http://www.youtube.com/familysearch#p/f/0/5KLea_DPxb4 -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

On 02-05-2011 12:41, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > I find that tress are very repetitive on Ancestry and most are, to say > the least, very suspicious. Indeed. In looking for info one day, I discovered that dozens of people are repeating that one of my ancestors is the daughter of a French couple, when in fact, there is ample evidence that she was a native American from the opposite side of the continent. Some of these people have copied stuff from me, apparently without noticing that I mention her Ktunaxa origins. And then copy someone else's contradictory unfounded wild guess on top of it. -- Wes Groleau ¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente! 私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである! http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463

January 2011 Update to RootsWeb Surname List New and Modified Surnames starting with D - To learn more about the RSL, including how to access the full RSL which has over a million surnames (these postings are only the NEW or CHANGED names). how to submit surnames, etc., visit http://rsl.rootsweb.com/ - Write directly to the submitter if you would like to exchange information. Entries are formatted as follows: Surname Date1 Date2 Migration Comments & Nametag Surname: The surname being researched Date1: The earliest date for which the submitter has information. Date2: The most recent date. Migration: Where people of this line lived during the period listed. Comments: Additional information (not always included) Nametag: What you need to actually contact the submitter. Abbreviations used in the migration are listed on this web page: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/codes/ OK, so you see a surname listed below and want to share and compare with the person who submitted it. How do you find the submitter? It's not all that bad: to obtain the address info for the submitter whose nametag is "example" (just for example), go here: http://rsl.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/rslsql.cgi?op=user&user=example Reminder: the nametag is the last word on each line in the list below. ===================================== 1 February 2011 D'Agosto 1886 1930 IT>PA>NY Timmwill Daffern 1861 2011 Birmingham, willenhall eowyn Dahlman 1748 1823 PA?>BedfordCo,PA,USA jmcilnay Darlington 1700 England. khtwd6 Davis 1840 2011 MI>WI, USA St. Clair/Muskgn to Milwkee LoK8r Davis 1900 1950 IA mclees59 Dawes 1770? 1830 VA Died VA left orphans ERJ Dawes 1770? 1838? VA Guardian of two orphans nephew & niece - lost Gdnship/died? ERJ Dawes 1815 1900? VA>? No death interment recds ERJ Dawes 1815 1900? VA>? No death interment recds ERJ Dawes 1840 1887 VA Only have 1880VA Cen and Findagrave ERJ DeGiso 1861 now Atripalda, Campania, ITA>NYC erourke7 DeMarse 1890 2011 Muskegon, MI, USA LoK8r Deacon 1700 2011 England>Tasmania>Australia Convict 1831 to Tasmania, Australia cooper55 Deacon 1830 1900 Enniscorthy ,Co Wexford Ireland Heppy64 Dean 1865 now NJ mamsrd Deese 1750 1950 AnsonCo,UnionCo,NC,ChesterfieldCo,USA Could have come from anywhere lail1234 Dempsey 1950 1960 1420 Parkchester Rd., Bronx, NY Sister of Catherine LAUTERBACH PEARCE orvi1931 Detlof 1800 1950 Germany Marzalek Dickerson 1892 1950 Floyd Co, VA>Montgomery Co, VA eb43ly Diel 1800 1830 Amonau,HK,HES,DEU strabala Dobrzyniecki 1884 1929 Cleveland Ohio chris56 Donahue Ireland USA Boston/Worcester, MA Irish origin almed Donald 1850 Present Philedelphia MS > Clarksdale, MS Family jhill85 Donoghue 1863 now MD>WI to WI after 1920 ellie032 Donohoe 1810 Present Drumlane Parish, Co. Cavan to St. Louis, Missouri Terence Donohoe 1810-1884 odono Dorey 1600 2011 France, Channel Islands, UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand georgini Dougherty 1830 1960 Ireland>Canada>Missouri, USA>California, USA koranfam Downing <1740 CT > NY JennyTab Downing md mo ky, oh downing/chenoweth wjdown Doyle 1902 1980 SalmonCove, Nfld.>NS>Galt,ON,Canada dapperda Drennan 1908 1996 Texas ygrovey Dunham 1765 1839 Newport, RI>Saratoga County, NY>Herkimer County, NY>Scriba, Oswego County, NY USA Samuel jo1637 Dunning 1690 1912 ENG>NC>KY>IL,USA married a Tucker, little info hcam Dyke 1813 1896 Culpeper, VA>Randolph, WV,USA WrennCE Dykeman 1800 1880 Verplanck's Point, NY Mary E., wife of Lewis D. MACKEY orvi1931 See directions at the top of this message for information on how to retrieve the submitters' contact information.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:34:52 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:17:44 -0500, Wes Groleau ><Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > > >>Want all Groleau in Delta County, MI? Either search for >>Abe Groleau, Abby Groleau, .... >>or search for all Groleaus in the whole country and narrow it down later. >> >>-- >>Wes Groleau > >I try to make the best of every situation. Thus my advice would be to >be happy that you are not a Sullivan or a Johnson or a Smith. > >Then again, I have not searched for what appears to be a French name >in France. C'est la vie. > >I still consider Ancestry the best source. Linkpendium is an excellent >source EXCEPT, many of the URLs require a subscription fee - or >laboriius entry for a free week of research when you know you have to >remember to unsubscribe to keep from being billed. And, after hours of >research there, I have not been helped. Let me hasten to add that >helping me specifically is not in the job description of the provider; >it's his job to give us opportunities to find data that might help - >and Linkpendium does a great job with that. > >Hugh Is everything in family search available on ancestry.com? I haven't tried family search in quite a while but only found one item that I had already found on ancestry. You mentioned looking for a French name in France. I have problems because I am looking for very common Irish names. Morris, O'Connor, Casey and Sullivan. Do you have any suggestions? I have counties for Morris and O'Connor but not any clue for Sullivan and Casey.

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:17:44 -0500, Wes Groleau > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > > >> Want all Groleau in Delta County, MI? Either search for >> Abe Groleau, Abby Groleau, .... >> or search for all Groleaus in the whole country and narrow it down later. >> >> -- >> Wes Groleau > > I try to make the best of every situation. Thus my advice would be to > be happy that you are not a Sullivan or a Johnson or a Smith. I had a Smith. There were just two of her name as children in the 1841 census in Honley, WRY. By the 1851 one of the families had moved. In Honley the problems start when you have to track down Boothroyds. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:17:44 -0500, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: >Want all Groleau in Delta County, MI? Either search for >Abe Groleau, Abby Groleau, .... >or search for all Groleaus in the whole country and narrow it down later. > >-- >Wes Groleau I try to make the best of every situation. Thus my advice would be to be happy that you are not a Sullivan or a Johnson or a Smith. Then again, I have not searched for what appears to be a French name in France. C'est la vie. I still consider Ancestry the best source. Linkpendium is an excellent source EXCEPT, many of the URLs require a subscription fee - or laboriius entry for a free week of research when you know you have to remember to unsubscribe to keep from being billed. And, after hours of research there, I have not been helped. Let me hasten to add that helping me specifically is not in the job description of the provider; it's his job to give us opportunities to find data that might help - and Linkpendium does a great job with that. Hugh

January 2011 Update to RootsWeb Surname List New and Modified Surnames starting with C - To learn more about the RSL, including how to access the full RSL which has over a million surnames (these postings are only the NEW or CHANGED names). how to submit surnames, etc., visit http://rsl.rootsweb.com/ - Write directly to the submitter if you would like to exchange information. Entries are formatted as follows: Surname Date1 Date2 Migration Comments & Nametag Surname: The surname being researched Date1: The earliest date for which the submitter has information. Date2: The most recent date. Migration: Where people of this line lived during the period listed. Comments: Additional information (not always included) Nametag: What you need to actually contact the submitter. Abbreviations used in the migration are listed on this web page: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/codes/ OK, so you see a surname listed below and want to share and compare with the person who submitted it. How do you find the submitter? It's not all that bad: to obtain the address info for the submitter whose nametag is "example" (just for example), go here: http://rsl.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/rslsql.cgi?op=user&user=example Reminder: the nametag is the last word on each line in the list below. ===================================== 1 February 2011 Calverley 1800 2010 Yorkshire to Orillia, Ontario, Canada. jillikin Cantelon 1884 1967 SK,CAN died in Moose Jaw,SK tedmack Cantrell 1400 Present Derbyshire, UK>North Carolina, USA>Texas>USA koranfam Cantrell 1666 now DBY,ENG>PA>NC>SC>TN>OK cantrll Caraway 1850 now TN nanah3 Carmack 1740 Scotland>United States busz Carmack 1771 1783 Scotland>United States> busz Carpenter 1100 1670 FR>ENG>Belgium>ENG>Mass hcam Carr 1850 Delaware co, PA>Phila PA jel3800 Carver 1800 1900 MD>FranklinCo,PA,USA jmcilnay Castner 1693 now NJ mamsrd Chadwick Prior to 1800 Cheshire,ENG- WI.-USA vistaca Chambers 1804 2011 NFK ENG>SUF ENG> My Grndfter came to CAN in sweeeet1 Champion 1800 1924 southern NJ>Philadelphia>New Brunswick,NJ Emeline, wife of Charles SMITH, dau. of Nathaniel CHAMPION orvi1931 Charvella 1920 now Italy>New York, NY>Batavia, NY Also Migrated to Bauffalo, NY & Rochester, NY somebleu Cheek UK Newfound England English origin almed Cheney 1248 1983 ENG>MD>Ohio>PA>IN>OH hcam Cheppa 1860 2011 POL/RUS>BELGM/FR Antwerp & Paris LoK8r Christopher 1795 now IRE, NC, GA STOWAWAY Suzie73 Christwell 1860 FL Brashaw Clark 1750 1850 IRL>PA>OH alice Clark 1945 2011 UK,ZAF,VIC,AUS RBC123 Coakley c1830s+ Blarney, Cork, Ireland laco Cobb Prior to 1750 MA,NY,MI,WI-USA vistaca Cochran 1805 1879 Stayed in Ireland Watch & Clock maker Heppy64 Cochrane 1805 1879 Stayed in Ireland Watch & Clock maker Heppy64 Cohen 1800 Poland >.Mo khtwd6 Collinsworth 1900 1915 ala to holmes cty fl passed away in holmes cty fl looking for any info trout250 Connolly 1845 now Co. Cavan, IRE>MD immigr. c. 1860 ellie032 Constable 1886 now Italy>USA mconstab Contino 1896 1922 SIC>NY>AL, IL,USA name chgd to Country kegraham Corr 1834 1901 Newmills, IRE>NYC>SC>FL, USA ireneoc Cotton 1750 1965 Indiana - Ohio Pearl, Claudia, Florence, Beegle Cox 1895 1976 WV,USA WrennCE Cragin 1800 1900 Ireland>MA RBigTuna Crecelius 500 a.d. 2010 Germany,verginia,indiana chart on geni.com under lana crecelius or find me on facebook LC27 Crego 1500 2011 England gidget61 Creps 1810 1945 MD?>FranklinCo,PA,USA jmcilnay Croney 1900 1960 Orange Co., CA jblan Crowder 1810 1880 georgia to fl looking for any info, wife was elizabeth trout250 Crowder 1834 1885 fl to disappeared between 1880 nad 1885 , wife was rachel barnes trout250 Culpepper 1140 now ENG,VA,NC,GA,ALA POCAHONTAS Suzie73 See directions at the top of this message for information on how to retrieve the submitters' contact information.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:50:55 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Harvesting is right. You won't be able to click, prepare and download. > Hence my post about developing software to help automate the process >of getting data off the site and into a database. Where's I've found something that might be useful, I copy the screen information and paste it into askSam (a text database), which makes it possible to search for it and find it again. But with the old FamilySearch I could download a GEDCOM and import it into a lineage-linked genealogy program, which makes it easier to compare with other records from other sources. I don't use my main genealogy file for this, but a research file that covers a particular family or area. The new FamilySearch means I would not be able to do that without a lot of retyping, and one of the main usues of computers for research is that you shouldn't have tyo retype anything, or at least not too many times, since errors may creep in. OK, the 1881 census on FamilySearch has lots of errors, but again, if you import the Gedcom into a lineage-linked program, you can correct them, but the source record is there intact for comparison. If you have to retype the stuff from the new version, I can't see anyone going into that amount of detail, and it will lead to sloppy research. I've created a poll on the new FamilySearch on my blog at: http://su.pr/ADGVVj to see how many people like it, and how many don't. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On 02-03-2011 02:46, DiMa wrote: > I totally agree with you Steve. Why did they have to go and break something > that didn't need to be mended. I'm still undecided. One thing I know I _won't_ miss was the really stupid feature that prohibited looking for a surname in particular area. If you don't narrow it down to a particular given name, then you're not allowed to narrow it down at all. Want all Groleau in Delta County, MI? Either search for Abe Groleau, Abby Groleau, .... or search for all Groleaus in the whole country and narrow it down later. -- Wes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:7llmk6lruot3g5er187r2v74q92dib2hsm@4ax.com... > On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:50:55 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: > >>Harvesting is right. You won't be able to click, prepare and download. >> Hence my post about developing software to help automate the process >>of getting data off the site and into a database. > > Where's I've found something that might be useful, I copy the screen > information and paste it into askSam (a text database), which makes it > possible to search for it and find it again. > > But with the old FamilySearch I could download a GEDCOM and import it into > a > lineage-linked genealogy program, which makes it easier to compare with > other > records from other sources. I don't use my main genealogy file for this, > but a > research file that covers a particular family or area. The new > FamilySearch > means I would not be able to do that without a lot of retyping, and one of > the > main usues of computers for research is that you shouldn't have tyo retype > anything, or at least not too many times, since errors may creep in. > > OK, the 1881 census on FamilySearch has lots of errors, but again, if you > import the Gedcom into a lineage-linked program, you can correct them, but > the > source record is there intact for comparison. If you have to retype the > stuff > from the new version, I can't see anyone going into that amount of detail, > and > it will lead to sloppy research. > > I've created a poll on the new FamilySearch on my blog at: > > http://su.pr/ADGVVj > > to see how many people like it, and how many don't. Hey, the price is right, compared to Ancestry, Footnote, Godfrey, etc. ;>) I can live with the changes.

On 3-Feb-2011 6:46 pm, DiMa wrote: > I totally agree with you Steve. Why did they have to go and break something > that didn't need to be mended. > It worked very well until some nut decided it had to be "upgraded" - to > worse. > I have not been successful in one new search and even then I can't find all > the previous ancestors I know are there. > It's probably more into fuzzy logic, but as I have enough trouble with ordinary logic, the point is lost on me. And the results are kinda odd. If I enter 'Australia' as the country, I get lots of Canadian entries mixed in. It can't figure dates, so don't worry about that one, Steve. I note that Legacy (now 7.5) has updated their app to work better with FamilySearch. Maybe this is a new co-operative gesture to try to match FTM/Ancestry? Paul

I totally agree with you Steve. Why did they have to go and break something that didn't need to be mended. It worked very well until some nut decided it had to be "upgraded" - to worse. I have not been successful in one new search and even then I can't find all the previous ancestors I know are there. -- Di I'm creative! You can't expect me to be neat too. Vic Australia "Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in message news:cajkk6dpl9npb69hpmre9jjfs5h8rcn2u8@4ax.com... > New FamilySearch: what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. > > I like new and improved versions of software and search engines, but with > this > one for every gain there is a corresponding loss -- is it worth it? > > Review here: > > http://su.pr/ADGVVj > > > -- > Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa > Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm > Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com > E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop > uk

Paul Blair wrote: > On 3-Feb-2011 6:46 pm, DiMa wrote: >> I totally agree with you Steve. Why did they have to go and break >> something >> that didn't need to be mended. >> It worked very well until some nut decided it had to be "upgraded" - to >> worse. >> I have not been successful in one new search and even then I can't >> find all >> the previous ancestors I know are there. >> > > It's probably more into fuzzy logic, but as I have enough trouble with > ordinary logic, the point is lost on me. > > And the results are kinda odd. If I enter 'Australia' as the country, I > get lots of Canadian entries mixed in. It can't figure dates, so don't > worry about that one, Steve. > > I note that Legacy (now 7.5) has updated their app to work better with > FamilySearch. Maybe this is a new co-operative gesture to try to match > FTM/Ancestry? > > Paul If they absolutely have to change the old search, I prefer the pilot version, which is still operating but for how long ? http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#p=0 If you type in a location, it gives you a choice, using the descriptors in the databasee - and you have a choice between "exact match', 'exact & partial', or 'anything goes' in the results. I really DON'T like this new, improved, whizz-bang site. Bah, humbug! -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

knuttle wrote: > On 2/3/2011 9:59 AM, Ian Goddard wrote: >> knuttle wrote: >>> On 2/3/2011 1:41 AM, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> New FamilySearch: what you gain on the swings you lose on the >>>> roundabouts. >>>> >>>> I like new and improved versions of software and search engines, but >>>> with this >>>> one for every gain there is a corresponding loss -- is it worth it? >>>> >>>> Review here: >>>> >>>> http://su.pr/ADGVVj >>>> >>>> >>> What is the URL for the new site. >>> >>> I have been using >>> >>> http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html# >>> >>> and been quite happy with the ease of use and results obtained. >> >> The new site is on the old address, www.familysearch.org. The old site >> is now http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp >> >> The new site, based on the pilot you've been using doesn't use Flash >> which is a point in its favour. The downside is that it's full of quite >> pointless large graphics which, if it hasn't been tested on your >> particular browser, may overlap the actual search form rendering it >> quite useless until you change your browser. >> >> The advantage of the new site, like the pilot, is that it's a bit freer >> in search construction. For instance on the old site you couldn't just >> put in parents' names unless you also had the batch number. >> >> That, I think is the only advantage. The disadvantages? Where do I start? >> >> I've already mentioned one: the preference for style over (dys)function >> in page design. >> >> There isn't and, according to the info I've been sent, won't be a >> provision for downloads. What's worse, presumably to prepare us for the >> withdrawal of the original site, they've broken the original download so >> that if you attempt prepare more than a very few records for download >> the site throws an error. >> >> The original site presents up to 200 hits per page. The new site has >> very few (can't let the information get in the way of those graphics) so >> you're for ever hitting next, next, next to review the results. >> >> AFAICS there's no good way to drill down to the record sources. What you >> get is mysterious looking references such as "England-EASy". >> >> However, we can't complain we weren't warned - the new site is billed as >> a "New Experience" or some such. The E-word is almost invariably an >> indication that that the marketing people have got involved and chucked >> things like functionality out of the window. >> >> IMV it's designed to attract casual passers-by and the requirements of >> serious researchers simply no longer matter. >> > > Assuming that all of the Familysearch sites work the same around the world. > > www.familysearch.org > > Gives you a listing of documents with the search string. To access the > referenced document click and the document opens. I'm not sure what you mean by this but in the UK that site takes me to the new site. On my preferred browser the fields are not correctly placed as the designer intended. Initially the huge and quite irrelevant splurge of graphics covered most of the search form. Now it's even worse; I can see some of the search form but it won't take focus. > > http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html# > > Gives a much more usable pretension as it is divided such that you can > look at those documents where there reference occurs. > Each entry is given a as a summary of the entry. "Pretension"! There's a Freudian slip of the first water! It describes the new site's styling splendidly. Yes it works better than the new site but uses Flash where plain, old HTML worked quite well on the original site. But my understanding is that that pilot site and the original will eventually be withdrawn. > Click on the the name on the left, gives you the transcribed entry. > > Click on the document icon or on the right margin and you get the > document image. > > It is quite easy to navigate between the document image, transcription, > and the search results. Wherever I've searched I've always found that display of the image required subscription to some other service. If I had that subscription I might as well have used that service instead of Familysearch. > PS I see I am going to have to do some harvesting as there are a lot of > new records on the site. Harvesting is right. You won't be able to click, prepare and download. Hence my post about developing software to help automate the process of getting data off the site and into a database. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

knuttle wrote: > On 2/3/2011 1:41 AM, Steve Hayes wrote: >> New FamilySearch: what you gain on the swings you lose on the >> roundabouts. >> >> I like new and improved versions of software and search engines, but >> with this >> one for every gain there is a corresponding loss -- is it worth it? >> >> Review here: >> >> http://su.pr/ADGVVj >> >> > What is the URL for the new site. > > I have been using > > http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html# > > and been quite happy with the ease of use and results obtained. The new site is on the old address, www.familysearch.org. The old site is now http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp The new site, based on the pilot you've been using doesn't use Flash which is a point in its favour. The downside is that it's full of quite pointless large graphics which, if it hasn't been tested on your particular browser, may overlap the actual search form rendering it quite useless until you change your browser. The advantage of the new site, like the pilot, is that it's a bit freer in search construction. For instance on the old site you couldn't just put in parents' names unless you also had the batch number. That, I think is the only advantage. The disadvantages? Where do I start? I've already mentioned one: the preference for style over (dys)function in page design. There isn't and, according to the info I've been sent, won't be a provision for downloads. What's worse, presumably to prepare us for the withdrawal of the original site, they've broken the original download so that if you attempt prepare more than a very few records for download the site throws an error. The original site presents up to 200 hits per page. The new site has very few (can't let the information get in the way of those graphics) so you're for ever hitting next, next, next to review the results. AFAICS there's no good way to drill down to the record sources. What you get is mysterious looking references such as "England-EASy". However, we can't complain we weren't warned - the new site is billed as a "New Experience" or some such. The E-word is almost invariably an indication that that the marketing people have got involved and chucked things like functionality out of the window. IMV it's designed to attract casual passers-by and the requirements of serious researchers simply no longer matter. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 2/3/2011 10:50 AM, Ian Goddard wrote: > Harvesting is right. You won't be able to click, prepare and download. > Hence my post about developing software to help automate the process > of getting data off the site and into a database. Sorry I have not downloaded a document in years. When ever I want a document on this site or any other I all ways print it. Print it to a PDF file where I can zoom either all of the documents or parts. PS I have found that using the ruler at http://onscreenruler.nfshost.com is great for those documents like US census document when trying to line up the entries with the headers.

On 2/3/2011 9:59 AM, Ian Goddard wrote: > knuttle wrote: >> On 2/3/2011 1:41 AM, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> New FamilySearch: what you gain on the swings you lose on the >>> roundabouts. >>> >>> I like new and improved versions of software and search engines, but >>> with this >>> one for every gain there is a corresponding loss -- is it worth it? >>> >>> Review here: >>> >>> http://su.pr/ADGVVj >>> >>> >> What is the URL for the new site. >> >> I have been using >> >> http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html# >> >> and been quite happy with the ease of use and results obtained. > > The new site is on the old address, www.familysearch.org. The old site > is now http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp > > The new site, based on the pilot you've been using doesn't use Flash > which is a point in its favour. The downside is that it's full of quite > pointless large graphics which, if it hasn't been tested on your > particular browser, may overlap the actual search form rendering it > quite useless until you change your browser. > > The advantage of the new site, like the pilot, is that it's a bit freer > in search construction. For instance on the old site you couldn't just > put in parents' names unless you also had the batch number. > > That, I think is the only advantage. The disadvantages? Where do I start? > > I've already mentioned one: the preference for style over (dys)function > in page design. > > There isn't and, according to the info I've been sent, won't be a > provision for downloads. What's worse, presumably to prepare us for the > withdrawal of the original site, they've broken the original download so > that if you attempt prepare more than a very few records for download > the site throws an error. > > The original site presents up to 200 hits per page. The new site has > very few (can't let the information get in the way of those graphics) so > you're for ever hitting next, next, next to review the results. > > AFAICS there's no good way to drill down to the record sources. What you > get is mysterious looking references such as "England-EASy". > > However, we can't complain we weren't warned - the new site is billed as > a "New Experience" or some such. The E-word is almost invariably an > indication that that the marketing people have got involved and chucked > things like functionality out of the window. > > IMV it's designed to attract casual passers-by and the requirements of > serious researchers simply no longer matter. > Assuming that all of the Familysearch sites work the same around the world. www.familysearch.org Gives you a listing of documents with the search string. To access the referenced document click and the document opens. http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html# Gives a much more usable pretension as it is divided such that you can look at those documents where there reference occurs. Each entry is given a as a summary of the entry. Click on the the name on the left, gives you the transcribed entry. Click on the document icon or on the right margin and you get the document image. It is quite easy to navigate between the document image, transcription, and the search results. PS I see I am going to have to do some harvesting as there are a lot of new records on the site.

January 2011 Update to RootsWeb Surname List New and Modified Surnames starting with B - To learn more about the RSL, including how to access the full RSL which has over a million surnames (these postings are only the NEW or CHANGED names). how to submit surnames, etc., visit http://rsl.rootsweb.com/ - Write directly to the submitter if you would like to exchange information. Entries are formatted as follows: Surname Date1 Date2 Migration Comments & Nametag Surname: The surname being researched Date1: The earliest date for which the submitter has information. Date2: The most recent date. Migration: Where people of this line lived during the period listed. Comments: Additional information (not always included) Nametag: What you need to actually contact the submitter. Abbreviations used in the migration are listed on this web page: http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/codes/ OK, so you see a surname listed below and want to share and compare with the person who submitted it. How do you find the submitter? It's not all that bad: to obtain the address info for the submitter whose nametag is "example" (just for example), go here: http://rsl.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/rslsql.cgi?op=user&user=example Reminder: the nametag is the last word on each line in the list below. ===================================== 1 February 2011 Bagnall 1818 Worrall, Sussex to Ontario CA jbruton Bailey 1700 1890 LND jesse2 Bailey 1935 2011 IN lynn1949 Bain 1898 1997 Montgomery Co, VA eb43ly Baker 1831 1927 ESS ENG>SUFF ENG> sweeeet1 Baker 1871 1930 North Carolina > Tennessee bakeme Baker 1924 2011 IN lynn1949 Baker 1966 2011 SC lynn1949 Balderstone 1845 now Lancashire>Canada welllove Baldwin 1800 now Connecticut>Indiana>MO Miles Baldwin and Julia Clark dj2254 Baldwin 1800 now Connecticut>Indiana>MO>CA Miles Baldwin and Julia Clark dj2254 Barbier 1636 1991 ELS,DEU>CLE,OH USA walt21 Barker 1800 1814 India johnford Barker 1932 2011 FL MAIDEN: BIAMONTE lynn1949 Barnes 1889 1963 DauphinCo,PA,USA jmcilnay Barnhill 1928 2011 SC lynn1949 Barr 1815 1900? VA>? No death interment recds ERJ Bartels 1826 Germany>Indiana>Minnesota youngck Barton 1880 1975 WV,USA WrennCE Bass 1955 2011 IN lynn1949 Battistoni 1858 present Brenzone, Verona, Italy>CT & MA, US ljbcush Beam 1800 1855 PA Henry Conrad/ Margaret Smith robbeam Beam 1900 1960 Orange Co., CA jblan Beasley 1860 now TN nanah3 Beckwith 1940 2011 IL IN lynn1949 Beecroft 1850 1841 ENG>CAN sweeeet1 Beehler 1957 2011 MN lynn1949 Beisang 1860 1880 WaterlooCo,ON,CAN>MN,USA strabala Bell 1817 Now TN>KY>IL>AR Thomas Bell, b1817 TN married to Delila Dalton Ewing lenbell Bellmeyer Prior to 1814 Baden-Wurttemberg-USA-WI original spelling unknown vistaca Bennett 1859 1943 AdamsCo,PA>DauphinCo,PA,USA jmcilnay Bennett ~1860 2006 MA>?>KY>AK>Toppenish,WA>Chelsea,MI,USA gaunt Bergmaier 1866 now GER,USA sbarela Berhend 1824 Germany>NY,USA Brashaw Berry 1850 now TN nanah3 Bichsel France NY WI caf61h Bild 1690 1991 ELS,DEU>CLE,OH USA walt21 Bird 1771 1850 Scotland>United States busz Bird 1771 1850 Scotland>United States> busz Bixby 1862 North Dakota mcf0902 Black 1874 unknown PA>Nashville, TN Spouse of O'Leary sjwoodar Blackman 1530 1875 Ireland>ENG>VA>NC>Hickman Co. TN married Gray hcam Blease 1796 1960 england >ga>sc clay822 Bloodworth 1850 1925 tennessee>texas patpike Bloomer 1922 2011 IN HE WAS A PASTOR lynn1949 Bogers 1890 1900 Netherlands>MA>USA toepic58 Bohmer 1830 present Prussia>NY ljbcush Bonds ----- 2011 AR IN MI MAIDEN: ROBINSON...1ST HUSBAND BRADFORD lynn1949 Bonner 1775 1904 SCT?>FranklinCo,PA>BedfordCo,PA,USA jmcilnay Bontrager 1935 2011 MI IN lynn1949 Borcher 1750 now Diele, Niedersachsen,Germany>Stephenson County, IL wiscgirl Borrett 1830 1902 SFK ENG>DUR ENG sweeeet1 Bosak c1900 now PA>OH Anna Bosak married Stephen Franek; (Anna died 2/1976; Stephen died 4/1927) They had 7 children; lived in central PA susan111 Bowman 1860 KY>AR>FL Brashaw Boyer 1943 2011 MI IN lynn1949 Brace 1754 2011 Devon,Eng>Newfoundland>PEI Thomas is 1st I have info armysand Brashaw 1860 now Canada>AR>FL,USA Brashaw Braun 1888 2011 NY>MO>MT,USA jrichers Brauninger 1923 2011 FL MAIDEN: WITTNEBEL lynn1949 Brissette 1800 2000 Canada>CT>MA RBigTuna Brookes 1943 current new york father pdmonkey Brown VA MD knott194 Bruneau 1700 1967 Canada brenda37 Bruno 1700 1967 Canada brenda37 Bryan 1139 1793 Aquitaine>ENG>Wales>ENG> Ireland> VA>NC married Tunstall hcam Bryant 1481 1967 ENG>CON>NY>NC>VA>ILL>TN>ILL>KS married Tucker hcam Buchert 1660 1991 ELS,DEU>CLE,OH USA walt21 Bunce 1871 now MD>FL Dpaulson Burton NC GA AL dhburton Butler Newfound USA Cambridge, MA English origin almed Buzbee 1934 1985 TX>CA>AR looking for relatives of Cecil Howard Buzbee buzbeetx See directions at the top of this message for information on how to retrieve the submitters' contact information.

On 2/3/2011 1:41 AM, Steve Hayes wrote: > New FamilySearch: what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. > > I like new and improved versions of software and search engines, but with this > one for every gain there is a corresponding loss -- is it worth it? > > Review here: > > http://su.pr/ADGVVj > > What is the URL for the new site. I have been using http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html# and been quite happy with the ease of use and results obtained.

New FamilySearch: what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. I like new and improved versions of software and search engines, but with this one for every gain there is a corresponding loss -- is it worth it? Review here: http://su.pr/ADGVVj -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk