I've never complained about this, not even to Ancestry, but my tree on Ancestry loses its sync with the tree on FTM. The restoration is a bit odd in that Ancestry will take uploads of multiple trees with the same name. So I have to delete my tree on Ancestry before uploading one from FTM or else search the two with the same name for any difference. There's no date or time stamp that I can find. Just seems odd to me that a company can get its very existence from software and still treat two files like paper from a copy machine. Gale Gorman Houston On Mar 11, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Russ I have only seen one comment on the interface between FTM and Ancestry This suggests its not the same for all users, ie its a problem on or with your computer Have you cleared temp internet files and cookies as I suggested previously as that may well be your problem, or have you phoned them? The main problem being complained about is the infernal New search Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 11/03/2014 18:06, Russ Moorhouse wrote: > I've been playing around with FTM/Ancestry's web search and just the Search > that Ancestry has on their website http://search.ancestry.com/search/ > > I have to say that the one on Ancestry is much better for quick results, for > whatever reason. You can play around with the search associated with FTM and > will get basically the same search form, once you get past the messages stating > it needs more information. I found by using this search form, which is like > the one you eventually get on > Ancestry's website, that I had better luck finding people by entering less data. ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Since it has been much a topic of discussion for the past few days, I decided to check out the New Search. One of the prime differences I immediately noticed was the variety of ways to access records. This is admittedly not as straightforward as Old Search, where everything was alphabetical in a drop down list, so on the Search tab I chose the first option, Search All Records, then clicked on a state where many of my lines from from -- North Carolina. The collections are all organized according to the type of record in groups -- Census and Voters Lists; Birth, Marriage and Death; Military; Tax, Criminal, Land and Wills, etc. This is a substantial improvement over New Search when it was first introduced, and you would try and access a particular state and get all sorts of collections that were not specific to that state. I skimmed the collections for the databases I most frequently used in the past and saw them all there, and many others which have apparently been added. Since I have not been using Ancestry much lately I was not familiar with New Search, and I have to say, it's much improved. Of course, the final word should depend on a wider review, but I think if used in this fashion -- by accessing collections specific to a given locale -- many of the same results obtained in Old Search should come up. Barton On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 01:15 PM, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi Don > > I am not entirely sure what new search was designed to do, clearly not > research > > I can only assume you haven't used Old search or you have done very > little research on Ancestry or perhaps you are blessed with an > extremely easy to find family > > I have been using Ancestry for well over a decade, I am well used to > its foibles and idiosyncrasies but this latest incarnation is pathetic > > New search is hopeless, it is not fit for purpose IMHO > (and many others opinions) > > When it was first announced I tried to use it exclusively, I gave up > in frustration after a week > > Since then they have revamped it a few times, each time I attempted to > use it but went back to Old search (or Real search if you will) > > I have watched the many videos, read the various how to's and nothing > helps > > You get varying search results even using the same search criteria, > you can't locate things you know are there from previous use of old > search etc etc > > So if you find it usable, good for you, I and many others do not > > Do take the time to read the comments on the first of the three links > you posted > > > > I very much doubt that anything will change as they simply don't > listen, its all about getting millions of hits in their eyes > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 11/03/2014 14:39, Don Varner wrote: >> Are you sure that you are using New Search as it is designed to be >> used? >> In my opinion Ancestry has gone out of there way to explain the need >> for >> change and to offer training on how to use the new search. There are >> several videos on their YouTube channel that will help. The new >> search >> works so much better and has many more features than the old search >> had >> that there is no comparison. I would offer these three links to help >> explain the new search and how to make use of it's features. > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to > [email protected] and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I've been playing around with FTM/Ancestry's web search and just the Search that Ancestry has on their website http://search.ancestry.com/search/ I have to say that the one on Ancestry is much better for quick results, for whatever reason. You can play around with the search associated with FTM and will get basically the same search form, once you get past the messages stating it needs more information. I found by using this search form, which is like the one you eventually get on Ancestry's website, that I had better luck finding people by entering less data. I entered "First name" and "Last name" ( failed when I entered middle name); Under "Any Event" I selected "Lived In" and entered the County and State: For "Gender" I put male and for "Nationality" I typed English. In both Ancestry's website and FTM's it worked great. It would seem that if they eliminated all the frustration in the first search you get from using FTM would be eliminated and go straight to the search that you eventually get to, we might have a usable product. Or you can just go out to the link I listed and use Ancestry's search. I can see the people at Ancestry wondering why they have all these complaints, when it's working well for them, but those of us using FTM are getting frustrated. There's an interface problem between the two, but you can get to the search that works eventually, I just don't remember how I did it. Russ Moorhouse

Still l,ooking for marriage of Mary Bankswhowas born on 12.07.1807. Marrage must have taken place after January 1841 when she signed as witness to her brother Benjamin,s wedding in her maiden name. I believeshe married in London area. Felicia Riley Sent from my iPad

I have watched this discussion with interest, as NEW SEARCH never worked for me when I tried it before, a good year or two ago. And I decided way back then, that I would not change over until I had to. Why go through torture using a product that I do not have to use, when a tried and true method is available. Well, I finally was forced to use New Search last week, because when I went to Ancestry, Old Search was gone. And I have to say that, at least at this point, I am finding that it is much improved over the horrible old versins of NEW SEARCH, and that I still can find difficult records in New Search, using the techniques I have always used in Old Search....namely, don't trust soundex, instead use exact match with wild cards! If Russ had used wild cards with exact match, guessing which parts of the surname were most likely to have been slaughtered by transcription, one of those guesses would most likely have turned up the record that Nivard found for him. I have given very detailed examples of how I use wild cards to tailor exact matches on the following page in the NAME section, and anyone needing to find a better way to turn up records with the online search, might read my explanation: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~thecohens/research.html I was very worried about how useless Ancestry was going to become, but my old tried and true techniques still work. But it can be a challenge, crafting a search so that it coughs up the records I am looking for. It might take multiple searches, changing parameters, to finally find a record. But I am confident, that if you master the art of advanced search techniques, you can eventually find whatever records you know are there....unless they were so badly transcribed that the surname of a different family gets tacked on to your family members. For that one, then the only solution is to research their address and then browse records to see who is on the page. But those kind of problems are not related to old vs. new search, they are major indexing mistakes. Or search for a child without a surname (and be sure to use exact search and tack on a wild card in case there is a middle initial), using just the first names for parents and loose search for birth year and birth place. I cannot speak to FamilyTreeMaker search problems, as I do not use it, but I do have online trees, and even witgh the Old Search, I often had to go search specific databases for the information I needed, as no records would turn up when I clicked "Search Records" for someone in my tree. I don't generally do a general search, I usually hone in on specific databases that I think or know should have the data I want. And when doing that, it is much, much easier to tailor a search specific for that particular database. I have bookmarks for those databases, and go right to them when I need to. If you are having serious problems with the ancestry website or with FamilyTreeMaker, then call them to ask for help, and make sure that if they do not help you, that you call back and let them know their advice is not working. You can email them, but I do not know how effective that is. I hate doing it that way as they usually misunderstand my problems and it takes too many rounds of going back and forth to get anywhere. If you are in the USA with access to their 800 number, call them. If FamilyTreeMaker is not working, they want to know about and fix that. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" and in this case, that means if search is broken, the more people that complain with specific examples, the more attention they are going to pay. Demanding they let us go back to Old Search is a useless endeaver, they made it incredibly clear in their Blog and publicity that they could no longer maintain it. We all need to focus our efforts on getting them to fix whatever problems there are now, with the New Search. As to comments about making the search accessible from smartphones and the like, I think that is not where the problems are coming from. It is important for all genealogy sites to make themselves accessible to everyone, the harder it is to access a website, the less business they get in the long run. So, I understand your agony, and I have my own problems using the site, but they have nothing to do with Old vs. New search, I have browser compatibility issues and accessibility issues, since I use mouse emulation and not a real mouse, but I had the same problems with Old Search and I know fighting to get them to change their code for my particular setup is a lost cause as it is not standard. However, most of you guys are using supported browsers, and if lots of people have the same complaint, they will get listened to. Another place to post problems, by the way, is one of their Bulletin Boards, the one about site issues. When I want to get attention fast, that is another place to go. On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:32:32PM +0000, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Hi Russ > > Like you I failed to find anything on your name > > As you had the ships name and the year I tried that in the New York > passenger lists and eventually found > > > New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 about John Sowergill > Name: John Sowergill ... > > The problem is that you can't find what you know is there, so what > chance does anyone have of finding new data > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 09/03/2014 20:11, Russ Moorhouse wrote: > > I was told to give an example of my results of my search in the now pre= > sent > > "NEW SEARCH", compared to what I found easily in the old search, in hopes= > that > > somebody on here can explain what > > I'm doing wrong using the NEW SEARCH. > > First off the "NEW (much better) SEARCH", and working from the data I fou= > nd using the "OLD SEARCH" and entered into my Family Tree Maker and searchi= > ng John Jackson Summersgill, returned absolutely nothing! I got the messag= > e that my search for that person returned zero good matches....

Don, thanks for sharing this. While I am not sure I agree Ancestry has "gone out of its way" to explain the new features (I don't recall ever getting an email from them alerting me to these articles or links - which certainly would have been helpful), it's at least good they're there. Barton On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Don Varner wrote: > Are you sure that you are using New Search as it is designed to be > used? > In my opinion Ancestry has gone out of there way to explain the need > for > change and to offer training on how to use the new search. There are > several videos on their YouTube channel that will help. The new search > works so much better and has many more features than the old search > had > that there is no comparison. I would offer these three links to help > explain the new search and how to make use of it's features. > > Ancestry Blog > > http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/?sf2105824=1 > > Ancestry Knowledge Base Article > > http://help.ancestry.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5569/kw/finding%20success%20with > > YouTube Videos (Ancestry Channel) > This is a playlist of some of the videos on how to use the search > features. > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0xuz8BBkD4gyKlv1OQIJHk8YmEfQYlBK > > Don > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:36:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: [email protected] > Subject:[R OOTS-L] Ancestry new search > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) > Well, I emailed them & let whomever reads those emails know my > feelings. I > also told them I would NOT be renewing my membership next year if they > didn't improve this 'new' search method. Thanks for posting the > address, > Gretchen. > Judy > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to > [email protected] and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Sue It does help to use the right title to avoid misinterpretation and incorrect advice that may not be relevant :-) (its Firefox by the way not Foxfire) Your operating system is XP, the support for which will end in April I understand, it will continue to function but will be more open to the possibility of malware or attack in the future, how much is debatable as I said previously the bad guys are more likely to concentrate on newer operating systems (it stands to reason that those with the money to do so are most likely to upgrade to a later OS) There are still people using much older unsupported operating systems such as W98 Firefox and Chrome are browsers, although you use Yahoo through one and Gmail (if thats what you mean by local) through the other there is no connection and you could access either emailers through either browser If you use both emailers through the web you do not use Outlook Express so do not have any worries over that I use Avast and find it a good anti-virus Make sure Avast updates daily Only keep one anti-virus running at one time Use Ccleaner to clear all temporary internet files and old cookies daily Periodically scan your computer for trojans, spyware and malware Malwarebytes is a good free program for that but there are others Apart from that the way you surf the net is probably the best safeguard Don't open unannounced attachments in emails, don't click on any old link, particularly those in unsolicited emails or random ones found on sites Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 11/03/2014 01:22, ssstlr wrote: > > > Forgive me for putting "microscope" for Microsoft. lol I have > Windows XP with Foxfire and an antivirus Avast. I also have Google > Chrome. I go to both Foxfire and Google chrome for searching the web. > My 'local' mailsite is listed with Google Chrome. My yahoo mail is > through Foxfire. Is there anything else I can do to be sure I am as > safe as can be? I appreciate the answers to my questions. Sue from > NM

Are you sure that you are using New Search as it is designed to be used? In my opinion Ancestry has gone out of there way to explain the need for change and to offer training on how to use the new search. There are several videos on their YouTube channel that will help. The new search works so much better and has many more features than the old search had that there is no comparison. I would offer these three links to help explain the new search and how to make use of it's features. Ancestry Blog http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/?sf2105824=1 Ancestry Knowledge Base Article http://help.ancestry.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5569/kw/finding%20success%20with YouTube Videos (Ancestry Channel) This is a playlist of some of the videos on how to use the search features. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0xuz8BBkD4gyKlv1OQIJHk8YmEfQYlBK Don Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:36:15 -0400 (EDT) From: [email protected] Subject:[R OOTS-L] Ancestry new search To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Well, I emailed them & let whomever reads those emails know my feelings. I also told them I would NOT be renewing my membership next year if they didn't improve this 'new' search method. Thanks for posting the address, Gretchen. Judy

Russ, My guess would be that you have TOO MUCH information in the search you are generating within FTM11. I believe the message that "it needs more information" is a generic response when no results are returned. I have had the same issue with FTM2012. When starting the search within the program look carefully at the search it has created for you. You will probably find almost every available field populated with data. Strip out all of the data that you would not need to run a more open ended search (like you did from Ancestry's website) and see if that helps. Don Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:59:54 -0400 From: "Russ Moorhouse" <[email protected]> Subject: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry's new search work great from their website, but not from FTM for me To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>>>Clip Any ideas why the searched worked from Ancestry's Website, but it doesn't work for me at least, from my FTM2011? Russ

On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: So because a website changed their format (something they're within their rights to do without notifying anyone - btw facebook does this at least several times a month!) and you don't like the changes they made, you want to sue them? For what? Because you don't like the way they run their business? Personally, I don't think you have a case. Not only that but it's a waste of time and resources. << I never bother to read the fine print before clicking "Accept" but I'll bet somewhere in those conditions they reserve the right to do whatever they choose without any guarantees. The complainer's right, and mine, is to simply not renew and certainly not use their service. After all, it has pretty much been said the site is unusable so just concentrate your efforts on elsewhere. Gale Gorman Houston

So because a website changed their format (something they're within their rights to do without notifying anyone - btw facebook does this at least several times a month!) and you don't like the changes they made, you want to sue them? For what? Because you don't like the way they run their business? Personally, I don't think you have a case. Not only that but it's a waste of time and resources. And before you assume anything yes I have a paid membership to Ancestry.com too. Regards, Sherri Goldberg Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Russ Moorhouse Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 8:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ROOTS-L] Any Lawyers on here?? Claas Action Lawsuite time? With so many people upset with the new search, and Ancestry's lack of repairing it or at least letting us be able choose between using the old search or the new, maybe it's time to rattle their cage a bit. I'm more than a bit upset, that I signed up for a year's service with Ancestry and now not getting any results from that service. They refuse to refund your money and refuse to provide the old search, so here we are, out of our money and no service for what we paid for. I just wondered if there might be a lawyer on here that is upset with this also, and might be willing to rattle Ancestry's cage a bit? On another note, I did find that if I went to Ancestry's webpage and used the search they there, by using the very minimum of information, Name of person, born in England, birth date, and lived in Greene county, PA, that their search worked great! It provided me with all the information I got when I used the old search from FTM. It would appear to me, having a 42 years background in all facets of computers, including years of programming and system management, that this should be an easy fix for Ancestry to repair the search between FTM and Ancestry, so it works as well as the search on Ancestry's website. It would also be a good will jester on their part to give us an extra 2 or 3 months of free service for the time, frustration, and money we paid without any service, it has caused us. Russ Moorhouse ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

With so many people upset with the new search, and Ancestry's lack of repairing it or at least letting us be able choose between using the old search or the new, maybe it's time to rattle their cage a bit. I'm more than a bit upset, that I signed up for a year's service with Ancestry and now not getting any results from that service. They refuse to refund your money and refuse to provide the old search, so here we are, out of our money and no service for what we paid for. I just wondered if there might be a lawyer on here that is upset with this also, and might be willing to rattle Ancestry's cage a bit? On another note, I did find that if I went to Ancestry's webpage and used the search they there, by using the very minimum of information, Name of person, born in England, birth date, and lived in Greene county, PA, that their search worked great! It provided me with all the information I got when I used the old search from FTM. It would appear to me, having a 42 years background in all facets of computers, including years of programming and system management, that this should be an easy fix for Ancestry to repair the search between FTM and Ancestry, so it works as well as the search on Ancestry's website. It would also be a good will jester on their part to give us an extra 2 or 3 months of free service for the time, frustration, and money we paid without any service, it has caused us. Russ Moorhouse

I've been banging my head against a brick wall these last few days looking for these Summersgill brothers, from my FTM and using Ancestry's new search and all I ever got was "it needed more information". Tonight I went to Ancestry's website to see If they might have any help on what I might be doing wrong and I didn't find any. However, it did recognize me as having an account with them, so I tried their little search they had there, expecting to get the need more information message. I entered the name Robert Summersgill, from England (no DOB or POB), and lived in Greene County PA and It found all kind of information, just like the old Ancestry search from FTM had found, plus a bit more. Now why doesn't it work from the FTM search? Any ideas why the searched worked from Ancestry's Website, but it doesn't work for me at least, from my FTM2011? Russ

Forgive me for putting "microscope" for Microsoft. lol I have Windows XP with Foxfire and an antivirus Avast. I also have Google Chrome. I go to both Foxfire and Google chrome for searching the web. My 'local' mailsite is listed with Google Chrome. My yahoo mail is through Foxfire. Is there anything else I can do to be sure I am as safe as can be? I appreciate the answers to my questions. Sue from NM

Hi Russ Like you I failed to find anything on your name As you had the ships name and the year I tried that in the New York passenger lists and eventually found New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 about John Sowergill Name: John Sowergill Arrival Date: 1 May 1852 Birth Date: abt 1828 Age: 24 Gender: Male Ethnicity/ Nationality: English Place of Origin: England Port of Departure: Liverpool, England Destination: Pennsylvania Port of Arrival: New York, New York Ship Name: Continent Search Ship Database: Search the Continent in the 'Passenger Ships Source Citation: Year: 1852; Arrival: New York, New York; Microfilm Serial: M237; Microfilm Roll: 112; Line: 14; List Number: 444. It looks like SOMERGILL on the page How you came to it previously I couldn't say I think this is the tip of a large iceberg The problem is that you can't find what you know is there, so what chance does anyone have of finding new data Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/03/2014 20:11, Russ Moorhouse wrote: > I was told to give an example of my results of my search in the now present > "NEW SEARCH", compared to what I found easily in the old search, in hopes that > somebody on here can explain what > I'm doing wrong using the NEW SEARCH. > First off the "NEW (much better) SEARCH", and working from the data I found using the "OLD SEARCH" and entered into my Family Tree Maker and searching John Jackson Summersgill, returned absolutely nothing! I got the message that my search for that person returned zero good matches. The data in FTM contains not only his records from England, but also all the data found when I did a single "OLD SEARCH" a couple of months back which includes all the US census records from 1860, to 1880, including his gravesite. > When I did the "OLD SEARCH" I only had his records for birth and occupation in England up until 1851, which I got from a Yorkshire site. I knew the family lived In or around Waynesburg, Greene County, PA so I used that data to search. Below is all the data I found for him using the outdated "OLD SEARCH" > The very first data I had found for him, using the old search his arrival in New York City, NY on the ship "Continent" on 1 May 1852. His occupation is laborer and he is 24 years old. His destination is Pennsylvania. ( his older brother Robert is also listed on this list) > Next record is the 1860 US Census, John is 34 years old, his occupation is marble cutter. His wife's > name is Margaret and she is 23 years old and keeping house. They have a 9

[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) Well, I emailed them & let whomever reads those emails know my feelings. I also told them I would NOT be renewing my membership next year if they didn't improve this 'new' search method. Thanks for posting the address, Gretchen. Judy

Allen, by "everybody", do you mean researchers who may or may not have documented their research? Or the hundreds of archives and other sources that comprise the bulk of ancestry records, and are really the only thing of interest most of the time. That's what we need, some (or most) of it is not otherwise available from other internet sources, and that's where the stupid "search" fails us.   I think it would be lovely if other holders of records would index, digitize, and offer them, but that generally won't happen when they are already available.  I haven't seem much of A.coms new search, since I'm on the road now, but the few I tried from this tablet were bizarre. Otherwise, one of the problems, I think, is that we just kept going back to the old search after complaining a few times, so they really didn't know how peeved we would be.  Bad strategy on our part. Pat, On the way back to Tucson Sent from Samsung tabletAllen Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:Why don't you get everyone to upload their material to our website, viewed by people from 63 countries around the world... Www.onlinefamilynetwork.org We are constantly trying to please everyone. Allen, founder On Mar 9, 2014 11:45 AM, "Nivard Ovington" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Russ > > Ancestrys goal in doing away with Old search appears to be to drive away > customers > > New search is clunky, badly thought out and a pain to attempt to use, I > say attempt, as like you, I can't even replicate finds that I *know* are > there, so what chance anyone has of finding new data is beyond me > > Whoever thought up this shotgun concept clearly hasn't done any research > themselves, perhaps they were previously devising a stock control system > for cans of beans ? > (and presumably couldn't find any beans) > > You set up a search and either get no results or millions of totally > unrelated hits and woe betide you if you then use the back button as it > sometimes wipes the search criteria and you have to start all over again > or it holds parts of the search criteria and not others so you have to > start over from scratch to know you have the right search > > You are forced to select a place name from their list, therefore > excluding the incorrectly spelled or transcribed place names of which > there are legion > > You have to be very careful of selecting edit search as every page looks > the same you could be anywhere > > They have taken away the ability to search with no data, therefore you > can't find out how many were in a particular year census for example > without selecting the individual database and even then I have no > confidence it is returning the right figures > > for example, say I want to know the total enumerated in 1911 Yorkshire > > Official figures (from Histpop) are 3,980,451 > > Findmypast return 3,964,348 > (only a mere 16,103 persons missing) > > First attempt on Ancestry 3,991,958 (from advanced search, lived in > Yorkshire England, result in category search) > > 2nd attempt on Ancestry, by selecting the 1911 and place Yorkshire > England = 3,757,976 > > So a missing 222,475 persons > > What do you believe ? > > The search through the Ancestry trees now looks like any other search page > > It is utterly joyless to use and as I said previously, makes findmypasts > almost usable by comparison, and that is poor > > Added to the useless nature of new search, they have also altered the > ability to select a particular database > > Previously if I want say the Silver War Badge database, you selected > Military from the Search menu, scrolled down and selected the SWB database > > Now you have to hope a database is in the listing on the Military page, > or go hunting via the Card Catalogue (which has also changed) > > I could go on but I feel its not going to do any good as we have been > complaining since they brought out new search and they could not care > less what users think > > I can understand their desire to make Ancestry more usable to people > with smart phones and tablets but they should not exclude the majority > in so doing, it is surely not beyond the wit of man to replicate old > search in the new, but apparently not > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > On 09/03/2014 01:28, Russ Moorhouse wrote: > > Does anyone know what > > Ancestry's purpose/goal was for this new search?  It certainly wasn't an > > improvement, in fact > > it's a detriment more than anything. > > > > Has anyone besides me gone out and had to re-research a family that they > had researched in the old search? > > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to > [email protected] and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to [email protected] and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I had a similar situation using Genealogy Bank so I called them to cancel my subscription just before it was due to renew. They begged me to try their "help" so I did and still found nothing even though I had the data in FTM and cited Genealogy Bank as my source. They had their staff try to find the data for a few days and I suppose they gave up. Sad part is that we know there is data languishing on a hard drive somewhere but it's useless unless we can find it. Gale Gorman Houston On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Nivard Ovington <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Russ Like you I failed to find anything on your name As you had the ships name and the year I tried that in the New York passenger lists and eventually found New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 about John Sowergill Name: John Sowergill Arrival Date: 1 May 1852 Birth Date: abt 1828 Age: 24 Gender: Male Ethnicity/ Nationality: English Place of Origin: England Port of Departure: Liverpool, England Destination: Pennsylvania Port of Arrival: New York, New York Ship Name: Continent Search Ship Database: Search the Continent in the 'Passenger Ships Source Citation: Year: 1852; Arrival: New York, New York; Microfilm Serial: M237; Microfilm Roll: 112; Line: 14; List Number: 444. It looks like SOMERGILL on the page How you came to it previously I couldn't say I think this is the tip of a large iceberg The problem is that you can't find what you know is there, so what chance does anyone have of finding new data Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

On Mar 9, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Allen Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: We are constantly trying to please everyone. << I complained about not being able to upload to your site so you asked me to send my GEDCOM to you. I did and it still doesn't appear in a search of your site. So I'm a bit puzzled as to why you keep pushing for everyone to upload to your site. Gale Gorman Houston

UPDATED ANSWER TO BELOW Laura, Still no obit found but here is the surnames of both her father and mother. At least now you have a maiden name. This says she was born in Pennsylvania, not Maine. Gretchen California, Death Index, 1940-1997 Name: Anne P Lachance Social Security #: 552868011 Gender: Female Birth Date: 4 Jan 1915 Birth Place: Pennsylvania Death Date: 21 Oct 1995 Death Place: Los Angeles Mother's Maiden Name: Ridge Father's Surname: Pitcairn ORIGINAL QUESTION: Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 21:56:35 -0700 (PDT) From: laura dague <[email protected]> Subject: [ROOTS-L] OBIT in Long Beach, Los Angeles Co., Calif. for Anne Priscilla LACHANCE 1995 To: [email protected] Would anyone be able to find an obituary for me, please, for the following: Wife of Mrs. Harold ?Harry? LACHANCE, Sr.: Mrs. Anne Priscilla LACHANCE. (Do not have a maiden name.) Born in 1914 in ME (Kennebec Co.?). Died 21 Oct 1995 in Long Beach, Los Angeles Co., California. 90307. She lived in the 1980's in Escondido, California. I did contact Escondido Public Lib. for obit. to no avail. Need help from Los Angeles Co., please. Any help is appreciated. Thank you, Laura Dague [email protected] Sincerely, Laura:)