LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-L Archives

Archiver > LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS > 2011-02 > 1297209883


From: "Nivard Ovington" <>
Subject: Re: [LEI] Family Search website
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 00:04:43 -0000
References: <201102052221.p15MLcqF001620@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au><26F1988F5112485DB763C5699378C53C@claireac3e9bca><19ED1987E4AD4A39BD922FDBC7BD651D@Emrys><8FE629E05BD849239ABF5179232F4AA9@claireac3e9bca><BLU112-DS164158C9731726F4FD409894EB0@phx.gbl><AC7E78B90F134B5DBF28871F90A865AF@discount6774a5><BLU112-DS14946662F3D94E00C9311794EB0@phx.gbl><FEB933924D7748EC8224E355E93CFED0@discount6774a5><38DAECA27C4049E6914FAFF21BD66ABE@claireac3e9bca><9D55EAC09EF241B99B293CAA348C1653@discount6774a5>


Hi David

I have used Ancestry for about six years now and can't recall ever coming up against that problem
but granted there have been changes over that time

As I think I said in another reply, the Somalia problem came about due to drop down box alternatives
for transcribers, there are still a few there but seem genuinely unreadable or correct those I
looked at

Some of the census problems were partly because the years were transcribed at different times in
different ways by different people and they had slightly different formats, the 1881 was different
again as it was done by the LDS & FHS , however they have done a lot of work to rationalise them all
so perhaps your mentioned problem has been fixed

One problem I know still remains in that a search for people born in Lincolnshire across all the
census years inexplicably misses the vast majority in 1881, I can only presume its due to the
different format of the 1881 over the others but does not excuse them taking so long to fix the
problem

Not that findmypast are perfect either

Just a test for you as you say you have it

In 1911 how many hits do you get when you search for SMITH (no variants or it times out) born in
Kirby Muxloe no other details?

You should get 8

Now try the same search with an asterisk for a wild card after the Kirby Muxloe*

Now we have 14

One of those 14 is a William Henry SMITH , now go back to the last search and just add William Henry
to the existing search criteria

Phhzt ! he has disappeared ! even with include variants ticked

Remove the Henry and he miraculously appears !

Because their search engine does not recognise names if you search with a second name included even
though its in the database

Likewise with a place name it only recognises the whole exact place as transcribed unless you use a
wildcard after the first part of it

Bizarre is not the word for it sometimes

Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)


> G'day Nivard
>
> I've had a subscription to Find My Past for a couple of years now so haven't had to use Ancestry
> recently for census searches. I worked out the Parish/County priority at my local FHS library
> while using their (world / de luxe) subscription to Ancestry.
>
> If you completed both the Parish and County boxes for place of birth , it definitely gave results
> for the County first regardless of the Parish. As it's been a couple of years since I've had to
> use ancestry, they may have eliminated this quirk.
>
> Regarding your comment in your other email, I came across quite a few instances where the county,
> Somerset had been transcribed as Somalia! This shows the importance of having transcribers who
> have some affinity with what they are doing.
>
> David Armstrong
> Maylands,
> Western Australia


This thread: