Genealogy Chat

see below in a sec.

I received the marriage cert for my ggg grandparents this morning which gave me his fathers name. So I looked on ancestry, and found the family. I then decided to track his siblings through the census - entered the name as it appears, date that was given on the 1851 etc, and guess what - no matches on the 1851 - what?!?!?!?! How can I enter the information EXACTLY as it is presented and it not show it? The only way I can bring them up is to access the census from the home page and search by surname, or to enter the reference numbers directly. This is making me worry that other relatives may be 'hiding' there somewhere. (Hope this makes sense) Karen

I had this prob. I always use the Ranked search instead of Exact search now.

Rebekah, can you please tell me how to get Ranked Search now..........I can't find it? Thanks Sorry to butt in Karen Jean

Karen you might have the correct info but the enumerator who did the 1851 census for your family may have been a very bad speller & wrote down the name incorrectly. What names & places do you have maybe we can help find them. Georgina.

Hi, Karen. I have had the same problem as you. I have found my families, then when I have tried to find them again entering the names exactly as they are spelled on Ancestry the search can't find them. I have also had to use the ranked search or to put in the name of the village then look down the list of people. I don't think that the search facility is working properly. It must be one of their wonderful 'improvements'!!

You have to tick the box at the top to get an exact search, Jean, otherwise you get a ranked search automatically. Kat :)

Sob, sob, cry, cry, sob...............I don't understand.......and NO ONE will tell me....................... Why is everyone except me having problems with Ancestry???? What has changed that I don't know about? And why is it that EVERY thread (except one), on which I have posted asking what's different, has died a death.....I shall have to re-name myself, ''Merry, thread killer''!!! What can't you do?????? Merry (back shortly!)

Here is my example: Type in William Fisher, Yorkshire, 1832 on an exact search - none right? Now look at 1851 census - piece 2294 Folio 482 page 12 - William Fisher 1832 Yorkshire - born Whitley Upper, right? I have copied their EXACT information on William, but when I search for him by name, he first appears on 1861 with his wife Martha.

Merry, I did answer your question on one of the other threads. The recent change means that you automatically get those useless ranked searches unless you untick the checkbox at the top of the page.

Where do you mean you're typing it, Karen - on the Ancestry home page? I get loads of results for William Fisher wth an exact search, including the 1851 census.

If what you can see is this: 2,117 1901 England Census 2,042 1881 England Census 1,924 1891 England Census 1,758 1871 England Census 1,589 1861 England Census You just need to click on the next line: » View all 12,730 results And the 1851 and other censuses will come up.

I honestly dont know why ancestry have to complicate things, it was fine the way it was, praps it could have done with tweek, but nothing compared to what has happened, merry, I use uk version, and have never used Exact searches before, always used ranked, as i find better info, now, when i goto a search, i used to be able to search where they lived, and not nessacerily where born, that facility has now gone from the new look on ranked, the only way i have found to access it is by going to the acutal census yr, and going in that way, hope this makes some sence to you Julie

I've also found it annoying, had liked to use the extra search info. but was easier if you could search ALL years at same time, plus I'm still very very cross about no saving option to anything but damn shoe box - just means loads and loads of individual files, no options to collate under one person, and why would be want to put tree on Ancestry?? What's point in getting FTM software, I'm sure some people have tree in more than 1 place but you would have to update all of them. Also you would have t keep your subscription continually updated to gain access to your own information!!! £70 per year a bit different to to £9.95 on here. Had emailed Ancestry on Monday but still no reply. Gill

Downside - I agree that no longer being able to save census references to individual people on my tree at Ancestry is a real pain. I found that utitlity very useful. Upside - I love the fact that it in census searches they have added a column giving spouse name/parents names. Makes iinding the correct census image much better. Also, I love the fact that all the people in the household are listed straight away so that I don't have to click on 'view other family members' like before (which was also missing for one of the censuses - 1881 I think. Or was it 1891?). Paul

I'm sorry, I've said ti before and I'll say it again, I'm with Merry on this one and don't understand what the problem is. Yes, there have been one or two changes, but finding people is just as easy as it ever was (made easier by the listing of spouses/father's name etc). I can search using place of residence rather than place of birth. So have Merry and I got the old version and are we to feel left out? Please tell us - lol Snowdrops

That explains why I couldnt see it - you didnt have to click on all matches before - just another annoying little 'upgrade'. I do like the new census function though - where parents / spouses are listed on the results page. I do have to say though that I would prefer it if they still have 'view household' option there aswell as the summary at the bottom of the record - I have printed a few out this morning to check later, and its annoying how you only get their names / ages on the printout. They have made part of it better / easier by making something else worse. I have now had to go into everyone individually and write their details on the printout.

Am trying to follow what you are all saying! Sorry, Mary, if I didn't see your previous response :o(( My box for Exact Matches Only is ticked and exact matches is what I get. Asked for William Fisher, Yorkshire (not the Riding selections), 1832. For the 1851 census I got two matches. When I viewed them, the second one was Karen's relative. Then I tried asking for William Fisher, but not filling in any of the other boxes on the main page, and got the exact same results as Mary. (this is the way I usually do it, rather than filling in any years/counties etc on the first screen) Julie, I use the UK version too....but never ever use the Ranked Search, so can't really comment! Gill....I am not sure why you can't search all years at once? That's what I do al the time. Maybe it's because you use the ranked search and I use exact?I have never used the shoebox facility as I save everything to my hard drive and attach to my home tree program, so don't miss what I haven't used!! Thanks for your comments .....I can only think the main problems are for those who prefer the Ranked Search? Merry

snowdrops, please tell me WHERE you have to go to search residence, all i get on home page is name dob place of birth, using a ranked search that is, there isnt anywhere that you CAN specify a residence Heeelpppppp Julie

Karen... You said ''That explains why I couldnt see it - you didnt have to click on all matches before - just another annoying little 'upgrade'.'' but as far as I know you have had to click on all matches, if there are results for a person on all censuses, for ages and ages as there are only five lines of info available on the first results page. Even since Ancestry had more than five Censuses available (they have 29 at the moment) you would have had to click again to see all the results. Merry