Search Results Are Garbage Now

lindakinda

Once upon a time I could search for James Kurtz in New York and get relevant results. NO MORE! Nicholas Kurtz, J **cher are within the first 5 results. Are you kidding me? I put in DOB (as a range), death date, I get GARBAGE! Thank god I downloaded most things years ago. So much for finding anything new on this now atrocious site.

Paul W

@lindakinda

See https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?exactSearching=true&q.givenName=james&q.givenName.exact=on&q.residenceDate.from=1900&q.residenceDate.to=1920&q.residencePlace=new%20york&q.residencePlace.exact=on&q.surname=kurtz&q.surname.exact=on.

Did you check the "Exact" boxes? I found 8 of the 9 results produced relevant to my search criteria. In my example, I also searched just on "Residence" (1900-1920 period), which narrowed the results down (well, 8/9 of them) to ones related to James Kurtz in the New York census for that period.

Gordon Collett

If you post a specific example of a search where the results don't seem to make any sense by pasting in the URL of the results screen as Paul did and as I did here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/107666/any-explanation-of-search-result-order-available-or-are-there-flaws-in-the-routine#latest , either someone will be able to explain why you are seeing the results you are seeing or, ideally, the search team people will get it forwarded to them to analyze and see what is going wrong. Without specific examples of a problem, they can't fix anything.