Similar Historical Records
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
genthusiast said: I love the recent Similar Historical Records feature which has been added to Searching Records - but have a possible suggestion for the feature in the future. When searching US Census records I commonly try to find the family I am searching in previous or subsequent Censuses. Today for example I was searching for John Brooks in Guilford County, North Carolina 1840, 1850 and then found the family in Rockingham County, North Carolina in 1860. For each of these censuses Similar Historical Records shows "No similar records were found." Yet I was able to find them by searching them individually and would love to have the option to group these family census records to the Similar Historical Records because I am fairly sure they are the same family and it would help anyone searching in the future for John Brooks of Guilford, North Carolina to find all those Censuses under Similar Historical Records rather than having to duplicate the process of searching them separately. Maybe a User Submitted - Similar Historical Records section? Or am I supposed to attach them in the Tree and then they will appear under Similar Historical Records?
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Brian Jensen said: Hi, we're glad you enjoy the Similar Historical Records feature. We use our Record Match service to identify the similar records but only show high confident matches and it's not impacted by attachments.0
-
Lundgren said: If you attach them to the tree and then anyone looking in the tree will see all of the records attached to the tree person.
That should allow them to skip the search process as well.0 -
Gordon Collett said: Can a feature be added to hide or removed records in the Similar Historical Records list for one that do not apply? Most of the time they are very good, but sometimes I have run across people where half the suggested records are for a different person. As with hints, this can lead to careless users adding sources that do not apply and mixing up different families into one.0
This discussion has been closed.