I don't think any 'ultra-premium' rate gives you any advantages on Ancestry searches. I hate New Search but I have been using more often recently because I just find CantFindMyPast so frustrating since they similarly 'improved' it. I think the management of both just listened to supposed web experts rather than people with any actual experience of family history. I am wondering whether CantFindMyPast will survive, they have lost many customers and many more are just waiting for their subscription period to end. Martin Briscoe Fort William martin@mbriscoe.me.uk -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian J Densmore Sent: 21 April 2014 16:31 To: Ed Spann Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] New Version of Find My Past Depends on your definition of Brilliant. I've always felt it was Intentional on Ancestry's part, to make searching as laborious and painful as they could, just in case you aren't paying an ultra-premium rate. By which definition, I say they've succeeded with unusual Brilliance. Most times, I'd rather see the dentist than begin an Ancestry query. I keep a well stocked Single Malt collection, just for doing Ancestry searches. Sorry, to hear that FMP has had a similar stroke of genius. P.S. I like trawling through the old hard copy records. I usually find what I'm looking for, if I am properly prepared before going.

> I don't think any 'ultra-premium' rate gives you any advantages on > Ancestry > searches. I see my sarcasm broadcast engine seems to have broken down again, and unsuspecting readers have been subjected to my stealth-mode sarcasm. I apologize for this. But we all know how touchy today's technology can be. Here and gone at the speed of the Internet. Which is pretty darn fast for those lucky folks in the UK, and not so great for us poor slobs in the USA (unless you are one of those lucky enough to have Google Fiber. I can almost smell the fiber from my house a few scant miles outside it's local distribution. I may have to sell my house and soul to move inside that privileged circle.). Brian

Although counter intuitive, I am beginning to find my way around FMP. As I experiment, I am finding records I didn't find using the old version, so perseverance pays off. Could do with a couple of tutorials though - might prepare some over the next few weeks. Very Best Wishes GAY Sent from my iPad On 21 Apr 2014, at 16:46, "Martin Briscoe" <martin@mbriscoe.me.uk> wrote: > I don't think any 'ultra-premium' rate gives you any advantages on Ancestry > searches. > > I hate New Search but I have been using more often recently because I just > find CantFindMyPast so frustrating since they similarly 'improved' it. > > I think the management of both just listened to supposed web experts rather > than people with any actual experience of family history. > > I am wondering whether CantFindMyPast will survive, they have lost many > customers and many more are just waiting for their subscription period to > end. > > > > Martin Briscoe > Fort William > martin@mbriscoe.me.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Brian J Densmore > Sent: 21 April 2014 16:31 > To: Ed Spann > Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CHS] New Version of Find My Past > > Depends on your definition of Brilliant. I've always felt it was Intentional > on Ancestry's part, to make searching as laborious and painful as they > could, just in case you aren't paying an ultra-premium rate. > > By which definition, I say they've succeeded with unusual Brilliance. > > Most times, I'd rather see the dentist than begin an Ancestry query. I keep > a well stocked Single Malt collection, just for doing Ancestry searches. > > Sorry, to hear that FMP has had a similar stroke of genius. > > P.S. I like trawling through the old hard copy records. I usually find what > I'm looking for, if I am properly prepared before going. > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> As I experiment, I am finding records I didn't find using the old version, so perseverance pays off <<snipped>> Interesting - can't say I've noticed that, but one new facility I've found very useful is that if you make your enquiry from the right place, it is possible to see all of the BMDs together - this provides strong indications where there are children who died shortly after baptism, speeding up their identification. I also find it useful to see baptisms interwoven with civil registrations of births as the lack of a registration is a strong indicator of a late baptism. However, there are people for whom any mixing is anathema and who don't see any advantage in cross-comparisons. What must be frustrating for the programmers is when they get complaints with no specifics, such as "X doesn't work", then they run examples of their own and X does work. I have a feeling that the new system is more susceptible to dodgy data than the previous. For instance, I'm now looking at a list of baptisms - some have the parish shown under "Location", some just say "Cheshire". Looking at the so-called transcripts (i.e. the indexes), the placename data varies between them - I always said the LDS hadn't indexed consistently - and it looks like some combinations work, but others just show the county. The only way the programmers will sort it out, is if people give specifics so they can see why the data on a specific record doesn't work. But no matter how hard I try, I can find nothing positive to say about FMP's publicity people... Adrian B