Comments on: A Fond Farewell to “Old Search” http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/ Helping you discover your family history. Sat, 25 Jun 2016 04:22:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.5.3 By: Jennifer Sims http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-237672 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 05:44:26 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-237672 After over 15 years of Ancestry.com I will not renew when my current world subscription expires. The site doesn’t work as well as it did when I had the option of using the old search and no amount of them telling me it does will convince me. I’ve tested it by searching for information I have already secured through the old search and have been bombarded with records that are in no way related from all over the world even though I’ve used the slide bars to ask for only US records. Some records I haven’t even been able to locate after searching through pages and pages of returns. These changes have made a once pleasant and exciting activity frustrating and unsatisfying. Ancestry.com now sucks!

]]>
By: Irish Lass http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-232940 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:07:23 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-232940 RE #264
Deborah, and anyone else who may not renew their membership, even though you opt to not renew and cancel your membership to Ancestry, you will will still have a mandated “Registered Guest Membership” which is free. I tried to cancel the “Guest Membership, but in their words” Note: We do not currently cancel Registered Guest accounts.”
I am happy I removed my tree and all information before I cancelled as I would not want it still on a site that I more than likely will not use much as the free records can be found on other sites., and I also find using the new search way too frustrating . Also while you may do a search and find a tree connection, if you do not have a previous invite to that tree, you cannot contact that person.

]]>
By: DeborahWales http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-232914 Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:37:17 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-232914 I’ve tried to like the new search but after a few frustrating weeks have decided I will not be renewing my membership. The old system was superb – quick, to the point and easy to narrow down the search criteria to get the result needed. The new search is convoluted, requires too much thought, and too many clicks to get the desired result (which doesn’t always appear despite you KNOWING it IS there). It is also hard to backtrack and remember what you’re looking for. I’m an experienced researcher with over 10 years experience. What you’ve done may suit those new to the game but not the likes of me. Very sad!

]]>
By: Totally frustrated http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-232240 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:52:53 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-232240 If anyone is still reading the posts to this blog, I hope you won’t think I am crazy. I still can’t figure out how to do the new search and get the results I got with the old search.

So, since I have trees on Ancestry, I have been relying on the hints. Now don’t get the idea I just copy trees and accept all hints, please. When I get a hint, I look at the actual record and check it against my person in my tree. I have always felt the hint system was pretty good and Ancestry hasn’t messed with it…so far.

I’m not on Ancestry as much as I used to be and it is like “working with one hand tied behind your back,” so to speak. I do not like depending on hints because many times there are no hints. I don’t think this site is worth the money anymore. It certainly is not as satisfying as it used to be. There must be a better way but I haven’t found it yet.

]]>
By: M. D. B. Blocker http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-231563 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:06:46 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-231563 I am getting used to the new search. However using the new search just proves to me how superior the old search was in terms of ease of use and chances of finding accurate results!

]]>
By: BEE http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-230897 Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:53:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-230897 Sliders are useless. Searched PA death certificates. Exact first name, year of death, broad search on surname, which turned out to be spelled incorrectly. No results. When I ignored the sliders and searched on first name only, and first names of parents. There it was.

]]>
By: Roger http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-229454 Thu, 17 Apr 2014 05:50:16 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-229454 Allen, I just tried this on the 1911 census specific search and, leaving the first name field empty, I still had returns that included records with first names. I searched on surname, birth county and birth year + or -. Seems to work and I can’t seem to reproduce what you are experiencing.

]]>
By: Allen Dean Peterson http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-229369 Thu, 17 Apr 2014 02:10:04 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-229369 Tried to do a census search. With the old search I could pick a state, enter a last name, leave the first name field blank, and get complete results for everyone with that last name in the state. Apparently “new” search finds that concept a bit tricky, as it only returns hits for those who literally were listed with no first name. I’ve already said this was all garbage. Laughable garbage.

]]>
By: Joann Salvo http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-227221 Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:44:33 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-227221 2% of 2 million subscribers x $300 per year = $12 million dollars
A lot of money to lose per year.
The funny thing (not funny HAHA) in a previous post I said I wasn’t getting email notifications to my personal email address and I was told by ancestry customer service to use another email address that my email address was blocked and it could not be unblocked. Here is the funny thing, they must have fixed it because on the same day I received 2 emails to my personal email address from ancestry and I also received an email from ancestry that it was time to renew my yearly subscription. Isn’t that special?!
I am going to cancel as well.

]]>
By: Carol http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/#comment-226046 Thu, 10 Apr 2014 05:27:31 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=15383#comment-226046 I got the pop-up for the survey. It had lots of questions so I’m not sure it was the same one that Larry #256 got. I did the survey and added as much as I could think of regarding my frustrations. Since I have not tried everything on the current search, there are probably problems lurking that I just have not experienced. I will have to find them by the end of June and then I’m ‘outta here!

Ancestry isn’t fun anymore. It’s a real pain in the you-know-what!

]]>
http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/feed/
blogs.ancestry.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-26
16792
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7G2JVFITONJEROPMGTAXZCPGU7IYXLWI
<urn:uuid:5ecfeaef-855d-4df5-9c23-67c026317a8f>
2016-06-25T12:15:59Z
172.99.100.46
sha1:TL56IM4H46X3574LTLKJP557NMWE33C5
<urn:uuid:cd7e1042-eda5-4b3f-a115-181fb85f71cd>
http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/03/10/a-fond-farewell-to-old-search/feed/
length
response
<urn:uuid:8444f827-0d22-446b-8e70-cdbf1d3c53df>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-164-35-72.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-26
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf