Hi Gale You don't *have to* use exact matches only but you get far better results if you do Despite its title it will return other names (eg an exact search for Thomas also picks up Thomas John and John Thomas) However the best way I find is to use wild cards with exact matches only ticked Such as T*om* That will find many more variations that you may be looking for but used in combination with age and or a birth Country and or County or State in your case it can be very effective, far more effective than the dross thrown up in new search which more often than not bears no relationship to the search being conducted I can't agree with you that Ancestry are restin on what they already done, they have released masses of data over the last twelve months What effect any sale might have on us the subscribers is hard to say, but I have never heard of a takeover that meant lower prices, so watch out for increases if it does sell Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 10/06/2012 17:15, Gale Gorman wrote: > You have to click on the "Exact Match" box but then you run the risk > of no hits at all. > > This thread is the first I've heard of Ancestry being up for sale. > That could only be a good thing since a new owner would have an > interest in improving the product. Apparently Ancestry is just > resting on what they've already done. > > I also get much better results from FamilySearch.org and it's free. > > I subscribe to few other worthless sites: genealogybank.com has yet > to provide anything meaningful for me, but I continue to try them all > and frustrate myself. > > Gale Gorman Houston

Hi Lynn It sounds like you are using "new search" Try going back to Old search where you are in control Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 21:40, Lynn Prettyman wrote: > I, also, am finding it more difficult. I'm finding the birth states are no > longer isolated. I don't care how many times I put in for someone born in a > specific location, when the results come up, every person with that name > comes up, no matter what state he/she was born in. I don't like it. > > Lynn in Baltimore

Hi, I should have set the URL for the settlement map. It is agreat map for anyone who had early settlers in Wythe County. It saves as a jpeg but it fits on one page. I am trying t find out how I could maybe divide it into quarters for printing purposes so that I could read it. On one page the print is too small to read. It is easy to read on line but won't highlight so that one could pick out the part that they want. Velma Settlement Map, Wythe County, VA www.jdhartsell.com/hartsell/SettlementMapWythe.html

Velma Depending on what software you have. Right click on the map. Do a "save as" and save it to your pictures file. I'd change the name. "Wythe County plat map" or something like that. Then, you can open it up in your image viewer and zoom in on parts. IF you have Adobe Acrobat, or something similar, I'd save it as a high resolution PDF. IF you have Photoshop or probably Photoshop Elements, you can open it up in that, zoom around, isolate the parts you want and copy to another file. . . Those on the list who use other image viewers (I stick with Adobe) can probably give you some ideas which you might want to use. By the way, this is a great map! How nice you could find it. Now. . . just to find one for Cumberland, Buckingham. . . . Pat -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of vjspringer@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:21 AM To: Roots@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROOTS-L] Settlement Map Wythe County Virginia Hi, I should have set the URL for the settlement map. It is agreat map for anyone who had early settlers in Wythe County. It saves as a jpeg but it fits on one page. I am trying t find out how I could maybe divide it into quarters for printing purposes so that I could read it. On one page the print is too small to read. It is easy to read on line but won't highlight so that one could pick out the part that they want. Velma Settlement Map, Wythe County, VA www.jdhartsell.com/hartsell/SettlementMapWythe.html ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

You have to click on the "Exact Match" box but then you run the risk of no hits at all. This thread is the first I've heard of Ancestry being up for sale. That could only be a good thing since a new owner would have an interest in improving the product. Apparently Ancestry is just resting on what they've already done. I also get much better results from FamilySearch.org and it's free. I subscribe to few other worthless sites: genealogybank.com has yet to provide anything meaningful for me, but I continue to try them all and frustrate myself. Gale Gorman Houston On Jun 9, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Lynn Prettyman wrote: I, also, am finding it more difficult. I'm finding the birth states are no longer isolated. I don't care how many times I put in for someone born in a specific location, when the results come up, every person with that name comes up, no matter what state he/she was born in. I don't like it. Lynn in Baltimore -----Original Message----- From: Diana Clevenger Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:22 PM To: 'Nivard Ovington' ; roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry new interactive viewer --- ARGHH! I have found that searching the 1940 census was a lot easier in FamilySearch. It may just be me, but I find Ancestry harder and harder to get around in. I didn't know you could go back to the "old Search". Going to give it a try. Diana Clevenger Olympia, WA -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 11:51 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry new interactive viewer --- ARGHH! Hi David Agreed that Ancestrys transcription can be a tad woeful at times but their search engine makes up for it as far as my searching is concerned (I do not as I have said use the 1940 or any US census) Ancestry has always had the stance of transcribe quickly and get it out to people, I have to say thats a stance I like, I would rather have it now than wait ages for the impossible to achieve perfect transcript Thankfully we have some choice As to Ancestry up for sale, old news Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 18:58, W David Samuelsen wrote: > Ancestry's name spellings leave a lot to be desired. > > FamilySearch is way way ahead of Ancestry as to how many states had > been > 100 percent done and online now. already passed 58 percent completed, > with 18 states online with indexes, 9 states with pending indexes to > go online. > > https://familysearch.org/1940census/?cid=fsHomeT1940Text_v2 > > Not only that, based on FamilySearch's schedule, the indexing is way > aheady of the schedule for completion. > > BTW, how many of you know Ancestry.com is up for sale? > > David Samuelsen

Velma Send us the URL for the map, so we can take a look at how it is presented. Then, maybe someone can help. Pat (in Tucson) -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of vjspringer@aol.com Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 7:16 PM To: Roots@rootsweb.com Subject: [ROOTS-L] Early Settelers Land Map Wythe Co VA Hi, A very generous person from this list sent me an early settlers land map for Wythe Co VA. I was trying to find if there were such maps for the remainder of Wythe Co. I had other ancestors in a different part. When I googled the topic I got the map for the entire county. It is a wonderful map and I hope everyone who has these early settelers has found it. I would like to print it but it prints on one page and is too tiny to read. Is thre any way to divide a jpeg into quarters so that it can be shown in larger print? Thans for any help that anyone can give me. Velma VJSpringer@aol.com ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, A very generous person from this list sent me an early settlers land map for Wythe Co VA. I was trying to find if there were such maps for the remainder of Wythe Co. I had other ancestors in a different part. When I googled the topic I got the map for the entire county. It is a wonderful map and I hope everyone who has these early settelers has found it. I would like to print it but it prints on one page and is too tiny to read. Is thre any way to divide a jpeg into quarters so that it can be shown in larger print? Thans for any help that anyone can give me. Velma VJSpringer@aol.com

Hi Diana If new search was all there was available I would not bother subscribing as it is worthless IMHO Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 21:22, Diana Clevenger wrote: > I have found that searching the 1940 census was a lot easier in > FamilySearch. It may just be me, but I find Ancestry harder and harder to > get around in. I didn't know you could go back to the "old Search". Going > to give it a try. > > > Diana Clevenger > Olympia, WA

Hi David Agreed that Ancestrys transcription can be a tad woeful at times but their search engine makes up for it as far as my searching is concerned (I do not as I have said use the 1940 or any US census) Ancestry has always had the stance of transcribe quickly and get it out to people, I have to say thats a stance I like, I would rather have it now than wait ages for the impossible to achieve perfect transcript Thankfully we have some choice As to Ancestry up for sale, old news Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 18:58, W David Samuelsen wrote: > Ancestry's name spellings leave a lot to be desired. > > FamilySearch is way way ahead of Ancestry as to how many states had been > 100 percent done and online now. already passed 58 percent completed, > with 18 states online with indexes, 9 states with pending indexes to go > online. > > https://familysearch.org/1940census/?cid=fsHomeT1940Text_v2 > > Not only that, based on FamilySearch's schedule, the indexing is way > aheady of the schedule for completion. > > BTW, how many of you know Ancestry.com is up for sale? > > David Samuelsen

I did not even know there was a draft registration for the Civil War. Does anyone have access to the US Civil War Draft Registration Records 1863-1865 on Ancestry.com as I am looking for information on my gr.gr. granddad Lewis Lemmon who may have registered in Union, IA.

The pleasure is all mine :-) I had not thought that they were using the same for any other census as I don't use the 1910 US census All to the good then I am not entirely sure what they are trying to achieve with this style of pop up boxes here there and everywhere but what I can say is :- I do not like it ! Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 17:10, Alta Flynt wrote: > Thank you!!! Thank you!!! Thank you!!! > > I have been tearing my hair out over the 1940 U.S. census, and when I > looked at the options, I found a place to go back to the old style > census image - no messages popping up where I don't want them and old > fashioned scroll bars. > > I am so grateful to you. > > Alta

I, also, am finding it more difficult. I'm finding the birth states are no longer isolated. I don't care how many times I put in for someone born in a specific location, when the results come up, every person with that name comes up, no matter what state he/she was born in. I don't like it. Lynn in Baltimore -----Original Message----- From: Diana Clevenger Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:22 PM To: 'Nivard Ovington' ; roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry new interactive viewer --- ARGHH! I have found that searching the 1940 census was a lot easier in FamilySearch. It may just be me, but I find Ancestry harder and harder to get around in. I didn't know you could go back to the "old Search". Going to give it a try. Diana Clevenger Olympia, WA -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 11:51 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry new interactive viewer --- ARGHH! Hi David Agreed that Ancestrys transcription can be a tad woeful at times but their search engine makes up for it as far as my searching is concerned (I do not as I have said use the 1940 or any US census) Ancestry has always had the stance of transcribe quickly and get it out to people, I have to say thats a stance I like, I would rather have it now than wait ages for the impossible to achieve perfect transcript Thankfully we have some choice As to Ancestry up for sale, old news Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 18:58, W David Samuelsen wrote: > Ancestry's name spellings leave a lot to be desired. > > FamilySearch is way way ahead of Ancestry as to how many states had > been > 100 percent done and online now. already passed 58 percent completed, > with 18 states online with indexes, 9 states with pending indexes to > go online. > > https://familysearch.org/1940census/?cid=fsHomeT1940Text_v2 > > Not only that, based on FamilySearch's schedule, the indexing is way > aheady of the schedule for completion. > > BTW, how many of you know Ancestry.com is up for sale? > > David Samuelsen ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com 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 roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Gale No sadly they don't respond to repeated requests or feedback If you ever want a response, try their free phone numbers, the phone staff are generally very good and helpful The email staff are the opposite (or rather their system is) If the problem you are talking about is their "new search" which comes up with thousands of hits, most of which are completely irrelevant Try a click on "search" in the top bar menu On the resulting page look top right, it may say "Go back to Old Search" Then enter a tick in the exact matches only Try it , you can always reverse it if you wish to Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 15:52, Gale Gorman wrote: > Ancestry.com makes changes all the time that bother me too. For example they presume to know who or what my search is going to be and I find it difficult to get back to a clean slate. > > I haven't left any feedback but I'm sure that would help if enough people responded. > > Gale Gorman > Houston

Dear all Has anyone else had the same problem as I have with Ancestrys fairly recent introduction of their "interactive images" Basically they are for two year olds that can't read what is on the page, you get a pop up box that comes out with the transcript on and obscures the writing on the image, which of course is what we want to see They are being beta'd on the 1911 and frankly they drive me up the wall I have sent feedback a few times to ask how I get rid of the interactive parts but had no reply So I looked further and found that there is a user definable part under options when viewing the interactive images You can turn off all or part of the new *aids* May be I am the only one who is aggravated by it <g> -- Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

I have found that searching the 1940 census was a lot easier in FamilySearch. It may just be me, but I find Ancestry harder and harder to get around in. I didn't know you could go back to the "old Search". Going to give it a try. Diana Clevenger Olympia, WA -----Original Message----- From: roots-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:roots-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 11:51 AM To: roots@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] Ancestry new interactive viewer --- ARGHH! Hi David Agreed that Ancestrys transcription can be a tad woeful at times but their search engine makes up for it as far as my searching is concerned (I do not as I have said use the 1940 or any US census) Ancestry has always had the stance of transcribe quickly and get it out to people, I have to say thats a stance I like, I would rather have it now than wait ages for the impossible to achieve perfect transcript Thankfully we have some choice As to Ancestry up for sale, old news Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 09/06/2012 18:58, W David Samuelsen wrote: > Ancestry's name spellings leave a lot to be desired. > > FamilySearch is way way ahead of Ancestry as to how many states had > been > 100 percent done and online now. already passed 58 percent completed, > with 18 states online with indexes, 9 states with pending indexes to > go online. > > https://familysearch.org/1940census/?cid=fsHomeT1940Text_v2 > > Not only that, based on FamilySearch's schedule, the indexing is way > aheady of the schedule for completion. > > BTW, how many of you know Ancestry.com is up for sale? > > David Samuelsen ===== If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ancestry's name spellings leave a lot to be desired. FamilySearch is way way ahead of Ancestry as to how many states had been 100 percent done and online now. already passed 58 percent completed, with 18 states online with indexes, 9 states with pending indexes to go online. https://familysearch.org/1940census/?cid=fsHomeT1940Text_v2 Not only that, based on FamilySearch's schedule, the indexing is way aheady of the schedule for completion. BTW, how many of you know Ancestry.com is up for sale? David Samuelsen On 6/9/2012 10:10 AM, Alta Flynt wrote: > Thank you!!! Thank you!!! Thank you!!! > > I have been tearing my hair out over the 1940 U.S. census, and when I > looked at the options, I found a place to go back to the old style > census image - no messages popping up where I don't want them and old > fashioned scroll bars. > > I am so grateful to you. > > Alta > > > On 6/9/2012 9:35 AM, Nivard Ovington wrote: >> Dear all >> >> Has anyone else had the same problem as I have with Ancestrys fairly >> recent introduction of their "interactive images" >> >> Basically they are for two year olds that can't read what is on the >> page, you get a pop up box that comes out with the transcript on and >> obscures the writing on the image, which of course is what we want to see >> >> They are being beta'd on the 1911 and frankly they drive me up the wall >> >> I have sent feedback a few times to ask how I get rid of the interactive >> parts but had no reply >> >> So I looked further and found that there is a user definable part under >> options when viewing the interactive images >> >> You can turn off all or part of the new *aids* >> >> May be I am the only one who is aggravated by it<g> >> > > ===== > If you would prefer digest mode to mail mode, drop a note to roots-admin@rootsweb.com and ask for the digest... > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ROOTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you!!! Thank you!!! Thank you!!! I have been tearing my hair out over the 1940 U.S. census, and when I looked at the options, I found a place to go back to the old style census image - no messages popping up where I don't want them and old fashioned scroll bars. I am so grateful to you. Alta On 6/9/2012 9:35 AM, Nivard Ovington wrote: > Dear all > > Has anyone else had the same problem as I have with Ancestrys fairly > recent introduction of their "interactive images" > > Basically they are for two year olds that can't read what is on the > page, you get a pop up box that comes out with the transcript on and > obscures the writing on the image, which of course is what we want to see > > They are being beta'd on the 1911 and frankly they drive me up the wall > > I have sent feedback a few times to ask how I get rid of the interactive > parts but had no reply > > So I looked further and found that there is a user definable part under > options when viewing the interactive images > > You can turn off all or part of the new *aids* > > May be I am the only one who is aggravated by it<g> >

Ancestry.com makes changes all the time that bother me too. For example they presume to know who or what my search is going to be and I find it difficult to get back to a clean slate. I haven't left any feedback but I'm sure that would help if enough people responded. Gale Gorman Houston On Jun 9, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Nivard Ovington wrote: Dear all Has anyone else had the same problem as I have with Ancestrys fairly recent introduction of their "interactive images" Basically they are for two year olds that can't read what is on the page, you get a pop up box that comes out with the transcript on and obscures the writing on the image, which of course is what we want to see They are being beta'd on the 1911 and frankly they drive me up the wall I have sent feedback a few times to ask how I get rid of the interactive parts but had no reply So I looked further and found that there is a user definable part under options when viewing the interactive images You can turn off all or part of the new *aids* May be I am the only one who is aggravated by it <g> -- Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

I am hoping that there is a kind person in OHIO, USA who would help me acquire an obituary from Delaware County, OHIO.  The person's name is George TRONE b. 06 Feb 1840 in Shippensburg, PA. --- d. 24 Sep 1892 in Delaware, Delaware Co., OHIO.  He was buried in Oak Grove Cemetery, Delaware Co., OHIO.   I need his obituary to further my family tree and its many branches.  Thank you for taking your time to help me!  I will reimburse any costs incurred.  Thank you! Laura Dague fuchsia3@yahoo.com Sincerely, Laura:)

On 6/8/2012 19:02, vjspringer@aol.com wrote: > I wrote that it was not correct to call them Germans in that time period. I said that they were of Germanic > heritage, they spoke German, and are from an area that is now Germany. My family that I give the genealogy too understands the country Germany (now) but have no idea of that time period and are not going to research it. Is this too simplified or how else could I say it. > > Velma You might want to just say "It's Germany now, it wasn't called that then, but if you say they're German, people will know what you mean." Not everybody is fascinated by history, or knows the details - or wants to. And that actually seems to be the way official records tend to work as well: for example, my grandmother was born in Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory. And being one of those history geeks, that's how I record it. But I also recognize that within her lifetime, including her delayed birth certificate, she (and the State of Oklahoma) gave her birthplace as Garvin County, Oklahoma. They never let the fact that there was no such place when she was born slow them down a bit. :) --pig