New Search Facility
Recently noticed the search format had changed and appeared to restrict search,then noticed more options,now each line has to be marked exact which is time consuming.In an effort to test the system i entered information as follows,
Surname Monk
Date 1726-1750
Location Essex,England
Father Phillip
Mother Judith
Initial search resulted in 245 pages to check,bit more fettling and down to six pages but first entry i check has correct surname but nothing else.
Have contacted Family Search via phone;not able to help.
The old system worked well but had to be changed????????????????????????????????????????
Hoping to hear from someone in an official capacity.
Eric
Comments
-
The update to Record Search is now available for all of our guests.
We are happy to share some ideas on how to enjoy the new look and Search features for Search Records and record results page.
The Search Records update is inviting and helpful for our new users, but the features that our experienced users love are still available, even though it has a new outward appearance.
The update provides a new look and feel, but just click on “more options” to see the more familiar search page for a more specific search. The same search engine is the gate to finding wonderful records.
On the new Search Historical Records page, there is a wonderful link for “Tips for Effective Searches.” We hope that the explanations to what a historical record is and how records help us learn about our family are helpful for experienced users as well as for beginners.
As you get used to the new features in the search results page, you may discover new features that can help in sorting, saving and viewing your record search results. Many of our guests are discovering marvelous ways to use the new features. These updates may be challenging at first, but a great deal of work, research and experienced planning has gone into this update for our benefit. Please give it some time. Experience the search. Experiment with each feature. We hope that you will grow to love the new update to FamilySearch records search.
May we suggest some articles from the Help Center.
Best practices and search tips for historical records. https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/when-i-am-searching-historical-records-what-are-the-best-practices-and-tips
How do I filter the search results in historical records? https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/filter-the-search-results-in-historical-records
How do I change how search results in historical records are formatted? https://www.familysearch.org/help/helpcenter/article/how-do-i-change-the-format-of-the-search-results-in-historical-records
0 -
When I entered the search criteria which @Eric Butcher used, I also get 245 pages of results.
It seems that the Father's First Name and Mother's First Name fields are not being used to filter the search results, or the filtering is too "fuzzy"?
When I removed the entries for Father's First Name and Mother's First Name I get the same 245 pages of results.
If I use the exact match option on the Mother's First Name (with Judith) and Father's First Name (with Philip) I get no results found.
I checked other websites and found 4 siblings in Writtle, Essex with parents of Philip Monk and Judith christened between 1726 and 1740.
When I checked the FamilySearch catalog for Writtle it seems that FamilySearch does not have the christening records for Writtle for that time frame, which would explain why no results were found.
I can see an advantage for having the Exact Search on each search criteria. For example, if I were looking for children of John Levison and Jane. I would want to put an exact search on the first names. But I wouldn't want an exact search on the surname as there are so many different ways to spell Levison.
So I like the new Exact Match - I can see that being very useful.
I may have missed something, but it does seem that the filtering of the search results is not happening when Exact Search is not being used?????? (And it's not just the Mother's and Father's First Name fields. I also did searches using Location and the filtering just doesn't seem to be happening).
By the way, I also saw another child born to Philip Monk and a Mary in 1745 in Writtle.
0 -
Diana,
I am not some Ancestry influenced beginner wanting to complete my tree back to Adam before lunch tomorrow.What was wrong with the previous search facility?
Do you consider 245 pages of results as being effective?
Recently i see that your system can not handle queries via Dusty docs or Archersoftware,why is this not being rectified?
Eric
1 -
Eric
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Belatedly ...
And, in relation to, the "Changes" of, the NEW "Search Records"; and, the resulting "Results" page/screen ...
You are certainly not alone ...
And, just in case you, were not aware ...
Here are some FOUR (x4) posts, in date (and, post) order of being posted, from someone, stating, to be part of the 'FamilySearch' Team that, 'Designed'; and, 'Developed", the the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", which appears, in some of the posts, to give some "Instruction", on HOW to use the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records".
"Ideas" (ie. 'Feedback) Section
15 July 2021
[ 1 ] Discussion 90536
'Category' = Records (Searching And Viewing)
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
Hello FamilySearch Community! Try out the new update to Record Search.
29 September 2021
[ 2 ] Discussion 103619
'Category' = General User Interface
Home > Ideas > General User Interface
FamilySearch's Updates to the Search Page
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/103619/familysearchs-updates-to-the-search-page
[ 3 ] Discussion 103620
'Category' = Records (Searching And Viewing)
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
FamilySearch Employee Responding to Search Page Feedback
[ 4 ] Discussion 103621
'Category' = Records (Searching And Viewing)
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
FamilySearch Employee Responding to Search Page Feedback
I hope, that some of the information in these posts, may offer some help/assistance.
And ...
There are OTHER posts throughout this Forum, where the instigator of the above posts has responded with, advice; direction; instruction; help/assistance, on the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch').
Now ...
That Said ...
You may like to ADD, your thoughts/comments, in those particular posts; so that, your thoughts/comments, like those of MANY other UNHAPPY Users/Patrons, ARE 'seen', by the Team, in 'FamilySearch', that 'Designed'; and, 'Developed" the NEW look "Search".
As you can 'see' from those posts ...
DESPITE, all the NEGATIVE 'Feedback', with regard to the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", from those that matter, the 'lowly' User/Patrons, where the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", was 'foisted' upon them; BEFORE, being "Fully" released to ALL User/Patrons - 'FamilySearch' RELEASED the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", to ALL Users/Patrons.
As I already suggested ...
You are not alone ...
We are ALL "Struggling"; and, NEED "Help", with the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", which is NOT very 'User Friendly'.
MOST Users/Patrons want the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records" to be "Reverted" BACK to the PREVIOUS "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records".
But ...
That Said ...
SADLY, I doubt that will happen ...
And ...
Finally ...
'FamilySearch' has made, MINOR "Changes", to the NEW "Search Records"; and, the resulting "Results" page/screen, hopefully such will keep occurring ...
I know, that this DOES NOT help/assist; but, I hope, that this gives you, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
As a new user, that was the most confusing set of responses I have ever seen. I tried to do a simple search to find myself with exact data and nothing for me showed up. Seriously?
0 -
FYI
Welcome to BOTH, 'FamilySearch'; and, the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
Firstly ...
Unfortunately ...
Being a NEW User/Patron, you would not understand, the concerns, of many Users/Patrons, with regard, to the NEW "Search Records"; and, the resulting "Results" page/screen; as opposed to, the OLD "Search Records"; and, the resulting "Results" page/screen ...
Secondly ...
As you are "Living", you would most likely, NOT, find ANY "Records", relating to yourself; except, of course, in things like, "Public Records" (USA); Obituaries/Death or Funeral Notices; and/or, "Probate"; but, maybe, also in some "Civil Registration" records, such as, "Birth"; and/or, "Marriage", depending upon one's, age; and, one's Country" of Birth/Residence.
eg. Despite my age, there are NO "Records" that list me - except, the "Death/Funeral Notices", in the Newspaper, of my Parents; and, only then by FIRST 'Given' Name.
In some respects, there is NO such thing; as, a SIMPLE "Search" ...
Finding "Records", of individuals/persons, is often much harder and more complex, than most people think.
It is NOT easy, making "Records" findable ...
And, more often than not, the "Record" Custodian, make the RULES, on what can and cannot, be "Indexed'.
Often, the organisation, doing the "Indexing", is constrained, by the desire/direction of the "Record" Custodian.
Finally ...
'Yes', finding "Records", CAN be much harder and more complex, than most people think ... "Seriously" ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
0 -
Your new search is extremely difficult to use. What good does it do to put in your persons name and DOB/DOD and location where lived when what comes up has absolutely NOTHING to do with the person you are looking for?? Example: I'm looking for Mary, born in 1893 and I get Margaret born in 1870??? This is happening constantly! Your old search wasn't the greatest but it WAS better than the new one!
0 -
@CarolStrombeck, I'm sorry that you're having problems with the Search format. Using your example, I searched for May, born 1893. Although that's a really broad search criteria, I received 228,983,043 results; and all that I saw had a first name, "Mary." (Granted, I did not examine all 245 pages). And most had a birth date of 1893. This certainly doesn't invalidate your concern - it only suggests that one can generate examples of the search engine working correctly (at times).
So, I would be very interested in know more how you searched -- perhaps then I would have a better appreciate for why you are seeing this problem. If you would like, please send a screen shot of your search criteria, or just tell me what you put into the search fields, etc.
I'd sure like to see if I can help, so I look forward to your response.
0
