Researching records on Family Search
Good morning!
I do 99% of my records researching on Ancestry, because of the changes made in Family Search. I find the screen on Family Search so cluttered, I would like to suggest they do a format like Ancestry. One record on the screen, similar records to click on all pop up on the right side of the screen. Several of my friends that do frequent research all do their work on Ancestry for the same reason. It was much easier to navigate Family Search research before the latest changes.
Comments
-
@HansenHowardGoodfellow1 Thank you for your submission. It has been passed on to the proper Project Manager.
0 -
@HansenHowardGoodfellow1 Thank you for submitting your idea. It has been forwared to the appropriate Project Manager.
0 -
I guess, like the FamilySearch search engine, using the Ancestry one just needs a little adaptation and practice. I avoid Ancestry as much as possible, as I find I can't narrow down my results anywhere as well as when using Find My Past - or FamilySearch! However, they all seem to be lacking something when it comes to making a "revised search". I get particualrly exasperated that I don't seem to be able to make a search (on the same individual) using revised criteria without having to re-enter all their details again.
There must be search strategies I am overlooking when it comes to Ancestry, because I find I get the results I am seeking much easier on the FamilySearch website and only visit Ancestry for records they hold exclusively.
0 -
Paul W In theory both FamilySearch and Ancestry have the same search capabilities. And, by the way, it is clear you need some instruction on how to apply filters in Ancestry search results. Still, that is the crux of the matter: being able to put in a small amount of general search information, and then filter the results to a specific date range, a specific location and/or a specific record type.
As an example. I did a search in both systems using only surname "Smith" and death date "1920. In both systems I got millions of results. However, let's compare filters. In ancestry I selected record type of "death, burial, cemeteries & Obits", which is a single filter category; I selected country "US", state "Virginia" and county "Prince William". My search results now go down to 40, and the count is broken out by towns with the record of deaths.
It is fairly easy to apply the same filters in FS, but, the search results are less. 10, specifically come up. Why? There are no obituaries in the FS search results. In FS there are no women listed whose maiden name was Smith (they come up in Ancestry). Not all the Find A Grave accounts come up in FS. There is simply less there.
To change my mind on a filter, in Ancestry I can do it on the fly. I can select a different county, or expand to all surrounding counties, for example. In FS, my filters have been combined into a single filter. EDIT. To change to a different county I click the filter and select a different county, but that means I have to look at surrounding counties one at a time. You also have to know what the surrounding counties are.
This is why I use Ancestry to do all my searches on people. I use FamilySearch to do much of my collection searches (the catalog and image options) and find that extremely helpful.
1 -
One thing I forgot to add yesterday about the FamilySearch search results. The results in Ancestry allowed for filtering by town after I had applied the country>state>county filters. In fact, the results count was grouped by town so you could see town names. In FamilySearch, not only is this not the case, but the town of each record was not even visible. Going back to the original suggestion on this thread, Ancestry has got a workable product which brings up more records. FamilySearch may have a bigger database of records (I read that), but why then can we not have equally better access to it through filtering search results? As I said, I use the catalog and image search features mostly, and I will quickly add those are amazing and I find quite a bit.
0 -
I'm not sure if I understand your comment that about searching on towns in FamilySearch. There are three problems I have encountered when searching on location, however - usually involving the census:
(1) Results are often not found unless I add a wildcard to the end of the town / city name. If there are many locations starting with the same name (in the standards database), the search engine appears to get confused if you search on just the one (town / city) level - though why the wildcard at the end makes a difference I haven't worked out!
(2) The location (say village) cannot be searched on, because the placename has been indexed as a wider area (say registration district), which might not even exist in the standards database.
(3) In some cases, no location (parish / town, etc.) has been indexed other than that of the (whole) county.
In the case of the last point, I have a particular problem with 1851 England & Wales census records. These are provided by Find My Past and, for some unknown reason, only a number of counties have been indexed using more precise locations. So one would never find an individual by searching on a town, due to the way Find My Past sends these records across to FamilySearch.
In summary, not always FamilySearch's "fault" that there is a problem searching on a more specific location than the wider area in which it is located. In fact, with census records I am inclined to check Ancestry, as if I can't find the record I'm after in FS,it is often the case it can't be found in FMP, either.
As an afterthought, another problem could lie in the fact that Ancestry has permission from the record custodian to index the town, whereas FamilySearch has not been granted that. I suspect (from your comments) you already realise this to be an issue - which is one reason you prefer Ancestry!
1 -
Paul W I can't image that if an image of a record - in the case of my example, death certificates - was released by Virginia, Virginia would restrict FamilySearch in the selection of fields they could or could not index. Do you really believe that? I think FamilySearch chose not to index the town names. They did, however, index parent names, yet chose not to let that information show in the search results. Thus, deceased women with a maiden name of Smith did not show up in FamilySearch. That is horrible because most women only have their maiden name in the Person Record name field. I cannot see why all of this is not a big red flag for the need to improve the search function. Be loyal to FamilySearch, but support improvement. Don't defend a lack of quality.
0 -
I'm certainly not defending "a lack of quality"! However, when the GetSat forum operated, FamilySearch employees regularly addressed the issue of lack of detail in indexed records. There were usually two reasons provided:
(1) Lack of comprehensive indexing meant more records could be indexed in a set time period.
(2) The record custodian had not provided permission to fully index a record.
I can see the latter seems unlikely in your case, but assure you I have personally been exasperated by other examples. One particularly comes to mind, whereby I was seeking (and still am!) an elusive burial of an ancestor who lived in Norfolk, England. The indexed record for a person of the same name appeared a likely match, but neither age at death or the actual parish had been indexed. I worked my way through hundreds of images on the "image only" collection in which it was to be found - only to discover the event related to an infant burial, instead of the one anticipated involving a man in his 60s.
The two points I have been trying to convey are;
(1) Personally, I still have problems in using the Ancestry search engine - and I've been using it for many years now. I feel far more "at home" with both FamilySearch and Find My Past.
(2) There are examples that confirm data is sometimes withheld due to contractual issues. This is found in Find My Past, too, where often only a county is shown for an event - especially when it has been provided through a local family history society, through which the full details are available - but at a cost!
So, no, I'm not defending the quality of certain FamilySearch indexed records, but accepting the "company line" does apply in many cases, though doesn't seem to hold true in others.
1
