I am sorry I have to disagree Nivard. Perhaps it is just my luck with my family's names, but I find that Ancestry returns way too many hits to be useable. For instance I searched for a Goodwin born 1839 b. Kington in the 1841 census, And I had over 100 pages or something similar of every Goodwin born in every county except Herefordshire! This has happened on lots of the searches I have done all over the place. I also feel that Ancestry subs are quite expensive if you have a limited family to search. If I was doing a one name study that would be different. I have found Scotlands People to be quite cost effective, especially compared to some of the newer sites, that charge an exorbitant amount to view images. Heather in Canada Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi Lesley > > I also noticed the oddity on the Soldiers that Died returns for Theatre of > War > > The majority seem to state Aldershot with some British Expeditionary Force > and a few others, I don't think its a transcript error, rather a database > field selection error as far as I can see > > As I already had the Soldiers that Died for my people I had not until now > thought to question where that (Aldershot) comes from, I have now mailed > Ancestry for an explanation and will let you know what the outcome is > > As to transcript errors, I have found Ancestry no worse than any other > supplier of online information such as findmypast or the genealogist etc, > the difference I find is that with Ancestry you have a chance to find people > with others you have little chance > > > Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > > > >> I aquired an Ancestry sub as a birthday present and have been both >> >> amused and annoyed to see that their reputation for typos is well >> deserved. >> >> One of the most annoying (indeed somewhat offensive) thus far has been >> >> the major mistake in their transcription of Soldier Who Died in the Great >> War, >> >> where they show most men as having died in Aldershot rather than the >> >> actual battlefield or area. >> >> I'm using it, like the IGI and other transcriptions, to narrow >> possibilities >> >> before checking the orig8inals on SP. >> >> >> >> Lesley Robertson >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ANGUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

Hi Heather Searching the 1841 census on Ancestry for GOODWIN as a surname and Kington as a keyword (as birth places are not enumerated in 1841 you can't search on that) gets 29 hits If you further reduce that by selecting the County of residence as Herefordshire it gives 23 hits I would place bets on you having the box for "exact matches only" unticked More than happy to go through it with you if you wish Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) >I am sorry I have to disagree Nivard. Perhaps it is just my luck with my > family's names, but I find that Ancestry returns way too many hits to be > useable. For instance I searched for a Goodwin born 1839 b. Kington in > the 1841 census, And I had over 100 pages or something similar of every > Goodwin born in every county except Herefordshire! This has happened on > lots of the searches I have done all over the place. I also feel that > Ancestry subs are quite expensive if you have a limited family to > search. If I was doing a one name study that would be different. I have > found Scotlands People to be quite cost effective, especially compared > to some of the newer sites, that charge an exorbitant amount to view > images. > > Heather in Canada

Heather, Just in case this helps - not sure if you still have the Ancestry access but a couple of points may help. Or may not... 1. Always make sure you tick the box "Exact matches only" - if you don't, then it will look for "Goodwin born 1839 b. Kington", first, then "Goodwin born 1839", i.e. born anywhere, then "Goodwin b. Kington" at any time... (Or some such order of searching) Even if you want Soundex searching (i.e. not-quite-the-right-spelling), leave that "Exact matches only" ticked. Whenever I get lots, it's usually because I've unticked the box. 2. The 1841 census doesn't actually include place of birth - not even the county unless it's the same as the residence so adding this as a search item wouldn't trim anything down and - if you got anything - it would cover the whole of the UK. Then again, you may know this already... (Adding Herefordshire as a place of birth would only find Herefordshire born people in Herefordshire. Go over the county border and all they will have on the original is "N" for "Not born in this county" Adrian -----Original Message----- From: angus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:angus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Heather Canevaro Sent: Mon 06 April 2009 14:01 To: angus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ANGUS] Try again? I am sorry I have to disagree Nivard. Perhaps it is just my luck with my family's names, but I find that Ancestry returns way too many hits to be useable. For instance I searched for a Goodwin born 1839 b. Kington in the 1841 census, And I had over 100 pages or something similar of every Goodwin born in every county except Herefordshire! This has happened on lots of the searches I have done all over the place. I also feel that Ancestry subs are quite expensive if you have a limited family to search. If I was doing a one name study that would be different. I have found Scotlands People to be quite cost effective, especially compared to some of the newer sites, that charge an exorbitant amount to view images. Heather in Canada <snipped>