Ancestry - Does this happen for you?

[Merry]

Nothing to add to BK6 from this thread

If I search for entries in the name of Florence G Gateley I get no matches for marriages, but if I search for Florence Gateley there are three marriage entries post 1915, one of which is Florence G Gateley in 1931. I can't see why this entry won't appear with the middle initial in the search criteria - and ideas?

[Sue from Southend]

I've no idea why Merry but it's infuriating isn't it? I've also noticed that if you do a search using two first names ie Florence Mary it will always throw up Mary Florence first

[kiterunner]

Hmmm, that's weird. She doesn't come up when you search for Florence G Gateley in the main (global) search, but if you search for Florence G Gateley just in post-1915 marriages, she does. Also if your global search is just for G Gateley, the marriage comes up.

[Merry]

Makes me wonder how many other times I've not found something for the same reason :mad:

Thanks for looking, both of you. At least I know it's not just me! lol

[maggie_4_7]

It really does depend on how the Acenstry search function is programmed.

I suspect its pretty vague so more accurate when less info but the right info is entered and pretty bad when to much info is added because it only searches on certain areas so will return something fair to middling.

Also I suspect individual databases have a differrnt progam set for searching.

[Merry]

I've not knowingly found this to happen before for the post 1915 marriages. I have tried searching all sorts of combinations since I became aware of this particular entry, but haven't managed not to find something (if you see what I mean!) as yet.

I only ever use the exact match search.

[Nell]

I'm fed up with the new searches. Whoever I look for in censuses it always says "no matches" unless I untick the exact box. Then of course I get 1,0000s of hits. Feast or famine.

[KiwiChris]

They have done something else odd lately. I am usually logged into the .au site and when I search I have the box for hits in Australia and the UK only ticked. All of a sudden I only got Australian hits. The only way I could get anything from the UK was to untick the box, then I got all the American ones as well.
I complained and got a complicated answer which did not explain why it had changed. I now search in the .uk site and untick the box to find Australian records as that seems less time consuming.

[Janet Chiltern Borders]

I find Ancestry infuriating for searches as I constantly battle with their hundreds of matches which are not matches at all! And yes that is anothe of my gripes, I have worldwide sub and if I want USA it takes me ages to get to it as my box is ticked just for UK. I do not alwys remember to untick a box. There are times when I wish FMP had everything!!

Janet

[Merry]

I constantly battle with their hundreds of matches

Have you tried using the Old Search?

[Janet]

The Old Search? What's that, Merry? I guess it might not make a difference if you're not subscribed yet, which I still am not. :( But still, for future reference, could you post a link or something? Thanks! :)

[Merry]

The New Search brings up full matches and also variables on the theme of what you are looking for, so for instance if I search on the New Search for the surname McCrery (moderately rare in the UK - I am only paid up for UK records) without checking the Soundex box, the results page is headed up:

Matches 1–10 of 64,413 Sorted By Relevance

When they say "Sorted by Relevance" that is their idea of how relevant the entry is rather than mine! (obviously they can't mind read so how would they know how relevant a particular entry is when looking at anything other than the spelling of the surname??)

If I use the Old Search instead, I only get 106 census matches separated into the different census years, 239 BMD matches separated into various sub catagories and a handful of other matches. I don't get anything where the name isn't transcribed exactly as McCrery. If I wish to widen my search I can use Soundex or include *s and ?s into my search criteria. With the Old Search I know I'm not going to be given any record I didn't ask for!

To switch between the old and new searches there is a click link on the right of the main search page.

[kiterunner]

With the Old Search I know I'm not going to be given any record I didn't ask for!


That's interesting, Merry - are you saying that if you searched for, say, Elizabeth Bristow in the London, England, Marriages and Banns 1754-1921, you only get records where the bride is Elizabeth Bristow? I get 489 matches and it includes lots where someone called Elizabeth married someone called Bristow. If I leave the main name blank and put Elizabeth Bristow in for spouse's name instead, I only get 108 matches, so I would class 381 of the original matches as records I didn't ask for. If you're managing to avoid that kind of thing happening, I would love to know how!

[Merry]

Nope, I forgot about that because I don't have many London Ancestors, so I don't look at those very often.

What happens when you look at those records under the new search? Is it worse?

[kiterunner]

I get 218 matches using the New Search, but I think it's because each marriage is listed twice that way, once under the bride's name and then again under the groom's. There must be one glitched marriage that only comes up using the New Search!

[Mary from Italy]

I get 489 matches and it includes lots where someone called Elizabeth married someone called Bristow. If I leave the main name blank and put Elizabeth Bristow in for spouse's name instead, I only get 108 matches, so I would class 381 of the original matches as records I didn't ask for. If you're managing to avoid that kind of thing happening, I would love to know how!

This has only started happening recently (in the last couple of months, I think, and not only in the LMA database). I e-mailed Ancestry about it, and got the following very unhelpful reply, although I said I probably wouldn't be renewing my subscription this month unless it's fixed (or they offer me a discount, which they refused by phone, although they gave me one last year).

This issue of the 'Old' search bringing up any names in the record that match the searched name is known
to our developers.

I'm sorry but I do not know when this will be rectified, however, we appreciate your taking the time to
contact us about this issue.

If there is anything else I can do to assist you with your research, please let me know.

[kiterunner]

I like that better than the reply I got which didn't even acknowledge that it was an issue which needed rectifying.

[Janet]

Thanks, Merry. I'd been starting from their home page instead of going to the Search menu so I never knew there was a New Search and an Old Search. Will have to play with that. And I've picked up some insight from this whole exchange, so thanks to all of you, Merry Mary, and Kite.