Ancestry Users

Comment

Comment by Molly McKinley on August 13, 2009 at 3:30pm

re:listing e-mail or not.
It is a delicate balance between privacy and need to know information.
The genealogy community for the main part are very dedicated people who
are willing to share what they have found about their ancestors. There could
maybe be an in-between request to be sent from the requestee to the requestor
via Ancestry giving the one being asked the question the option to respond or not.
We can't be so afraid that we become unwilling to help each other. We need
each other to put the whole picture together for our family trees.

Comment by Kate Steere on August 11, 2009 at 6:46am

I remember at one point, the results were ranked? If they found a result that matched all of the parameters it got a lot of stars, while if it matched one or two of your specifics, then it got one or two. I only use the exact match search on the 'old' search engine, so I'm not sure how it is ranked now.

Comment by Phillip Wayne Cushman on August 11, 2009 at 6:41am

Much of the more useful information I have found has been from looking directly at the census sheets on Ancestry. As others have mentioned you can frequently find relatives you recognize even though the census taker had changed their name and the transcriber may have misread even that. I can't criticize Ancestry for that. I still don't understand, however, how their search engine manages to position some of its data. I can list John Doe, born specific date in Buck County, married to Jane etc. and then find that exact information 5-10 search pages into the "not so likely" data. I will have passed Joe Does, June Does, Ralph Jones and every other imaginable name from counties and states at far distances from the search criteria which I have made quite specific. Clearly they do not do straight searches and they must have some sort of added list of parameters that are included whether the user wants them or not.

After posting here yesterday I wandered over to Ancestry.com's blog and discovered that they don't need any assistance in knowing there are unhappy campers. There are many people complaining and even accusing Ancestry of removing complaints from the blog. I am still happy to have what is available although I wish their search did work more straight forwardly.

Comment by Kate Steere on August 11, 2009 at 6:08am

Hi Marvin-

I have a couple of Gus's in my family. One was a Gustavus from Germany, I found him as August, and Gustavous, unfortunately his last name was Golze, you don't want to know how long it took me to find that last name, only to find my Great Grandmother listed as a twin brother Harry to her older sister...that took me a while to figure out. And it was the census taker that made that goof, which the transcriber faithfully transcribed, LOL :)

My other Gus was born in Louisiana, and was a Gustave/Gustavis, but in the index as Gus or Guss.

I think sometimes we just have to get creative with how to find people, and think about if there may be a language barrier, which may have been the case in my great grandmother's situation, as the household probably spoke German at least in the early years of living in the States.

I also like using the Family Search Labs more than Ancestry sometimes, as the search engine is sometimes more user friendly if it is a question of a misspelling.

Comment by Marvin A. Huggins on August 10, 2009 at 9:47pm

Wild card might have helped on this one: Tonight I just tracked Gus Magnuson, a Swede, through the censuses from 1900 to 1930 in Kansas, including state censuses in years ending in "5". He name appears in the records as Gustof, Gustav, Gustave, and Gus. His wife's name appears as Mary or May. A daughter Leona also appears as Leone and Leon. So the challenge for Ancestry is a search engine that can somehow work with that kind of inconsistent mess. I ended up finding all of these by searching for various family members and eventually completed the series.

Comment by Kate Steere on August 10, 2009 at 8:44pm

I also use the wild card a lot, just in case they have the last part of the name wrong. If they get the beginning part of the last name wrong, sometimes by using the first name, date of birth, place of birth, and residence, I can sometimes find someone.

Comment by Marvin A. Huggins on August 10, 2009 at 8:37pm

What does seem to work for me in narrowing down a search, more than focusing on a field, is to limit the search to specific records by type and date. For example, if I am trying to track a family through decades in the census records and they don't appear in one of the years, I limit the search to that year's census and tweak the location field. Sometime it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Exact match often seems to be a problem simply because of all the transcription errors and inconsistent spellings in census records.

Comment by Phillip Wayne Cushman on August 10, 2009 at 1:49pm

It sounds like most of us have "problems" with Ancestry.com. One would think they would have someone lurking on this and similar sites trying to get ideas to improve the service. I agree with several that the search system is impaired. I realize that useful information often comes in unexpected places but when I know I want to search for a specific name, in a specific county etc. I should not have to wade through page upon page of stats that bear absolutely no resemblance to my inquiry. So, other than resigning from Ancestry, what can we do to make ourselves heard?

Comment by Judy Week on August 9, 2009 at 8:47pm

I have subscribed to Ancestry.com for five years. I am not happy witht the new version of Ancestry.com. My main complaint is that the contact person for the majority of the Family Trees posted on Ancestry.com is listed as unknown.

There is little accountability. For example, Davey Crockett lived in TN. I could post info & claim my ancestors were related to Davey Crockett.

When the contact person was listed under the old verion Ancestry.com, I was able to contact the person & ask questions or send additional information.

I realize people are concerned about privacy. That may be the reason people are reluctant to post their name and e-mail address.

Comment by Kate Steere on August 9, 2009 at 8:37pm

I personally still use the old search- I won't use the new search.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page