On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:24:27 +0000 Charani via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Charani, >supposed to be available because Origins had them. Putting "Tithe" in >the search box results in being told to "try again with a broader >search". I'm not sure how much broader it can get! Possibly you're looking for 'tithe' in the wrong place. If you want to search the tithe databases, search fro "tithe" in the A-Z of databases, not use it as a keyword in the person search. They only have one dataset with tithe in the title, anyway: The 1831 Tithe defaulters Which is contained within the Census, Land & Surveys data set. Like many others, I didn't like the new search at FMP (even after tweaking, I agree it *still* has too much white space), but having adjusted to it a bit, I now find Ancestry's search that requires interminable tweaks, checks, ticks and caveats just to get only UK results a right royal PITA to use. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" People stare like they've seen a ghost Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999

On 14/03/2015 12:36, Brad Rogers via wrote: > Possibly you're looking for 'tithe' in the wrong place. If you want to > search the tithe databases, search fro "tithe" in the A-Z of databases, > not use it as a keyword in the person search. I went to the A-Z of databases put "Tithe" in the search box and got zilch. I wasn't looking for a specific person. It was a place I wanted because I don't know who owned/occupied what, if anything. > They only have one dataset with tithe in the title, anyway: > > The 1831 Tithe defaulters Which should have come up but didn't. > Which is contained within the Census, Land & Surveys data set. Which is where I expected it to be. > Like many others, I didn't like the new search at FMP (even after > tweaking, I agree it *still* has too much white space), They need to have the search pages with all the boxes on one page and an option at the top to increase the size if required. I've seen plenty of sites that offer that option. > but having adjusted to it a bit, They do seem to have listened, as I said, but only up to a point. > I now find Ancestry's search that requiresinterminable tweaks, checks, > ticks and caveats just to get only UK results a right royal PITA to use. Having always struggled with Ancestry, even after I started using it in preference to FMP, I find the recent tweaks make it infinitely easier to search. I get just the result I want most of the time - even if they do tell me to add more information to get better results! <G> This is what I /used/ to be able to do with FMP and wish I still could because Ancestry's indexing is still "interesting" at times. I'm going to be keeping an eye on The Genealogist for their tithe records. I've had a sub with them before. Their search facility takes quite a bit to get used to. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:25:18 +0000 Charani via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Charani, >On 14/03/2015 12:36, Brad Rogers via wrote: >> Possibly you're looking for 'tithe' in the wrong place. If you want >I went to the A-Z of databases put "Tithe" in the search box and got Okay; I wasn't sure where you were looking. >zilch. No idea what happened there, then. :-( Ultimately, no matter which company one uses, be it Ancestry, FMP, Genealogist, etc. I suspect that, when it comes to using the search forms on other sites, they're quite likely to feel cumbersome. Due, of course, to lack of familiarity. Obviously, the same applies when companies update their own forms. We all(1) hate it when they do that. (1) Well, a lot of us. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" It's not your heart, it's your bank I want to break It's Yer Money - Wonder Stuff

On 14/03/2015 14:32, Brad Rogers via wrote: > Ultimately, no matter which company one uses, be it Ancestry, FMP, > Genealogist, etc. I suspect that, when it comes to using the search > forms on other sites, they're quite likely to feel cumbersome. Due, of > course, to lack of familiarity. Obviously, the same applies when > companies update their own forms. We all(1) hate it when they do that. > > (1) Well, a lot of us. I think when someone subscribes to a new site, there's an expectation of a learning curve, that the search engine is not going to be like a more familiar one. It's when an old favourite radically changes their site for no apparent reason, that's when, as you say, many get upset. Sometimes I think it's the /firm/ that gets bored with the look of the site, forgetting the /users/ probably aren't. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:46:58 +0000 Charani via <middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: Hello Charani, >Sometimes I think it's the /firm/ that gets bored with the look of the >site, forgetting the /users/ probably aren't. Undoubtedly, that's part of it, too. After all, web technology, like anything else, changes over time. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" You couldn't find your feet, if you were looking for them I Don't Like You - Stiff Little Fingers

I hope I can earn the indulgence of the List Admin by prefacing my two pennorth with a Middlesex-related point. A choice between Ancestry and FMP is not an option for Internet-based research on most London ancestors. Although both providers have all the relevant censuses and transcriptions of the GRO indices, most of the rest of the data they carry is not duplicated. Most of the parish registers (as well as other important local resources) we need are in either the LMA or the Westminster Archives. The former did a deal with Ancestry, the latter with FMP. The Westminster parishes are obviously fewer in number but they served a very large population. Although a subscription to both at the same time is not feasible for many, it is no good pretending that it is simply a matter of choosing one's favourite, like deciding between IE and Chrome. Both companies have, over the last two years, made "improvements" to their websites. The main purpose of these changes has been to promote what I call the "sausage machine model" of family history - i.e. you enter some names, dates and places into boxes and, hey presto, a family tree is generated at the other end. It is true that such a crude tool can actually work in some cases but families, and history, are most of the time more complicated. The most effective way to use these sites has always been to regard them as an online library. To get the best out of this (and any other) library you need (a) knowledge of the historical context and the various records that exist; (b) some effective finding aids to speed up the process; and (c) the engagement and utilisation of the impressive processing power of the human brain. In most cases, looking at one dataset ("book", in the library analogy) at a time is more effective than flipping through a pile of them. Using Ancestry like a library is still marginally easier than FMP because (a) the "card catalogue" is easier to use to find individual datasets; (b) you can quickly and easily compile a list of the ones you use most often, via the Quick Links facility; and (c) they have chosen to credit their subscribers with a little respect by assuming they can read grown up sized type, and can therefore present a lot more information on one page. As I said, it's not quite as simple as "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Most London researchers will want/need both at some point. FMP has got its hands on the 1939 Register (release date not announced yet but probably end of this year or beginning of next) which should keep it solvent for a long time, despite its inadequacies! Caroline

Hi Charani I am not sure what you mean exactly by increasing the size as I never use FMP apart from the recent free trial. However, are you aware that, if you hold the ctrl key on your keyboard and roll the wheel on the mouse (or laptop equivalent) you can increase or decrease the size of the font on any web page? Sorry for interfering if this isn't what you meant. Jean -----Original Message----- From: middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:middlesex_county_uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Charani via Sent: 14 March 2015 14:25 To: middlesex_county_uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [MDX] FindMyPast They need to have the search pages with all the boxes on one page and an option at the top to increase the size if required. I've seen plenty of sites that offer that option. Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk . . ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MIDDLESEX_COUNTY_UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4306/9298 - Release Date: 03/14/15

> > Like many others, I didn't like the new search at FMP (even after > tweaking, I agree it *still* has too much white space), but having > adjusted to it a bit, I now find Ancestry's search that requires > interminable tweaks, checks, ticks and caveats just to get only UK > results a right royal PITA to use. It's simple -just put 'England' or 'Scotland' or even 'United kingdom' in the box marked 'location'. That cuts out all the irrelevant stuff from American sources. Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> They only have one dataset with tithe in the title, anyway: > > The 1831 Tithe defaulters Isn't that the IRISH tithe defaulters?. The Genealogist now had Tithe Maps for England (not yet investigated but souns very useful to more people. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society