'Exact match' feature in upgraded 'find' function does not work.

dontiknowyou

Anyway, I can confirm that exact matching is even more inexact than usual.

Julia Szent-Györgyi

It's still giving "exact" results for some value of "exact" that I am not familiar with: Maria, Julianna, Anna Julianna, Terez, and so on as "exact" matches to... Klara. (https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/results?count=20&q.birthLikeDate.from=1849&q.birthLikeDate.to=1849&q.birthLikePlace=Alist%C3%A1l%2C%20Pozsony%2C%20Hungary&q.fatherGivenName=J%C3%A1nos&q.fatherSurname=Madi&q.givenName=Klara&q.givenName.exact=on&q.motherGivenName=Julianna&q.motherSurname=Nagy&q.motherSurname.exact=on&q.surname=Madi)

(Not to mention the way it completely and utterly ignores any Life Event inputs: I know of no mathematical gymnastics that can put 1889 between 1849 and 1849.)

I mean, c'mon, if there are no matches, for heaven's sake just SAY so!

Paul W

I wonder if a moderator would kindly confirm whether this matter has been escalated to the engineers.

It has been two months since this thread was initiated and, so far, no response whatsoever to indicate they are even aware of the problem. I just wonder how difficult it can be to make the Find function work as it should. Just what is the problem in applying a code that ensures "Exact" works? Okay, it's not perfect in Search, but at least I don't get thousands of results at Search when I check the "Exact" boxes.

Making this feature work as it should would really be a great help in getting back to individuals who I know I have added at some stage. Unfortunately, I can't "Follow" every ID I add to Family Tree, so really need this feature to work as it should.

GaryKing

I am told this has just been reported to engineering

Karl Taylor Smith

How exactly did this get reported to engineering? I would have been happy to communicate this defect three months ago when it was first released into the production environment but was led to believe that there is no way to report bugs directly, no matter how egregious. All I could do is make a stink in this community in the hopes that someone on the programming team would see the thread and respond.

Áine Ní Donnghaile

@Karl Taylor Smith on 25 March, I tagged the Sr Global Customer Support Manager for FamilySearch in this thread and asked him to escalate to the developers. I don't know if that had any effect since we had no response in this thread until @GaryKing's comment today.

garrett469

Looks like it's more exact now!

https://www.familysearch.org/search/tree/results?count=20&q.birthLikeDate.from=1849&q.birthLikeDate.to=1849&q.birthLikePlace=Alist%C3%A1l%2C%20Pozsony%2C%20Hungary&q.fatherGivenName=J%C3%A1nos&q.fatherSurname=Madi&q.givenName=Klara&q.givenName.exact=on&q.motherGivenName=Julianna&q.motherSurname=Nagy&q.motherSurname.exact=on&q.surname=Madi

Karl Taylor Smith

We're cooking with gas now! Thanks for bringing the fix to my attention!

dontiknowyou

Exact match in Find is working better now. Not sure yet if it is correct, but it is better.

I like to see how surname projects are proceeding by counting how many profiles have a father with the same surname. So for Lewis now 503019/991992 = 51% of profiles have a Lewis father. This is a new project. Crandall now is at 22911/33030 or 69%; this is an old project but the rate of new profile creation is high. Peppler is at 1328/1972 = 67%.

A surname that as far as I know isn't being worked on is Nagy. Nagy has 374839/1033895 = 36% profiles with a Nagy father. (Who knew Nagy is more frequent on Family Tree than Lewis? Wow.)