Ancestry Site Comments - Family History & Genealogy Message Board

Re: Board Alerts?

geisten — 2009-11-24 20:28:53Z

While I am not the biggest fan of Ancestry regarding the direction they are currently taking, I do recall times when I lived in NJ we had constant power outages (our area was developing faster than the electric company had planned for)Anyway...at times we would wait before notifying the electric company with the attitude: Surely someone else has reported. Then we would finally call only to find out we were the first to notify them of any problems. So maybe we do have a certain amount of responsibility to let Ancestry know when something is not working properly.
By the way this is the second day I have received notices so if there is anyone still not receiving them, you may want to notify Ancestry.

Re: Pop ups and advertising

geisten — 2009-11-24 15:49:48Z

I could be wrong, but I "think" the original poster was objecting to those random surveys that Ancestry puts up and just threw in (for good measure) his views of the current ads Ancestry is running. The survey forms do have a tendency to "pop-up" whenever and they are a pain to get rid of...I have started participating in them only to use as a vehicle to vent. I ignore the "please tell us what you like" section to list what I do NOT like. Probably does not do any good but it makes me feel better.
Virginia

Re: Board Alerts?

mbmjlm — 2009-11-24 13:57:50Z

It seems to me that the only time these things are addressed is when we-the paying subscribers-begin to complain about it. Otherwise, it is just ignored. In my opinion, the people who run Ancestry just hope we never notice these things.

Re: Board Alerts?

dgfamtree — 2009-11-24 12:43:45Z

There was a brief error with Message Board alert emails due to some system updates that had to be made, but they should be going out properly now. Thanks for your patience with this issue.

Thanks,
David Graham
Ancestry.com Product Management

Re: Pop ups and advertising

pjbuk007 — 2009-11-24 10:39:53Z

No ads on Ancestry for me; I use Firefox as my browser, with the adblocker ad-on.

Re: Board Alerts?

jwardh — 2009-11-24 04:29:44Z

Still none for me, but I'll check tomorrow.

Re: Board Alerts?

nanapats — 2009-11-24 00:27:21Z

your Feedback message must have done some good. I have Message Board "Alerts" in today's email. Thanks Ancestry!

Re: Ancestry Messages

roncon60 — 2009-11-23 18:04:28Z

Ancestry's message boards can be read by anyone by just doing a Google search. Following is Ancestry's probable answer to your question...

"The further you follow your family story back in time, the more likely you are to find other members who have ancestors in common with you. The Messages feature is a great way to connect with these people and share discoveries. (This feature replaced the email-based Ancestry.com Connection Service, which we've now discontinued.)

Simply click on the Messages link at the top of any Ancestry.com page to see any messages you've received from other Ancestry members. New messages will appear in your Ancestry.com Messages inbox, just as they would in an email program. From there you can read and reply to messages and create personal folders for saving and organizing your messages.

The online Messages feature lets you communicate privately with other members. Unless you disclose it, your actual email address will remain private since all communications will take place on Ancestry.com.

All members registered with Ancestry.com can view and reply to messages received from others, whether you have a paid membership or not. Paid members can also click on the Contact link for other members they find throughout the site and initiate contact with them."

Ancestry Messages

pamwatson130 — 2009-11-23 15:35:24Z

Please could someone confirm that all messages sent and received can be read by members even if they don't hold a current subscription.

Many Thanks

Pam

Re: Board Alerts?

geisten — 2009-11-23 12:58:58Z

I sent a feedback notice to Ancestry regarding the "NO SHOW" on emails from the boards...just sent it this morning...might be good if more did the same.

Virginia

Re: Board Alerts?

roncon60 — 2009-11-23 12:31:30Z

No alerts for 3 days here also!!!!

Re: Board Alerts?

lucybutko — 2009-11-23 09:04:31Z

I have not received alerts either for at least 3 days.

Re: Pop ups and advertising

dklart — 2009-11-23 04:49:49Z

There are several threads devoted to rolling ads and how to deal with them. Your browser should have a box to check to prevent pop-up ads as well, check in preferences for that.

Ancestry.com is not unique, most commercial sites have ads. Asking them to do away with them is futile, so learning how to work around them is the ticket.

Pop ups and advertising

tante33 — 2009-11-22 20:07:33Z

A few minutes ago, I received a popup which 'dimmed out' my ancestry page, and I was unable to click behind the ad, so that I may IGNORE the annoyance, and continue with the task at hand.

No, I do not want to participate in a survey -- especially when it comes in the form of a popup! Whose to say a hacker out there hasn't come up with a way to mimic this activity, then next thing you know...poof. You're a victim.

Bad move and careless practice.

Ancestry - listen please. I NEVER click on popups from ANY site. I did what I always do when I have one appear out of nowhere; I closed my browser and started again.

Another annoyance which I first noticed last night was an Ancestry ad appearing over the uploading screen, as I added photographs. Now really. Does it make sense to add an advertisement at that point which should take all of five to ten seconds -- not to mention the one uploading is ALREADY a member of your site?

Besides that, on the first upload I was adding five photos and it was taking far too long. I opened another browser, went to Ancestry and...this is too funny...the pictures were sitting there just waiting for the info. I went back to the other browser and they were "still loading", despite the assurance notification posted on the ad of "We'll try to make this as quick as possible". I smell a rat.

Seriously. I realize everyone has to make a buck in these troubled times, but this is overboard, and a little slap in the face to paying members.

This is such an awesome site. Please rethink these absurdities.

Search issues

dedted29 — 2009-11-22 18:24:16Z

I still can't print or save images from the Stories & Publications and in the last 24 hours using the search feature either comes up "blank" as if nothing exists despite BROAD search parameters, i.e. using just James & Pennsylvania returns nothing. At other times "alert" box citing partial results due to "techinal difficulties" and to try again later.

Come on Ancestry, you need to spend MORE MONEY on tech support and fixing the databases! Upgrading "features" is useless and frivilous when the core use fails regularly! Being able to actually use the site is more important and what I pay for.

Re: Board Alerts?

jwardh — 2009-11-22 18:18:21Z

I haven't been receiving any for the past two days, either despite new posts and new threads on boards I'm subscribed to.

Re: Board Alerts?

nanapats — 2009-11-22 17:47:38Z

<< anyone who was not getting these alerts>> It's happening again - I have not received any emails with my selected alerts since Nov.18 - 5 days now. I checked the boards and there have been postings to my Favorite Alerts. Are you aware of this problem? Anyone else having the same problem? Thank you!

Re: Help to Search within my own Tree

frostfreedet — 2009-11-21 22:08:17Z

Your best avenue would be to export your Tree to a genealogy program on your own computer. There are quite a few that are free, available for download on the internet. There is also a series of Message Boards under Topics / Genealogy Software concerning specific existing genealogical programs, that can give you an idea of advantages and disadvantages of various products, although with the exception of FamilyTreeMaker (in which Ancestry.com, its owner, has over the years removed features such as ability to generate a self-published book, and added some others) and PAF (Personal Ancestral File, the simplest one with fewest administrative features) they are not very different from each other.

I do *not* know if the "Military Pages" created within Ancestry Member Trees will export to **any** genealogical program, including the latest version of FTM. That sort of thing is unlikely to be captured by a gedcom-file conversion.

If you post a query on this issue in the Member Trees message board, perhaps someone would have an answer for you.

Re: Help to Search within my own Tree

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-21 22:00:56Z

There is no way to do this with members trees unless you download a GEDCOM of that tree, load it into a standalone genealogy package and do the analysis there.

Doing what you want is a breeze in TMG.

Re: Help to Search within my own Tree

glendorawhetstone — 2009-11-21 20:31:47Z

Well, thanks for the answer. I wish there was. There have been quite a few Union and Confederate soldiers and I wanted to see how closely related they were on different sides of the Civil War.

I guess I'll start going through name by name.

Re: Help to Search within my own Tree

frostfreedet — 2009-11-21 20:18:27Z

There is no 'search' function within individual Ancestry member trees, that is accessible to tree owners, except by name.

Help to Search within my own Tree

glendorawhetstone — 2009-11-21 20:06:40Z

I've looked for a few days and haven't been able to find out if I can do this and if so, how.

I want to search within my own tree so I can have a list of those that have a Military note and for those that I have burial information so I can see who all is buried at the same cemetery. Is there any way to search within your own tree for things?

Thanks!

Re: Unable to save or print images from image viewer

fhsleuth — 2009-11-21 09:06:47Z

Thanks. I do save to my hard drive, but sometimes even that is not feasible with Ancestry. Saving to my shoebox just provides a "To Do" list to follow up on the various items when the system is functioning once again. Most of the items saved are attached as sources eventually. One in particular still eludes me as I can not print, save to computer or save to tree. That glitch remains to be fixed.

Re: Unable to save or print images from image viewer

marybharris — 2009-11-20 17:55:31Z

I am also encountering this very annoying problem.
with the error details below
This is both using IE 8 and Firefox.
Webpage error details

User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Timestamp: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:48:27 UTC

Message: 'SuccessType' is undefined
Line: 1
Char: 8009
Code: 0
URI: http://c.mfcreative.com/js/content/viewer_x.js?v=5

Re: Unable to save or print images from image viewer

mbmjlm — 2009-11-20 04:31:14Z

Just be aware that if you are saving to your shoebox, you are not saving the image but only the link to the image. Are you able to save the image to your own computer hard drive because that is the only way you will be able to save the actual image. The other options only give you a link to the actual image but not the image itself.

Re: Unable to save or print images from image viewer

fhsleuth — 2009-11-20 02:24:07Z

I experienced the same glitch and could neither save image to computer nor print it last night. However, I could save to my Shoebox. I also found a record that I could not save because the orange save button was missing.

This is an intermittent, but ongoing problem among many others on Ancestry.com. If you keep trying long enough, eventually, some day, it might work again. These boards are full of complaints that have gone unattended for many a moon. Sometimes they surprise us and fix it promptly.

I am sorry that you are experiencing this problem, but we almost expect something to be non-working on a daily basis. Good luck.

Unable to save or print images from image viewer

dedted29 — 2009-11-20 01:17:20Z

Every time I click save image, the save to shoebox/save to computer screen opens but when I the button to save it with either option nothing happens. The button clicks but page remains and no screen appears to name and save to computer. The same issue when I click to print image occurs. Is this a new issue or is Ancestry working on it.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

JimLivermoreNY — 2009-11-19 21:30:00Z

I suspect as a keyword, it draws in the category as well as title. Just a guess.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-19 21:02:32Z

Jim,

Thanks- that pulls up a list of 23 voter lists. Now the question remains as to why "vot*" should pull up *any* census at all.

It would seem that both the keywords and all indexes need a complete review and updating by Ancestry.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

JimLivermoreNY — 2009-11-19 20:45:50Z

In the Card Catalog, try it in the database title. Is there some that are missed?

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-19 20:40:19Z

Well, I tried it...

And no- it doesn't just give you a list of all voter lists.

It gives you 467 hits that include all census and anything else contained in the "Census and Voter List" catagory.

Ah well.....

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-19 20:35:05Z

Thanks, for some reason I never thought of using that.

I'll give it a try.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

xandervan — 2009-11-19 20:18:48Z

"There is not a single keyword that will give you a complete list!"

Doesn't searching for keyword

vot*

do just that?

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

JimLivermoreNY — 2009-11-19 19:27:37Z

True, but in some areas it is invaluable. In the good old search, go to "Stories and Publications" tab. Enter a last name in the field provided, and a county of interest in the keyword field, select your state, then search. Now, switch to the "Historial Records" tab. I have filtered those records to just one county of interest.

Give me the keyword field back on the Historical Records tab so I don't have to 'fool' the system with such nonsense. We used to have one, remember?

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-19 18:53:26Z

The keyword search is, for all practical purposes, useless unless you already know what keyword to use.

As an example- try to look at all the voters lists on ancestry.

There is not a single keyword that will give you a complete list!

You have to use the following to get a complete list:
voter
voters
voter list
voters list
voters lists

Each will pull up various lists but none of them will pull up all lists.

Re: Saving records from the image page (census)

nsedak — 2009-11-19 16:57:14Z

Appears to be fixed.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

adamsfamily1 — 2009-11-19 16:37:04Z

(i hit send before i'd finnished)

it SHOULD NOT be set as a standerd

an EXACT SEARSCH SHOULD BE an EXACT search

NEW SEARCH THROWS UP TO MANY RESULTS WHICH ARE IRELIVENT

the OLD SEARCH format is the way ancestry should be looking

at the NEW SEARCH program needs abandoning and reccognised

by ancestry as the white elephant that it is. and eforts

put into developing a search along the OLD SEARCH format.

YES ALOT OF MONEY AND TIME have gone into NEW SEARCH

butthere are many of their cliants who hate the new search

so much that they have now left ancestry or are saying they

will by not renewing their subscriptions once OLD SEARCH is

abandoned or it stops locating the records they want so

infact pursuing NEW search is costing ANCESTRY MORE MONEY

all the time they keep it as their pet project and

eventually the only way to search.

THE RESULT FOR NEW SEARCH THAT I SEE if ancestry continuee

to wear those blinkers will be

CYBERSPACE HEVEN.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

adamsfamily1 — 2009-11-19 16:18:22Z

one that you missed is that idiotic worthless

FUDGE FACTOR

if we ask for

1856 we should get 1856 not everything between 1854 and

1858.

if we want to get results from either side of 1856 then

just as in old search there should be the ability to chose

the number of years we want either side ourselves.

Saving records from the image page (census)

nsedak — 2009-11-19 15:57:20Z

Is anyone else having this problem? Every once in a while, when I click on save image, it goes straight to my files, to save the image to my computer. There is no option to save to a person or to my shoebox.

Right now I'm in an 1860 census record; using Visa Home Premium and Firefox 3.5.5

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

JoMac53 — 2009-11-19 14:43:25Z

"it would be too expensive for the search engine"

Sounds like hogwash to me.

For example, I can search for Edw* Mil* just fine, so why can't I search for Ed* Miller?

The first search above took 4 seconds to return results and I sometimes wait longer than that for Ancestry pages to load! I wouldn't mind waiting a few extra seconds for wild character searches unrestricted to requiring the first three letters. Many times that's where the indexing mistakes are that prevent us from finding people.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

JoMac53 — 2009-11-19 14:22:45Z

"Maybe Ancestry needs to turn over their search operation to Google."

I suggested something similar a long time ago! lol

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

JimLivermoreNY — 2009-11-19 13:13:24Z

Why would you like the keyword search eliminated? What would be the advantage?

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-18 23:54:48Z

If you google "?a?" you get 1,520,000,000 hits in the blink of an eye.

If you google "?a*" you get 25,370,000,000 hits i the blink of an eye.

Using either of the above and "Ancestry.com" as search terms gives you 257,000,000 hits in .41 seconds.

Maybe Ancestry needs to turn over their search operation to Google.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

jmyoung365 — 2009-11-18 23:25:35Z

The reason for the "3 letter" restriction on wild cards is that it would be too expensive for the search engine without the restriction. It would take too long and be too difficult to search because there are just too many possible combinations.

Joan

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

meekernj — 2009-11-18 23:22:11Z

I sure agree with "no 3 letter restriction for wildcard." Some records have just first initials. Or what if you have a man named Ed? Currently, I have to leave out first name entirely, try to restrict search using other criteria, then page through lists to find the person I need.

Sharon

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

AGHatchett3rd — 2009-11-18 23:12:34Z

Just as a personal preference I'd love to see one of two things happen.

1) The Keyword search eliminated entirely

or

2) The ability to use true Boolean logic with wild cards (with *no* 3 letter restriction) searches on the Keyword field.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

frostfreedet — 2009-11-18 18:06:37Z

This is a continuing problem, as you note.

Nearly 2 years ago Anne Mitchell raised the issue for ancestry.com blog discussion. But it has not been fixed at all.

Not only do the lists appear to include the results of a keyword search instead of being manually hard-entered by topic; the lists don't even include all State-specific resources in the overall Ancestry.com database.

And some of thoses included for various states have no content at all for that State, such as the incluson of the 1890 US Federal Census Veterans' schedules in States where these schedules do not exist.

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

mbmjlm — 2009-11-18 15:01:40Z

Thank you Anne. This just started happening yesterday afternoon. Looks like some more bad code was rolled out. Or did that happen because of the problems stated by Web operations from yesterday. By the way, all these state applications when pulled up list data that in no way relates to Georgia. Y'all really do need to work on that before you mess with other things. I am pasting in a couple of screen shots that I pulled up which show millions of records which have nothing at all to do with the State of Georgia. This has been this way for years and nothing ever gets done about that. So work on that for heavens sake. And please start having some control over what your programmers are doing. Bad code is being thrown out all the time which affects everyone. I am still dealing with the mess that was caused by bad code which put extra spaces between county and state when linking records to my member trees. Even though that was corrected, it still affects "type ahead" options because I have to scroll down and find one that does not have the extra spaces inserted or else I have to type the whole thing again. Someone needs to use some common sense before these things happen. This should not be left up to us the subscribers to catch and point out your problems. This is not cool!!!

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

meekernj — 2009-11-18 14:49:55Z

Anne:

I also search by state frequently. The state pages have NEVER listed data collections correctly. I reported this years ago. In addition to the current problems, many of the state records are mis-categorized. Minnesota records listed in New Hampshire or whatever. All you need to do is look at almost any state and you will find records that don't belong in that state. I'm not talking about "general" records that are listed for all states (such as SSDI); I mean records from some other state that have nothing to do with the state I am looking at.

Would love to have someone fix this.

I love Ancestry. I have had a subscription for 10 years, but in the last few years it has become more and more challenging to find what I am looking for.

Sharon

Re: Looks like the idiots at Ancestry have done it again

ancestryanne — 2009-11-18 12:57:43Z

The state and country pages are currently not listing data collections as they should be. I have people looking into it and we will have it fixed soon.