ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > ROOTS > 2009-07 > 1247673465


From: "Kith-n-Kin" <>
Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry's New Look
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:57:45 -0700
References: <mailman.943.1247554888.4672.roots@rootsweb.com> <9EEF03EF42514CF5814DFB1E5623B928@NancyPC><022401ca050d$163869b0$d96dfb48@acer2e68c49b20>
In-Reply-To: <022401ca050d$163869b0$d96dfb48@acer2e68c49b20>


I'm not clear on what people are looking for (assuming that they have,
indeed, changed to the "old search") that gives them thousands of unrelated
hits, or nothing.

"Unwanted" and "unrelated" are not the same. If I put in Jos* Smith,
Pennsylvania, 1830, I'm pretty sure I'll get quite a few of "unwanted" hits.
Why? Because, of course, there were many different Jos* Smiths in
Pennsylvania. They may not be "yours" and therefore "unwanted."

That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the program, or the search
engine.

"Unrelated" hits, on the other hand, would be putting in the above and
getting a bunch of Sam* Smiths in PA in 1830, or a bunch of Jos* Smiths in
Florida.

Some of this is legitimate, because, for example, a probate of a will might
have Jos* Smith in Florida, and Sally Black in Pennsylvania. This is not an
error in the system. The search engine might ask "find me the word Jos* AND
the word Smith AND the word Pennsylvania within twenty words of each other"
(note, I made this up, the actual query won't look quite like that.)

I will say, I do not always see the connection. I've come up with book
index that has the first name on one line, the surname on the next line, and
no evidence of the state at all. I'm sure it's there, but who knows where.
That, I would call "unrelated." Or, the full name, but no indication of
the state. The first is easy to discount -- not the same person. The second
requires more looking at the index (or whatever) to see if it indeed could
be "my guy."

That said, IF you check "exact" and keep your queries simple, you should
find what is there, within all the "unrelated" stuff. I'm not sure what
"too long" is. The whole point of doing research, to me, is finding those
nuggets hiding in the gravel. And, of course, you'll still miss a nugget --
but later, with further information to determine who's who, you may revisit
that piece of data and find that it's related to what you're doing.

Perhaps you got "no matches" because there were none. However, I would shut
down Ancestry, open back up, and do a completely fresh query, because
sometimes I think there are stray electrons floating around. <G>

How about sending a name, date, place, and let us (all the list, not just
me, please) see what we can find.

Pat
In Tucson



-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Joan Parker
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:11 PM
To: Nanellen;
Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry's New Look

I agree and have you noticed that once you get all those unwanted names and
reenter the name choosing "exact" it comes back nothing found or is it
something about no match,whatever, but it sure is annoying.
Joanie
----- Original Message -----
From: Nanellen
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:21 PM
Subject: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry's New Look


I have to agree with Richard. When I say I want John Smith in Wisconsin I
don't want thousand of other John Smiths from other states. I am certainly

not using Ancestry as much as I use to - it takes too long to go through
all
those unwanted records.
Nancy

This thread: