Periodically, comments will be posted on one mailing list or another, or some blog or another, by an experienced genealogist, in which they express trouble with Ancestry.com’s “New Search” and try desperately to get back to the “Old Search.”
For the life of me, I cannot understand these feelings. I have been using the “New Search” since its debut a few years ago, and find it far superior to the old search engine. I can only suppose that the problems stem from unfamiliarity with the more powerful settings.
When most people see the “New Search,” this is what they see:
I will admit that this does look quite unbearable to use. However, you will notice the “Show Advanced” link at the bottom, next to the “Search” button.
When you click on this link, the appearance of the search box changes dramatically.
To get the best search results, click that box in the upper left corner, “Match all terms exactly.” Checking this box changes the settings under each box from “Use default settings” to “Restrict to exact.” (Don’t worry, you can limit this.)
When you clink on the “Restrict to exact” link in various boxes, you get the following options:
First & Middle Name(s): “Restrict to exact matches and
- Phonetic matches
- Names with similar meanings or spellings
- Records where only initials are recorded
- Soundex matches
- Phonetic matches
- Names with similar meanings or spellings
Location: “Restrict to this place exactly” “Or restrict to just
- county/adjacent counties
- state
- state/adjacent states
- country
[Note: You must have a county specified in this box in order for these options to appear.]
Wildcards (* or ?) will not work with any of these options. They only work when “Restrict to exact” is active. However, these options do allow for more flexible searching, without requiring wildcards. On first name, for example, a search for Anna with the “similar meaning or spellings” box checked will also return Ann, Anne, Annie, Hannah, etc.
Another complaint with “New Search” is that the results seem random. This is also a quick fix.
The default setting is view results by relevance, which appears as follows:
Here you see that the results from numerous record groups appear.
However, you can change the results to appear by record group. This is particularly helpful, for example, if you know that the person you are searching lived from 1863 through 1921 in New York. You can use a little genealogical reasoning to skip the record groups before 1863 and after 1921, and those that do not concern New York.
To make this change, you just have to click on the drop-down menu in the upper right next to “View”, and change “Sorted by Relevance” to “Summarized by Category.”
You can then go through and select each potentially relevant record group one-by-one. This, of course, limits the results to those in each individual record group. You can also make changes to the specific search terms within each record group. Just use your browser’s “Back” button to return to this main search results page to access other record groups.
I hope that this brief tutorial helps those who are having problems, and I welcome any questions, if I have not addressed any other issues with “New Search.” I believe that you will find–like myself–that the current search engine is far superior to the “Old Search” that everyone seems to love.
Posted by jkmorelli on June 19, 2012 at 9:23 am
Michael, Like you, I really like the new site. I have a much higher confidence level that I am getting what I am searching for. I didn’t know about the “sort by collection” feature. I have been using the home page to access the specific collection. Thanks for the tip! Hope all is well with you.
Posted by Russ Worthington on June 19, 2012 at 10:15 am
Michael,
I don’t use the Ancestry search feature as a stand alone option. I do it from within the Family Tree Maker 2012 program. My “hints” or “shaky leaves” are far more accurate with the “new search”. My Hints are ones I need to follow up on. I have about 1,800 of them. Of those 1,800, most of them will be appropriate.
So, what’s the difference.
From the best that I can tell, is the “other” data that is sent from FTM2012 to Ancestry OR from the Ancestry Member Tree to Ancestry. (for the most part, the SAME ‘hints” are in both places.
The difference is that “other” data. Relationships, Dates, and Places. That additional data will bring out the “low lying fruit”. The Quick Hits, and from what I have seen, better results.
Getting back to what you posted, I think that when you get into the Advanced Search, and Add more data to your search “string” you will get 1) fewer hits, and 2) more likely results.
When I do use the Search feature on Ancestry, I’ll be looking at specific collections. For example, I wanted to find my grandfather’s Civil War unit’s history. Did a search for the unit name, and it was there.
I know that isn’t helpful, but I think that the more data you provide, the fewer hits will be returned.
I would NOT search that way on other websites. I search broadly, then narrow down, by adding the additional information.
Is there a good tutorial on this, not sure, but you might want to start here:
http://ancestry.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ancestry.cfg/php/enduser/sab_results.php?p_sid=Ytjk63_k&p_pv=1.1680&p_prods=1680&p_new_search=1&p_search_type=answers.search.nl&prop16=1
That link is on the http://ancestry.custhelp.com page, left column, under “How to search”. There are a couple of articles that you might want to look at.
Again, for me, I Search differently on Ancestry, then I do on other websites. For example, yesterday, I was searching on GenealogyBank. I had to remember where I was, searched broadly (less “stuff” in the search), then narrow it down, but Record Group, or by Location.
Good luck,
Russ
Posted by brucefuimus on June 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Thank goodness it’s not just me. Sometimes it seems that every mailing list is full of those who regard the New Search as only for children. (Possibly slight exaggeration here… Possibly.) What made me switch to New Search was the ability to do phonetic matching on surnames as Soundex seems to catch distinctly odd names. Phonetic isn’t foolproof but seems to give a better hit rate. Wildcards are still useful occasionally but I have to think a bit more about them.
For names, I tend to use First names set to “Names with similar meanings or spellings” and last name set to “Phonetic matches”. It’s worth noting that while these are supposed to be sticky settings, nevertheless they seem to revert to Exact-only at the drop of a hat – often when expending the collections to search and usually without me noticing.
First names set to “Records where only initials are recorded” I tend to use mostly for the US census – the UK used full names almost exclusively; what was it with all those American entries with just initials?
My prime rules of New Search summarise to:
– Match all terms exactly;
– Summarized by Category;
– Phonetic matches (but watch it doesn’t revert!)
(all of which you mention).
Adrian B
Posted by drbillshares on June 19, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Michael,
Thank you for some very specific, useful new approaches that I had not yet used. I really appreciate the way you present information. It really encourages me to go right out and try it, with confidence. Thanks, again!
Posted by Sue Masse on June 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm
I am embarrassed that it has taken your column for me to find categories in the search results. I have nothing against new search, I just hated the results display. Thanks! Sue
Posted by Michael Hait, CG(sm) on June 21, 2012 at 1:13 pm
And I think that you are not alone. Personally, once I discovered all of the various settings, I found the “new search” far more powerful. I think the biggest problem is that Ancestry does not default to the most powerful way to use the search engine, so many genealogists give up before trying it out.
Posted by Connie Sheets on June 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm
“I can only suppose that the problems stem from unfamiliarity with the more powerful settings.”
Tsk, tsk, Michael
My dislike of New Search has nothing to do with unfamiliarity with how it works. I just can’t stand the extraneous visuals, the fact I usually have to check or uncheck so many boxes, the fact my settings don’t “stick,” the extent with which I have to page down to see results, the maddening drop-down locations…
I’m not convinced it’s all that more powerful than Old Search, which they will have to pry from my cold, dead hands. Old Search continues to serve me well, and is faster and easier to use. Yes, I realize New Search will become “faster and easier” the more often I use it, but I’m not planning to do that regularly until I’m forced to. I do go to New Search periodically and try it out yet again, but have yet to be convinced.
I will never understand why a clean interface always seems to be sacrificed whenever “improvements” are added. (That is an issue with more sites than Ancestry!)
Posted by Michael Hait, CG(sm) on June 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Oh well, I tried.
Posted by Jane Ailes on June 26, 2012 at 11:46 am
New Search is of no use for those who research in the Virginia counties that became West Virginia in 1863. For instance, I cannot use New Search for any census before 1870 for a county that became West Virginia. New Search forces you to choose the county name as a WV county, and returns only results dated after WV became a state, except for the 1850 and 1860 Mortality Schedules.
Also, since New Search only allows us to pick a location from a drop down list, and misspellings of city or county names are a reality — New Search results miss all those records which have misspelled localities. For instance, in the census indexes, there are county names misspelled in certain years. The only way to include the misspellings in search results is to use Old Search utilizing wild card values in your search specifications.
Posted by Michael Hait, CG(sm) on June 26, 2012 at 3:08 pm
You are partially correct. New Search is a little more difficult to use when researching in pre-West Virginia counties. But it is not impossible, and I would certainly not say that it is of “no use.”
When entering the location, simply select “Virginia, USA” and omit the county. Then, you can put the name of the county in the box marked “keywords.” This will bring up the results that you want, in these counties.
If a county name is misspelled in one of Ancestry’s indexes–a rare occurrence, but it does happen–you can find the misspelling by using the “browse” function rather than the search function to find out how they spelled it, and then put that name in the “keywords” box. And of course, you can add a misspelled county name to the Ancestry Errors Wiki so that other researchers will be aware of the problem and can plan their search around it.
Posted by Jane Ailes on June 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Thanks Michael, I just tried your suggestion of putting the county name in the keyword file, but this doesn’t provide the actual census records. All it gives you in the results for years prior to 1870 is access to an old compiled index of a range of census years. You still cannot access the actual census images from New Search.
I have spoken to Ancestry tech support, including supervisors, and they agree that there is a problem with WV counties prior to 1870 in New Search. Also, there are now some of the WV records disappearing from search results through Old Search, including Census Mortality Schedules.
Recently I reported one of the county misspellings for census records to an ancestry supervisor, and the correction showed up on Ancestry very quickly.
Jane
Posted by Michael Hait, CG(sm) on June 27, 2012 at 1:10 am
I get different results when I try to search for West Virginia counties. I just searched for the name “George” (picked at random) with “Virginia, USA” under “Any Event,” and “Barbour” under “Keyword.” I received results in Barbour County, Virginia for both the 1850 and 1860 U. S. Censuses. Barbour County, West Virginia, was established in 1843, so no earlier results are to be expected. I did the same search with “Hampshire” (est. 1754) in the “Keyword” box, and received results for the federal censuses from 1810 through 1860.
I am not sure why you are not getting the same results. Maybe this should be the subject of a separate post, so that I can include screen shots.
Posted by Jane Ailes on June 27, 2012 at 8:12 am
Michael, this morning I tried again using your suggestion of putting the county name in the keyword field, and this time succeeded in seeing the results for pre1870 census records as well as military, vital records, etc. I haven’t a clue why the result lists did not show these items yesterday.
This method of using the keyword field is a work around for VA/WV county searches, but it does include many extraneous items in the results list since I’m not searching specifically for the county, I’m searching anywhere for a keyword. If I use Old Search, the search result lists are clean and precise.