Ancestry Improvements - Family History & Genealogy Message Board

Re: What a mess!

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-21 04:32:11Z

It may well be the case of too little people and too much to do...

According the the IPO filing Ancestry only has 600 full time employees; by the time you subtract out all the execs, admin assistants, secretaries, those who are actually making digital content, and customer service and sales staff that may well leave precious few to do all that we ask- like re-doing indexes, correcting images, fix the search engine, etc.

With so little trying to correct so much all at the same time, is it any wonder that things constantly change?

I'm still not a fan of Ancestry but I can see both sides of the coin.

Re: What a mess!

mbmjlm — 2009-11-21 03:35:26Z

My sentiments exactly. I absolutely do not understand the reasoning to constantly change things. Too many people with too little to do!!!

What a mess!

janemac40 — 2009-11-20 22:35:29Z

I hate this new search program, whatever it is. I have been a subscriber for years and I love what Ancestry offers, but for heaven's sake, quit messing with it.

Re: Old Search

geisten — 2009-11-18 12:18:46Z

From other posts it appears eventually the option for searching thru "old search" will become "no more"...so there are two options: finish up as quickly as possible with my current research projects and say goodby to Ancestry; or option number two, finsh my projects, save as much to my hard drive as possible...and say goodby to Ancestry. Think I shall become like scads of others...a "free trial member" when those offers are made...or a monthly subscriber whenever a new data base is posted which I would be interested in. Since I am now retired and can pull "all-nighters" at the computer, a "when it is for my betterment" option of membership looks more and more attractive.

Re: Old Search

rootsdiggerupper — 2009-11-17 17:09:40Z

I absolutely agree with you. I do not like this new search function. I used to be able to choose United States and it would only bring up info relevant to that. Now when I choose United States I am still getting census for England, etc.,etc. Am I doing something wrong? It will not take much frustration for me to click the "cancel subscription" button. Why, why, do the powers that be always have to mess up a good thing.

Re: Can't Print or Save images

lynnesanders_1 — 2009-11-13 06:50:12Z

Its nice to know I'm not the only one having problems.
I thought I was being really stupid when I saved the images to my hard drive and they just didnt arrive.
Thanks for all the suggestions. I have tried them all but nothing works.
At the moment I am managing to print the images, and then I scan them.
Come on Ancestry this is the 21st century!!!

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

bewalton17 — 2009-11-13 06:42:00Z

"I'll grant, however, that Ancestry doesn't pay near enough attention to the more experienced genealogists and seems to favor the instant gratification that most newbies seek."

I'm a newbie--to ancestry.com, anyway--and, while the trees are fun, what I've really been looking for has been a couple of dead ends that I need to track down serious records for. The new format makes searching more difficult than the format that was in place during my two week trial, harder to narrow things down on, harder to focus searches with. I'm a librarian in my professional life. Can we work on better cataloging? Honestly, this seems to be done almost on a KEYWORD based search... the sloppiest possible way to search for anything.

Want to know what we need?

If you insist on keyword search instead of subject search, at least give the option of searching by exact phrase in the name fields. My ancestors are "Mays," and even when it's clearly put in the name field, the search picks up everyone who was named May (okay, whatever), everyone who was *born* in May, and, in the case of stories, pretty much everyone who "may" have done something. It would be much easier to switch to a subject search, with subject "May." Then it won't pick up the garbage.

Re: Can't Print or Save images

wmatistic1 — 2009-11-13 02:41:20Z

Only way I could find through IE8 on Windows 7 was switching the viewer to basic mode, then enlarge the image to 100% and you can right click and choose to Save it.

Or I suppose if you have Windows 7 pro or Ultimate you can download and install the Windows Xp mode and visit the site using that. But that's a lot more effort.

Re: Can't Print or Save images

Saint4ever — 2009-11-12 23:10:51Z

I've tried that - no add on showing

Come on Ancestry...sort it out and tell us how to fix it!

Re: Can't Print or Save images

jeffjahn — 2009-11-12 19:41:26Z

Have you tried going in explorer to Tools, Manage Add-ons and seen if theirs a control for ancestry.com their. If their is, is it enabled. Alas it doesnt always appear lately though.

Re: Old Search

geisten — 2009-11-12 17:42:33Z

I also find that when I delete my temp files, etc., I am having to log-in to Ancestry from scratch...which leads me to the new search and I have to reset all of my preferences. This is no "big deal" now that I am aware of what must be done.

Virginia

Re: Old Search

frostfreedet — 2009-11-12 17:30:46Z

I also run FF and delete cookies with each shutdown. This does not remove my Old Search preference.

However, I do not use the global search page at all unless I click on the Search tab (very rarely) to try New Search.

I have bookmarked all the databases I use regularly and go right to each as needed. Also when I search through a Tree person I get Old Search mode rather than the annoying and unreliable New Search modality.

Maybe my FF shutdown mode is not actually removing all cookies. Maybe Ancestry.com is installing new sticky cookies . . . I don't realy know what the difference is between what you are doing and what I am doing.

Re: Old Search

JimLivermoreNY — 2009-11-12 16:33:17Z

"Actually, in response to many complaints about storing such preferences with cookies, Ancestry.com now stores whether you were last using New Search or Old Search with your preferences so your last option is a default preference when you log in."

Not true. I just deleted all ancestry.com cookies in FF 3.5. I was forced to re-login. Selecting "Search" from the menu bar took me directly to the New Search page, most definitely not my preference.

Re: Old Search . . . with a caveat

BobNY — 2009-11-12 14:24:11Z

When you switch back to Old Search, the exact box will become unchecked.

Re: Old Search

DeborahWales — 2009-11-12 10:23:49Z

Thank you for that info - I didn't realise that I could still use the old search and thought it was gone forever!

Re: Can't Print or Save images

wmatistic1 — 2009-11-12 02:42:03Z

I'm having zero luck with Windows 7 and IE8 or the latest Firefox. When I click on Save or Print it does nothing. I have updated java as well, added *.ancestry.com to safe sites list, turned UAC off and nothing matters.

Anyone help?

Re: Old Search

frostfreedet — 2009-11-11 23:29:02Z

Actually, in response to many complaints about storing such preferences with cookies, Ancestry.com now stores whether you were last using New Search or Old Search with your preferences so your last option is a default preference when you log in.

If you wish to switch from one to the other, click on the "Search" option in the top greenish toolbar and scroll way over to the right to select the search preference.

Many of us use Old Search nearly all the time and hated having New Search be the default and have to switch back to Old Search with every visit.

I appreciate the newer preference-storage very much :D

Re: Old Search

Koromo — 2009-11-11 11:24:45Z

Old Search is still available, thank heavens!

When you are on the New Search page, look at the upper right corner of the screen just under the navigation bar, and you will see in very small letters a link to the Old Search.

Ancestry stores your preference for the old or new search in a cookie on your computer. If you delete your cookies, Ancestry will assume that you want their dratted New Search. :-(

Re: Old Search

DeborahWales — 2009-11-11 10:48:28Z

I'm so frustrated by the new search and the fact that the old one is now totally gone as I always defaulted back to that.
The new search either throws up nothing relevant at all (when I know exactly what would appear with the old search) or way too much info that I have to sift through with a fine toothcomb.
The old search was superb in every way. It's unbelievable that ancestry.co consider this an 'improvement'.
Also, when I hit the return button, instead of finding the names etc of all I'd previously typed in still there, the boxes are empty, so I have to fill in ALL the data again when with the old search, I'd just make one or two changes.

Re: Can't Print or Save images

jeffjahn — 2009-11-08 17:15:59Z

its something to due with Internet explorer 8 and vista. Firfox 3.5 will let you print them just doestn work with ftm2010. Might want to check your internet add-on might have got turned off.

Re: Can't Print or Save images

lynnesanders_1 — 2009-11-08 09:01:52Z

I have just checked and I seem to have the latest version running so its not that.
I now have 75 images in my shoe box that I cant do anyhting with, its really fraustrating.
Is it the dreaded VISTA? Would upgrading to windows 7 make any difference

Re: Can't Print or Save images

jeffjahn — 2009-11-07 00:25:48Z

Try seeing if your Java is up to date. My has started working again.

Re: Can't Print or Save images

lynnesanders_1 — 2009-11-06 11:48:25Z

I am having the same problem and blamed IE8.
I reverted to IE7 and its no better.
Then I tried Firefox which was suggested by ancestry.
Then I found I Firefox wouldnt let me download the enhanced viewer. The screen froze when I tried to use the basic viewer.
I dont think I will be renewing my Ancestry Sub.

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

pjbuk007 — 2009-11-05 18:52:28Z

Thanks for that info, james. very interesting.

Not sure why onelayperson is wanting this somewhere else; I read posts on here but not the blog.

Cheers

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

onelayperson — 2009-11-04 11:18:26Z

you may be better if you referr your postings to

the Ancestry blog http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

jamesphughes — 2009-11-04 00:41:36Z

According to Barron's magazine of 11/02/2009 Ancestry.com has an IPO tomorrow offering abt $115MM. Being offered thru
Morgan Stanley & BAC Merrill Lynch.

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

TsGromu — 2009-11-03 23:52:26Z

I keep my tree private for many reasons. Living relatives, personal info. Some things have not yet been proven.

Everyone has the same choice to make their trees public or private. Your tree, your choice. No where in Ancestry.com does it say that researchers info has to be shared.

Personally, I do not copy info from other trees for the fact that info may be wrong. I research all of my intros into my trees be it then or later. I have found many erroneous entries about my ancestors in other trees. Some assume that same surnames in the same area have to be related, when in reality some are not.

I have found lots of useful info on Ancestry. Let your fingers do the walking and obtain your own info and do not depend on other researchers' trees. I feel fulfilled whenever I discover something on my own. I may ask another person how one of my ancestors fit into their family.

Re: Improved Screen Layout

tfreeman119 — 2009-11-02 14:44:20Z

Any comments from Ancestry?

Re: Adding sources to a second marriage

LindellFM — 2009-10-29 23:55:34Z

Glad you mentioned this. I would like to see this fixed, too.

Re: July Problem Unresolved: Profile photo not uploading

geisten — 2009-10-29 16:45:06Z

To clarify, I should add that I am running on XP with IE8. Also took the following steps to try and recitfy my problem: turned off the pop-up blocker; disabled the Norton Virus program; and held down the control button (read that somewhere). These steps were taken one at a time. I was successful with Firefox without having to duplicate any of those steps.

Re: July Problem Unresolved: Profile photo not uploading

geisten — 2009-10-29 16:39:28Z

Had the same problem and then read a post where a member resolved the same issue but switched from his IE8 browser to Firefox. Well, I emailed the techs regarding this. The reply was basically they uploaded from IE8 without a problem, but maybe I should try Firefox (I didn't want to download a program on just a "whim")Anyway I did download Firefox and duplicating the very same steps with Firefox that I did with IE8...voila...the photo uploaded. Why? Have not a clue...and apparently neither does Ancestry.
Virginia

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

Brennancass — 2009-10-28 00:24:32Z

I have to agree with you it is very obvious that their only concern is making money. However I do find myself torn because the positive side is that the "leased content" has been a great help to me in connecting up loose ends especially on those elusive ancestors who seemed to fall off the radar. I doubt if I would ever have found out the whereabouts of those who emigrated to the USA and even England!

I will continue to dip into these databases but my tree will remain private from now on!

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

frostfreedet — 2009-10-27 23:55:51Z

Brennancass said, "If Ancestry want credibility then there should also be a clause that people cannot copy that info or those images without first gaining your permission. Using and abusing other peoples hard work is not acceptable but as long as you pay your bucks to Ancestry they will just turn a blind eye to it."

Ancestry.com is not ignoring this. This is a large part of what Ancestry.com is marketing-selling-promoting. Names. Trees to copy. Others' research to lift. Nonsense galore the largest part of the mix, but Ancestry.com will not admit that the trees are nearly all genealojunk. Those who want big trees showing descent from nonexistent persons have a lot to choose from.

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

BobNY — 2009-10-27 22:05:54Z

I guarantee that ancestry has gotten this message continuously and very clearly. THEY DON'T CARE.

They have managed to take a few million dollars worth of software and leased content and turned it into an entity that will be worth about $572 million when the IPO closes. We are not the people they seek credibility with. They need the credibility of the investor class.

Also, selling by existing shareholders and outstanding in-the-money options will make very wealthy individuals out of the management team -- who will then care even less.

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-10-27 20:17:58Z

There is no way Ancestry can enforce a "no copy" clause - although they could disable the feature to do so with one click they can not prevent people from doing screen captures, etc. Anything a browser can displayed can be copied in some way or another.

I object to people copying info from other trees but I *REALLY* object to Ancestry making it so easy to do so.

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

Brennancass — 2009-10-27 18:11:58Z

People want to make there trees available to other people who are serious about family history research. We wrongly make the assumption that those who join Ancestry are like minded. This of course is not the case.

This is what you are agreeing to by ticking the following:

Show links to any information about the public member trees I have submitted.

Show photos and stories I have added to deceased individuals in my public member trees.

If Ancestry want credibility then there should also be a clause that people cannot copy that info or those images without first gaining your permission. Using and abusing other peoples hard work is not acceptable but as long as you pay your bucks to Ancestry they will just turn a blind eye to it. Sad very sad!

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

Brennancass — 2009-10-27 17:50:28Z

I have also posted this on other message boards in Ancestry I want to get the message accross very clearly to ANCESTRY.

I would just like to say that websites such as Ancestry and Genes reunited can be an excellent tool for research. However there are pitfalls and I would like to point these out to everyone who is serious about genealogy and tracing your family tree. If like me you have been researching your family tree before there were facilities like the internet you will know how hard and time consuming research was. I invested a lot of time in my family tree and I am very proud of it.

When these online sites became available I was overjoyed not only was it helping me with my research but now I could also showcase my work and maybe find relatives out there with a similar interest. With this in mind I uploaded over fifteen years of family history research on to Ancestry and unfortunately made it public. Since then my tree has been canabilized by people with, it appears, no serious interest at all in family history!

They latch themselves on to your ancestors the result being that your research becomes distorted as your ancestors acquire several spouses making them bigamists. They acquire children that they could not possibly have biologically conceived and they can also bilocate. One of my great uncle's was apparently in New York and Glasgow at the exact same time!

EXAMPLE from my own personal experience.

Two so called members of Ancestry have latched themselves on to my great great grandparents James Cassidy and Ann Mooney but they have latched on to the wrong James and Ann. No proper research or cross referencing done whatsoever. My great great grandfather and the husband of Ann Mooney James Cassidy was the son of James Cassidy and Mary Maguire not William Cassidy and Mary Dunne as is displayed on their family pages.

My James Cassidy and Ann Mooney were both born in County Fermanagh. Their Cassidys came from County Wicklow so no real understanding of Irish geography or social history there either. County Fermanagh is in the north west of Ireland and Wicklow is in the very south east! Furthermore Killglass another place in their trees is in Rosscommon. In 1840 my James and Ann were living in Glasgow and they moved there from County Fermanagh in 1837/8. They have no connection with Wicklow or Rosscommon.

NO REDRESS WHATSOEVER HOW CAN ANCESTRY HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY IF THEY ALLOW THIS TO CARRY ON? It's a money making machine with no desire to make this a serious family history research site and that is very sad.

So be warned. For research purposes they are absolutely wonderful. For showcasing your work or sharing your data a total unmitigated disaster, especially ANCESTRY. If you do upload your family tree KEEP IT PRIVATE! Invitation only!

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

jmyoung365 — 2009-10-25 22:42:01Z

For the record...ancestry was originally Ancestry and then Ancestry.com ... then the company name was changed to MyFamily.com and later The Generations Network. The company has now come full circle and is Ancestry.com again. At the present time, they are a privately held company with report that they may soon be going IPO and becoming publicly traded on NASDAQ.

The company is not connected (as others have already told you) with the LDS Church nor has it ever been--although many past and present staff, owners, and managers are LDS Church members.

Joan

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

jmyoung365 — 2009-10-25 22:38:03Z

As Nan noted, just because you publish photos you have taken on the Internet doesn't mean you have placed them in the public domain. Others may LINK to them on your page but they don't have the right to take them and republish them elsewhere without your permission.

Joan

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

Nan_Lambert — 2009-10-25 14:14:22Z

"duh, they are not yours anymore when u publish 'em."

Just because something is on the internet does NOT mean there is no longer any copyright. Rootsweb has a mailing list for discussion of copyright issues, if you're actually interested.

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-10-25 12:38:46Z

I have no idea where you got the idea that Ancestry.com "are of the Latter Day Saints, ie. Mormons".

That is, quite simply, *not* the case.

Re: ANCESTRY, GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

JusPeachy2 — 2009-10-25 11:15:03Z

Hey I agree, Ancestry.com is not a company, not one they want you to kno about (altho they are a for profit organization by now I'm sure, they started off as Family.com and are of the Latter Day Saints, ie; Mormons.
Duh, they would be the ones to keep a family tree to keep up w/whose the mother of which child, the father would be the same.

printing census

JusPeachy2 — 2009-10-25 10:23:45Z

when I save & print census, the print is tiny, how do I remedy this? Thanks-n-advance
Anita

Re: Abused and Used: Public Trees vs. Private Trees

JusPeachy2 — 2009-10-25 10:09:19Z

Kudos to you, you have the right Idea! My god, there tombstones for God's sake...These's people worring bout people stealing their pics??-Um, they put them on the web...duh, they are not yours anymore when u publish 'em.
lol, -Anita

Re: Old Search

JusPeachy2 — 2009-10-25 09:48:08Z

Thank you! for mentioning it. I have to do the same thing...if I put in too much info I get zip..I have to be vauge and hunt thru the results..wwt? Is the new search better? I've had mixed feelings abt the new search like a yr ago, I never accepted it so I use old. I didnt like it then, Now they got all kinds of windows on the view of a census...and you have to close all that out to SEE the information.?? Damn, I sound like a Republican.

Re: 1880 US Census Citations

JusPeachy2 — 2009-10-25 09:18:06Z

I agree whole-heartedly damn it! fix the old stuff, this house number stuff is mind-numbing to me, I have more important things to worry abt.

Re: This Week in History -- Feature Suggestion

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-10-23 19:17:42Z

Are you suggesting that Ancestry would have to generate this every day for every person on every family tree on Ancestry??

I really can't see the point- to say nothing of the strain it would put on the servers as well as the slowdown it would probably cause to the whole system.

My personal opinion... this idea won't walk, much less fly.

Re: This Week in History -- Feature Suggestion

BobNY — 2009-10-23 18:28:58Z

Yeah, put that 2,345th on the list after they fix all their database error, transcription errors, search malfunctions, prining problems, etc.

This Week in History -- Feature Suggestion

wjbreiten — 2009-10-23 17:58:40Z

I am suggesting that Ancestry.com add a "This Week in History" section to a family tree. It would show all relevant date entries for the week. For example, it would show birth dates, anniversaries, etc for people in your tree.

Re: 1880 US Census Citations

JoMac53 — 2009-10-23 02:33:44Z

Anne, if you have an internal code to identify records that go together in one household, is there hope that we can eventually have the 1850 households straightened out one day soon, for example...

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1850usfedcenan...

...where total strangers, who are not even on the page, are listed with my James Harrison family? I know how & why this happened and only want to know if these internal codes could be used to fixt it?

Thanks.
Jo