Fix search bug for birth date range
The Search tool, advanced options, ignores specified date ranges and returns absurd results.
Example: John Hudson, born Rhode Island (exact), date of birth range 1811-1816 returns a list of people including those born outside the specified range.
This is basic, and BAD, and needs to be fixed, soon.
Please add an EXACT option on ALL date ranges.
Thank you.
Comments
-
The reason it returns "absurd" results is that the date range is not a criterion, but an additional option. That is, a search for John Hudson born in Rhode Island between 1811 and 1816 matches John Hudson born in Rhode Island in 1750, John Hudson born in Connecticut in 1815, and even James Hudson born in Virginia in 1900. That last would hopefully be ranked so low as to not actually show up, but if there aren't a lot of very good matches, then the first two would likely be shown.
To actually limit your results to a timeframe, you have to use the filters. These only go down to the decade, though, so you'll still need to do some manual weeding.
2 -
I was about to present a case giving evidence of the comparatively recent decline in ones expectations to be able to get "exact" results any longer. Instead, I just carried out a search for a John Robert Smith, born in Essex, England between 1800 and 1900 and my results list matched - exactly.
I am sure it is not my imagination here that I, too, am experiencing these problems a lot more in recent months. But, if there is a specific problem being experienced, I would advise posting the URL you have used in your search, so other users might suggest further ways of slimming down the results. However, adopting Julia's suggestion of using filters (to search on collections or types of record) should go a long way in addressing the current problem.
0 -
BTW - this is what I got returned, seemingly using the same criteria as yourself:
What inputs did you make to produce such different results? Perhaps you are even talking about making a search from "FIND" or another page. The FIND function never has produced "Exact" results, but does seem to improved in prioritising them. Regardless, this just bears out the importance of providing the precise details about the method / means used in undertaking your search.
1 -
I'm not sure what's meant by "filters." If I search a collection - in this case Collection: Birth, Marriage, & Death, North Carolina Marriages, 1759-1979 - and look for THOMAS (exact) EDWARDS (exact) using the date range of 1773-1777, I get 18 returns ranging from 1796 - 1841, with 4 undated entries. In using the More Options box, there's no way to apply a filter - unless you're speaking of Add Life Event, Family Member or Record Option. There are no "filters" applicable to the date range. I believe that's true when searching any record, family tree or genealogy. Here's a screenshot of my issue:
To give some perspective on how irritating this is, I searched a similar collection of NC County Marriages starting a week ago to see how many of my Edwards ancestors had records. They were scattered over 4 counties from the 1750s until the 1830s, so I didn't input any location, knowing anywhere in NC would be delivered and I'd have to visually sort out the returns. I used only EDWARDS (exact) and a date range. The total returns were 245 pages because the date range was meaningless to the search engine. I had returns from the 1760s through 1890s, and many of those were duplicates. Sometimes the duplicates were on consecutive pages. After about 5 sessions of reviewing the returns, I got to page 100 where I became satisfied everything else was probably 1860 and later, judging from the last 20 pages I'd been looking at. But I wouldn't have bet money on that assumption.
It's bad enough the date range is meaningless in the search criteria. But what's even worse is that returns are not even delivered in any sort of chronological sequence. If the search function is going to ignore the range as input, then is there any way to order the returns chronologically? At least that would enable users to scroll through the jumble until the desired date is found. Additionally, I believe some housecleaning is in order in the various databases being accessed because either there are dozens/hundreds of duplicate records, OR the search engine is scanning the same data multiple times and presenting multiple duplicate returns for the same query. An AI fix is possible to resolve this, at least in a Beta format which could be tested and refined, if needed.
Finally, if the Search feature is going to allow any user input at all, it's very annoying that users are given data not asked for. Delivering "low ranked" matches when specific criteria are used is not helpful, especially when returns are jumbled. Let he user discriminate as to the precision of the search and deliver returns based on that input! Most people understand how to broaden or narrow a search window.
0 -
@Landon Edwards, the filters are the gray bubbles across the top.
0 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi in the example I used, I was searching a specific marriage collection. What are you suggesting - that I filter the returns by "marriage?" Or by "collection?" The use of filters in this case make no sense. They may help in some scenarios. But filters are NOT an acceptable resolution to this problem.
0 -
BTW, this date problem has been brought up previously. There was a discussion of the same issues in 2020, but without definitive resolution. Yes, several workarounds were proposed, including filters. Filters work if you're searching a general category, like Records or Trees or Genealogies. But as I said above, if you're already searching a discrete, single collection, there's no way to further filter results. Users have been asking for a fix for some time now. I think many would be grateful for progress on this issue.
0 -
@Landon Edwards, yes, if what you're looking for is a marriage dated between 1773 and 1778, click the Marriage filter bubble, choose the Marriage Year tab, choose the century, then choose the decade and click Apply.
No, it's not as specific as your range, but if there are any results within the range, they'll be at the top of the list.
But I see why you're getting the wide spread: the collection has a single marriage in the 1700s matching the name, and it's in 1796.
1 -
@Julia Szent-Györgyi the collection itself is de facto a filter. I understand what you're saying. But it dilutes the purpose and usefulness of a searchable database. According to your statements, the system assigns weight or relevance to parameters irrespective of what the user may actually want or input. The system does not allow the user to specify criteria that target and limit search results. This is the crux of the complaints. Users would like a fix to make FS align with most other databases commonly is use throughout the world today.
0