Record Search Pilot finished

[garstonite]

Good morning...I need advice please
for years I have been getting people in small villages like this

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp
then ...I click on
search records
then
Record Search Pilot .... name / event / place
with great results .....but now ....Record Search Pilot has finished ...

now on the new site if I want to search for a family in a village , I am totally lost ...3,940 results that cover the whole of England even though I put in
the village and the county ...I MUST be doing something wrong...can someone please explain - step by step -how I find records for a small village on the new site ...cheers

thanks
allan:o:o

[kiterunner]

Can you tell us what village you're looking for, please, Allan, and I'll try to figure it out. I don't think you're doing it wrong, though; the place name works completely differently on the new site.

[garstonite]

Any village Kate...I am really struggling...can`t seem to pinpoint any particular place / names ...ok ...I will try and find my Oakes babtisms in Garston ...I will be back soon ,and let you know how I get on
allan

[garstonite]

OK Kate...I got 32 results from all over lancs and chesh...to be honest...I am that frustrated I feel like throwing the laptop through the window...so I will have to calm down...gonna leave this until tomorrow morning ...it used to take me 30 seconds to find babtism in villages ...now....it takes 3 minutes to get to England ...very disappointed in this new site....I suppose I will get used to it eventually , but not happy at the moment...going to cool down .....allan

[ElizabethHerts]

Allan, you can use batch numbers on the new site if that helps.

I'm slowly getting used to it. I think they have improved it since its introduction.

[Sue from Southend]

Allan

I assume you're at this page? https://www.familysearch.org/#form=records

Click on Advanced Search
Then type Oakes in surname (obviously!), Garston, Lancashire, England in the place name (it seems you have to put England otherwise you're likely to get Garston somewhere in USA first!) and date range if you want. Specify what type of record you're after in the drop down box.
And, if you want to specify parent or spouse names click on the drop down box for relationship and search.

Hope this is clear.

[Mary from Italy]

Don't forget to tick the checkbox next to the place name.

If you're still getting too many results, click on Collections and then on Birth, Marriage and Death to eliminate the census results.

[garstonite]

Thank you all...I will try tomorrow....cheers...allan

[KiwiChris]

I loved the pilot site and found people in all sorts of unexpected places - great for my clergy research, you would be surprised at how many were born in the far flung regions of the empire. I tried the new site the other night and gave up in frustration, even if I searched for baptisms I got pages and pages of results beginning with US census returns.

[kiterunner]

Funnily enough, the one thing I hated about the pilot site was the placename handling - I used to spend ages trying to work out whether I wanted Lancashire or Lancashire, England, or maybe Lancashire, England, United Kingdom, or Lancashire, Lancashire, and so on.

[Kit]

I'm not keen on the new site either but I have to say I did find a new great aunt I knew nothing about.

[Merry]

On the new site is there any way to see the place and date of the result entries without laboriously opening each entry one by one?

I still use the old site (not the pilot, the OLD site) as it's so much quicker. Only if I can't find what I want do I resort to the new site!

[kiterunner]

On the new site is there any way to see the place and date of the result entries without laboriously opening each entry one by one?


Not that I know of - I saw a posting on their blog or forum complaining about it and it said they were working on it.

[ElizabethHerts]

On the new site is there any way to see the place and date of the result entries without laboriously opening each entry one by one?

I still use the old site (not the pilot, the OLD site) as it's so much quicker. Only if I can't find what I want do I resort to the new site!

Exactly, Merry. I have been doing searches all afternoon for a specific place, but I have had to open each entry to see if it is the right parish and sometimes it isn't.
:mad::mad::mad:

[Mary from Italy]

On the new site is there any way to see the place and date of the result entries without laboriously opening each entry one by one?


No, that's the main thing that annoys me about it, so like you, I tend to use the old site first, as it's much quicker.

[garstonite]

So glad it`s not just me ....allan

[Phoenix]

And am I the only one to get a double load when browsing original images? One against a blue screen before the second image load?

Last week I was whizzing through images. Today I am travelling at tortoise pace.

[Merry]

How do you get to original images?

[Margaret in Burton]

I detest the new site. It's impossible. It's on par with Ancestry's new search.

I'm sure it would be easier to trawl through original records at a County Record Office than try to find anything on the new site.

Why do Family Search and Ancestry have to change things so that they make them impossible? I read that FMP are changing the site too. I wonder if that will become impossible too.

[Mary from Italy]

How do you get to original images?

I think you click on the person's name, but they haven't uploaded images for any of the places I'm interested in.

[Mary from Italy]

I detest the new site. It's impossible. It's on par with Ancestry's new search.

I'm sure it would be easier to trawl through original records at a County Record Office than try to find anything on the new site.


I don't agree with that - Ancestry's new search is 100% useless as far as I can see, whereas the new LDS site does work fairly well if you spend a bit of time experimenting with it.

[kiterunner]

How do you get to original images?

If you want to browse through images that haven't been fully indexed yet, such as the Norfolk PR's for instance, you get to them from the "Browse" part of the front page - either click on a continent or "All Record Collections" and it will list the record collections showing which ones have images and which don't.

[Kit]

Are there any records that are fully indexed where you can see the original images or do you get images until they are indexed?

[ElizabethHerts]

I loved the Pilot site when they had the Cornwall PRs on it. I spent a magical few weeks extracting what I could, and suddenly they removed them. They brought back some PRs briefly, but they appeared to be marriages available through civil registration. I wanted all the early registers.

[kiterunner]

Are there any records that are fully indexed where you can see the original images or do you get images until they are indexed?

Yes, there are some.

[Kit]

Thanks Kate., just not mine so far then.

[kiterunner]

I've just found something very interesting about the images on their forum:

In regard to the fact that you are unable to view images in the England, Chesire Parish Register, 1538-2000, it regards privacy issues. The restriction on this collection is that no records that are less than 100 years old can be view online. The question arises as to why the collection was published, knowing about this restriction, when almost 400 years cannot be viewed because the restriction applies to the last 100 years. This is going to be addressed with the engineers, and hopefully sometime in the future the collection can be divided into 2 segments, opening up viewing to the patrons all images that do not fall under that restriction.

https://www.familysearch.org/learn/forums/en/showthread.php?t=9226

[ElizabethHerts]

I've been searching for Clements entries for a while.

A marriage of a James Clements caught my eye.
It is from Essex Parish Registers to Sarah Fuller.
The information reads "Of this parish".
Nowhere is the parish mentioned! - Just Essex.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/records#count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3AJames~%20%2Bsurname%3AClement s~%20%2Bany_place%3AEngland~%20%2Bany_year%3A1775-1802~

[Merry]

lol!!!!!

I was looking for a Smth burial the other day and the first few on the results list told be the name and the date of the burial and the place description "England". Not terribly helpful!

[kiterunner]

I've done a few transcriptions for the Essex parish registers and you just get one or two images at a time and transcribe what is on them, without seeing what parish it is, but I rather thought their software was going to fill the parishes in! Apparently not!