try to print it (in landscape, magnified for clarity, using the Current View option which prints just what’s shown in the now-smaller window) the right side of the census page is drastically truncated due to the Hints feature reducing the data window size. It was clumsy enough before, requiring that I copy first the left and then the right side of the page, if I wanted to see the data in magnified form. Now it’s utterly impossible!

    I won’t bother arguing about whether the Hints section should even exist — others have quite adequately stated my negative position above.

    But I do have a request: please, PLEASE make it OPTIONAL for us to have this new feature cluttering up our census pages! Anyone who WANTS to see this information could do so with one click of an On/Off toggle. The rest of us (serious researchers who only want to do our OWN research) could banish this unwanted clutter from our data screens.

  26. Ann J

    Jo, I wasn’t suggesting you were dictating! I didn’t phrase it very well — what I was suggesting is that I bet some will only use this site to record a family tree as it was presented to them and have no interest in researching it to see if it is accurate, and some will spend hours a day digging around. IMO there is no real right or wrong way, just what works for the individual. Ann

  27. Brian Edwards

    Hi Bettyann,

    The ability to turn this feature on and off could be useful to some people. I will mark that one down to consider that for future enhancements.

    I am not sure I know what you mean by this feature reducing the previous size of the census information or making it harder to print or copy. I double-checked a few options but don’t find any changes in those areas.
    1. We haven’t changed the size of the area for showing the census transcription.
    2. I tried cutting and pasting the core information and had no problems. We haven’t changed any formatting in that area. I am using Windows 7 with Mozilla, Internet Explorer, and Chrome. Perhaps it is a browser or OS difference.
    3. The “View Printer Friendly” option removes the page tools and the suggested records. Many people I talk to use this page to do their cutting and pasting.

    Can you help me understand what has changed?

    Brian Edwards

  28. barbara

    Am i the only one not able to use the search box. I place a name in search and it pops up name not found.. when i know for a fact i have found my ggrandfather in census records a 100s of times before. This is so frustrating,this is what i pay a monthly fee for to be able to search,I have tried inserting other names as well and search is just not working at the moment. This needs to be fixed..

  29. Sheila Weiss

    When I went online today, I was shocked at the changes I encountered.

    The check marks for records already copied to the search person were eliminated. Very inconvenient!

    The name one searches for becomes someone else which means one sometimes forgets the birth year, and you moved the box that used to be on the left and put way down on the bottom which I found by accident. Very inconvenient because the old one also lists the wife and kids names.

    If one looks for records like birth and marriages you cannot go back to all categories, because that option is gone.

    Landing on the refined search left me no way to get back to the person I’d been searching for. I had to go to my internet history to get back. Why can’t you control these name changes? It has been happening for a long time. I did call about it before, but nothing has happened.

    I am also not interested in other trees because I do my own research. My involvement with other trees would be instigated by me, and all of this just muddies the waters.

    Please, please put it back the way it was!

    Sheila Weiss

  30. worshacf

    For Brian Edwards
    Subject: Suggested Records

    You wrote “Right now, we are testing this feature so it is only on these two collections: “1900 US Federal Census” and the “World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918”. We plan to add this feature to more collections later”

    I’m hoping this feature is NOT added to more collections in the future. I also hope that so many complaints come in, that it is removed forever on 1900 US Federal Census and WWI Draft Registration Cards.

    It is NOT helpful, and will only add to newbies inability in attaching authentic records to their ancestors.

    You also said “We only show this if there are matches so, if you are looking at an index page that has not been saved to any trees, or if no one has saved any other records to those people in their trees, you may not see anything on the right hand column”

    There is no way possible that your data base can match up ONLY the same identical person. Therefore if the record I’m looking at is John W. Smith, there will be in the ‘Suggested Record Column’ John Smythe, John Smiths, John Walter Smith, etc.

    So my plea is this, if you resist deletion entirely, at least give us a on/off button so that the more experienced genealogists can continue to work professionally without this feature.

  31. Rebekha

    re you answer to sue coleman regarding bmd

    In the Drouin collections, the only way I have found to separate the BMDs is to put “naissance”, “mariage” or “enterrement” in the keyword box and tick exact. If I want to search only a specific location, I also have to include that with a “+” sign in the keyword box.

    In the Ontario BMD, the county also has to be put in the keyword box to narrow down the search results.

    It should be easier. A tick “restrict to this place exactly” in the corresponding field should be enough.

    The suggested records based on what other people have saved is a good thing. I have already checked them out on the document image pages but you have to check them out for yourself because they are not always reliable.

  32. Jane Belmont

    This new “look” is way too time consuming, I was happy with the old way because I could find what I needed using parameters which don’t seem to be included in this new search. I often found individuals using birth place of parents – that seems to be missing now. I am really frustrated and not at all happy when researching anymore. What gives? Why not keep the old search active for those of us who don’t need your new “bells and whistles?”

  33. Well count me as a person who really likes this new feature! I offered some feedback about an enhancement for “suggested records” on the message boards, so I won’t re-list them here.

    You guys do a GREAT job, and I really like the fact that you are consistently trying to improve the site.

    FWIW, I wouldn’t do your job for any amount of money. I couldn’t take all of the complaining that goes on. Its clearly a thankless job. Geez… I love how some people are actually complaining that, now, the people that come to don’t have to do any work on their own, or how some people complain that doesn’t police the trees for accuracy (to make the fact checking easier). No way to win there.

    Well, as for me, thanks for putting 4 billion records in my den, thanks for connecting me with over a million people with info I need, thanks for allowing me to review the raw info from other members without an arbitrator; so I can make my OWN decisions about correctness, thanks for continually trying to improve the service, thanks for giving me back the 1000’s of hours I would have spent in the car driving to cemeteries and court houses (some people enjoy that, I’d rather spend that time with my family), thanks for doing all of this each year for the price of four tanks of gas, and thanks for putting up with all the complainers; I just hope you guys don’t eventually throw up you hands and walk away, I bet the complainers would really have something to complain about then 🙂

  34. Denice

    #34 Eric. I feel exactly as you do. If you don’t want to use the “suggestions” then don’t. Others of us would like to take a look at them. I would rather review a “hint”/suggestion for myself than not have it proposed at all. They can once in awhile change your thinking and approach. If not for a “hint” I would never have found out what happened to the wife of my ancestor after his death. Never would I have thought to look in the state she turned up in.

    Problems with people not doing proper research and accepting data on face value have existed long before the internet and this site. The internet makes errors spread faster but errors have always been there.

    Please keep this feature. I am a new subscriber and have been researching my family off and on for 20 years. I have found this site to be well worth the money I have paid.

  35. Ann

    Well said — “errors can spread faster due to the Internet but errors have always been there.” The ironic part of this is that the Internet should also be able to facilitate the correction of errors. As an example: for several years people have incorrectly been attaching a Nathaniel Mason and a Daniel Mason to the patriot George Mason of Gunston Hall, Fairfax, VA. No known source that I have found can establish that George Mason and his wife Ann had two sons with those names, and that includes the Mason family Bible that is available at Gunston Hall (and on the Gunston Hall website and others that list the children of the couple). A very little research outside of ancestry would clear this up, but even when confronted with proof of their errors, some people still will not remove Nathaniel and Daniel as children of George Mason.

  36. I think ancestry provides a great service but I have found that once the info is “out there” in the tree, it is very difficult to correct as the misinformation is copied over and over again. This is why I chose to post my tree to tribalpages.

    I lose much because they (tribalpages) do not have the coverage that ancestry enjoys; that being said, perhaps less coverage is better.

    All being said, this is a hobby and it is up to the individual to choose how they go about it. I get so tired of the phrase “Newbie”. These are folks having fun with their family history….leave them alone and let them enjoy, learn, etc.

  37. Bob

    I just tried to access my tree, and all it says is that it is loading. It has been doing this for the past 5 minutes. Has a change been made?

    Earlier I was working on my tree and everything was normal, but now everything seems to be different. I want to invite one of my relatives, but there doesn’t appear to be a place to enter their e-mail info.

    My tree is still loading, and it is now 8 minutes since I started. Everything is different. What’s going on?

    Hoping things get back to normal,

  38. Patricia Braswell

    I have been trying to get a message to a private tree but the message page will not roll down to let me “submit” the message. I don’t have any trouble with other contacts. Is there a way Ancestry can see what the trouble is for that private tree. I think he/she has a person that we have been trying to locate for over 20 years. Hope you can help. Pat B.

  39. Ann

    Patricia Braswell, reduce your screen size to 75% from 100% and you should easily see the submit button. When I e-mailed ancestry on this issue the reply was that they were aware of the problem. Hope this helps.

  40. Helen

    I agree with Eric. I can’t imagine that some of the people who post messages here really want someone else to be policing others or them. Personally, I vote no for genealogy police or for that matter no genealogy kings either. Please keep the information open. I prefer less censorship and more freedom of information and ideas. My newspaper isn’t error free either, in fact sometimes it contains ridiculous stories written with questionable sources and yet we are free to read and choose. If someone else decides that I can’t view a public tree, or document because they think it has errors I consider that censorship.

  41. Carol A. H.

    Ancestry doesn’t have the manpower or the inclination to “police” trees. It’s not a moneymaker. I don’t think anyone has to worry about that.

  42. Deb H

    Off topic but I have no choice…what has happened to the list of individual censuses that used to appear under the Search > Census and Voting Records tab? One used to be able to scroll down a bit, find the entire list of censuses and choose a specific year for searching. In its place are samples of celebrity census images…really????? I can find what I need the long way, but please put this targeted list back where it belongs!!!

  43. Brian Edwards

    Hi Deb,

    The list of census is still available. Hold your mouse over the “search” tab at the top of the screen and then select “Census and Voter Lists”. This will take you to this page:

    On that page, there is a link to “US Federal Census Collection” on the right hand side of the page. If you click on that link, it will take you to here:

    From that page, you can search all US Federal Census Collections or you can scroll down and see a list of the individual federal census years and collections.

  44. Cynthia

    It seems to me that this new change could be much more effective if it would only add suggested records that are not already on our person’s profile. “Saved to 2 people” doesn’t tell me anything. Thanks.

  45. Deb H

    Thanks Brian and Andy. Added the US Census Collection to my Quick Links. Just thought it was odd that the individual census list had disappeared entirely from the “Census and Voter List” page.

  46. Sharon

    I also put in my grandfather and did a search on him. Found a person who had his name and family completely wrong and when she was told she was wrong by a cousin of mine she still did not change it. I think there are researchers out there that are doing research for others and just charging for the information and they don’t care if it’s right. I know another researcher was doing research for other people and when told she was wrong she also didn’t change it.
    You can make your tree private put if you have a relative who can come on your tree and then they make their own tree from yours, if they aren’t private all your stuff is taken anyway. Pictures and all. I really don’t mind people taking my pictures put when they take credit for them then that’s what I don’t like.
    I also wish we could drag and drop. Sometimes when I try to save from a census and try to add the extra kids I found it comes out as a completely new family. Then I have to do everything by hand and it takes along time. If I could just drag that kid to his rightful father or mother it would be so much easier.
    Well, that’s my complaint and believe me I have many more. Someday I’m going to make up a list.

    Isn’t the reply for a complaint always “we are aware of the problem.”

  47. Laura (Jones) Gray

    This new feature is very helpful for the way I use Ancestry. I ignore the suggested family trees for the same reasons everybody mentions: dozens of people all passing the same “information” around and their only source is each other.

    But when I can’t find somebody in a particular census year, I will look to see if somebody else has found it. This new feature lets me get directly at those records without looking at painfully cobbled-together trees. A welcome improvement.

    Thank you, Ancestry!

  48. Don’t like it. I like to refine search. There are irrelevent hints on the current search and some researcher info is incorrect. I like to use the suggested research after coming to a dead end on my research.

  49. Carol A. H.

    Since there have been a few comments on the Ancestry trees and the lack of good quality, it occurred to me that maintenance of a person’s tree is not always easy if there is an error or especially a duplication. I recently discovered a couple of duplications in my tree and it was quite a labor-intensive job to correct. There is no “merge” feature as there is in even the simplest home-use family tree software. Perhaps that is why some trees have 3 and 4 of the same person. It’s easier to just leave it. I would appreciate a good merge tool, but not a bad one.

  50. Sharon

    Carol A.H. I agree it is really a job to remove mistakes that are on a tree. It takes so long that it takes up time a person could be looking for more information. I try to keep mine as upto date as I can because I can’t stand to look at the mistakes, so I try to do maintenance.
    I had a picker on my tree tonight and not only did she take my photos but she took pictures I had that had nothing to do with the person she was researching and would have never had anything to do with that person.

  51. BEE

    To: Support
    Database: World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918
    Problem type: MISSING IMAGE
    Thank you, your feedback has been submitted.
    Database: World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918
    Problem type: Missing Image

    I now have at least 4 “missing images”, and I reported the first one at least a couple of years ago, both by clicking “report problem” as well as emails to “support”?

  52. MsWinston

    Recently, a woman added my parents and grandparents on both sides to her tree, plus all the photographs. When I e-mailed her she replied weeks later and couldn’t tell me how we are related! And this is someone who according to her profile is logged in almost daily. This is something I do not understand — if someone e-mails me I immediately look for the relationship and get back to them as quickly as possible, particularly if it is a question on a closely related relative. Frustrating!

  53. Helen

    Please let the message boards be run by paid staff or at least let more of them be run by paid staff. The volunteer thing has led to too many problems and so much of it just seems to go in endless repetitive circles of the same people saying the same thing on issues ancestry has already made a decision about. Ancestry can afford this.

  54. Carol A. H.

    Helen #61:

    Did you mean the message boards or the blogs (you posted to the blog)? They both seem to run themselves. I don’t think Ancestry wants to pay anyone to run the message boards, and the blogs are only started by Ancestry employees. The users, members, and others, post to the blogs with little response from the blog originator. We are lucky we can post to the blogs.

    Of course that is where we “vent.” That probably helps get a few folks upset now and then. And we don’t stay on topic much, which may also get some people’s knickers in a knot. Most folks are reasonably respectful.

  55. Brian Edwards

    Hi Rob,

    Those green check marks are still there. They are shown in a box above the indexed information from the record.

    If you search from an online tree, or if you use the type ahead to select someone from your tree, you will see check marks in the search results showing if you have saved the records to the exact person for whom you searched.

    If you don’t search from someone in your tree, we don’t show the check marks in search results because we don’t know the person for whom you were searching.

    Regardless of how you search, if you are looking at an indexed record page, and have saved that record to a tree, we will show you check marks and information about the person(s) to whom you saved the record.

  56. Rob

    Hello Brian:-

    Thanks for the reply. I did see the marks AFTER I clicked on the information. An extra step if you don’t remember you saved it. Then to get back to the index pages, it’s back arrow. Then click on something else to get to the item, then you see or don’t see the green ck. Before, the ck mark was visible before you clicked on the item. Much easier and fewer steps.

  57. Rob

    PS I do like the stars 5 4 3 2 1. Narrows things down a bit. Just wish everything were by the name you are searching first, then everyone else. If you don’t go to every page, the person you are looking for might be on the last page, and you’ve missed it.

  58. Jo

    To those of you who want your work made easier by this new feature, I would just like to say user beware. Someone I’m researching has 15 of these Suggested Records which were saved to him by varying numbers of 8-25 people.

    NONE of them are correct! They are going by his name and year & place of birth and nothing else. I know when & where he was born & died, who his parents were, and who his wife and children were, and where most of them are buried, so I *know* they all have the wrong person. How many people do you think will pay attention and NOT save the record to their “wrong” person?

    This is going to be just as bad as the trees in very short order.

  59. Michel

    To Brian – re: this feature

    I tested this feature with my grandfather’s 1900 census, and immediately recognized all of the results I got on the right-hand side. All of them were saved by ‘1 person’ – me.

    In the main Search, sometimes the results will have a green check mark if I’ve already saved a particular record to my tree. I really like that feature, so I don’t have to bother opening up a record just to see that I already saved it.

    So the system’s ‘smart’ enough to recognize that a record’s been saved to a tree, but not quite smart enough to recognize that it’s my tree, and that I’m the very ‘1 person’ it’s referring to. It would be nice to be able to click on the ‘1 person’ and get a listing of who that person is / people are (by screen name). I’ve made connections with other Ancestry users, and if I can see – right up-front – that one of my connections has a record that I don’t, I’d be more apt to check that record futher.

    A heartfelt ‘Thank you’ from me to you and all the other Ancestry staff members. You all work hard to make it easier for us to do research.

  60. Brian Edwards

    Hi Michel,

    Thanks for the suggestion on noting which ones you have already saved. We are looking at this idea and trying to decide how to implement it.

    (1) We could mark it only if you saved it to the person for whom you searched (similar to the way we show it in search results.) This would only work if you searched from a tree or allowed the type ahead to fill in someone from your tree.

    (2) We could put a check mark on it if you have saved it to anyone in any tree. This is broad but may get confusing for folks who have multiple trees. It would be difficult to fit into the space the tree and person name since it is a narrow column so we would probably just do a check mark on it.

    I would love to hear from people which way would make more sense to them.

  61. Carol A. H.

    Michel #69 said it better than I think I can do. I was searching the 1900 census and got a “Suggested Records” box. Thirteen different items were cited….or so I thought. There were 3 that were duplicated. One of the duplications wasn’t my man. Three of the citations had been “saved by 4 people.” The others were saved by just one person….me! Four were state censuses and the rest were federal.

    I would do much better if I knew who saved what. Screen names would be useful, (and private) because I know others are researching the same names. I have seen some of their trees. I have to know what the other folks are doing. I’m such a snoop, but I’m not a sheep. Just because someone does one thing doesn’t mean I will follow, but I’ll certainly take a peek. Sometimes I will make contact and ask questions, and share if I can.

    Back to the drawing board, people!

  62. Carol A. H.

    Post script: If this is a sample of the quality of this new feature, it’s down right scarey to think what will happen if you do it for all the databases. It will be a traffic jam to rival LA on the freeways. Did I say “freeways?” I won’t get into that!

  63. I see no reason for the screen names should be private. If you go to the actual document you are going to see them anyway.

    One thing I don’t want to see is anything I have saved to *any* of my trees.

    I want to see information others have found that I may have missed, I don’t need to see what I’ve done.

  64. Vic Mockerman

    My Father Adam Mockerman (1896-1959)told me his Mother Lilly Bechtel Mockerman-Maugherman was born in 1873 in Indiana and had 5 children. Two died before 1900. He said his Mother was killed in a buggy accident in 1903. Born in Indiana, married in Coldwater Michigan, lived in Northwest Williams, Ohio in 1900 census.
    I can find nothing except Dad was adopted by 1905.
    Any information would be greatly appreciated. I’m 78 now and would like to find some answers before GOD takes me home. Thanks GOD BLESS VIC

  65. BEE

    Vic, The easiest way to follow someone is to create a “tree” if you haven’t already done that. Put in Adam’s name, his parent’s and siblings. Then search for every document you can find forward and back for each name, being sure to actually LOOK at the document to see if that person is really the person you are looking for.
    Did you do a “search” on Adam’s name? It brings up a 1910 and 1920 census, a place to send for an obituary, and “Ohio Soldiers WWI” enlistment – the name also appears in city directories. After viewing each entry, you have to determine if it’s your Adam, and add them to your tree.
    According to the 1900 census, Lilly was born in 1883, and her parents were born in PA, but you know that by 1883, they had moved to Indiana.
    So check out that surname on the 1880 census for a couple who were born in PA and see if you can narrow down the list of possible parents. If there were other children, then you search back and forward with all those names. Hopefully, her parents – or a sibling – were still alive in 1900 and living near Lilly – there were a number of Betchel’s who were born in PA living in Ohio on the 1900 census, so you’ll have to check out each one. Have you checked out information on other “family trees”? It looks like there might be some information there. Good luck with your search.

Comments are closed.