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

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

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

Lynn, you're not setting the parameters of the search correctly. If you put in a specific location AND make sure the parameter is set to "Restrict to Exact", then you'll only get results for the specific location. Sarge At 6/9/2012 04:40 PM Saturday, Lynn Prettyman wrote: *********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* >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 > > >===== >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 **********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT*********** Germanna Database at Ancestry: http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/28427876/family My Germanna Database at Rootsweb: http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=germanna My Germanna Website at Rootsweb: http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~george/index.html