Beware the dangers of the new Ancestry Website

[Bob Spiers]

I am not normally given to wearing rose coloured spectacles when reviewing things, but so far I find the new look Ancestry quite pleasing. By no means an exhaustive search, but enough of one to find little to upset me. A small niggle about twins who died at or close to birth, shows the Death of a son followed by his Birth. The same with the twin a girl.

Took me a while to work out how to get out of the Lifestory to check on another ancestor but found I could do this by clicking on the Tree name and searching for another person or by selecting tools and View in Tree and doing the same. Lifestory format does however allow switching to a spouse which I liked. Not sure about the pictorial 'your ancestor was alive when' aspect but no great problem and allows you to ignore. So far no Americanised place name substitutes. Perhaps early days?

I will make up my mind whether to go with the new or return to old style; whilst the option remains of course. Meanwhile will read other posts to see what others think.

 

[Susan]

If you want to keep to the same format as the old layout it is simple.
Use Facts rather than Lifestory for any given profile. And hide Family Events and Historical Insights. The differences then are just aesthetic, no extras.

 

[RogerB]

Regarding lack of country on some of my place names, I've just spent a while on Family Tree Maker using the "Resolve all place names" in Tools. I managed to wizz through all the erroneous names on one of my trees, fininshing up by syncing with the tree on Ancestry and job done. Much less time-consuming than trawling through every ancestor's page. Simples!

 

[Tim]

Another thing that upset me was not being able to find the comments section on my new tree.

Brenb, Notes and comments can be found under the tools menu in the top right hand corner.

 

[brenb]

Thanks for all the helpful info.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

Are those affected ABSOLUTELY sure this is actually changing and editing the facts eg: if you download your tree have the locations actually been changed in the GEDCOM? Or is this a case of a display problem where the site display is trying to correct incomplete locations and displaying it wrong but not actually changing the underlying data?

It strikes me its far more likely to be a change of display. Ancestry have hundreds of thousands of users that use FTM to merge their tree with the desktop version. If they unilaterally changed some location data and that is merged into peoples main desktop tree that would be a catastrophic change for vast numbers of users who are lazy at entering locations. (ie: missing off countries/counties). It strikes me that it is far more likely that they have simply changed the way locations are displayed online without actually changing a user's tree.

Some testing is required.

 

[Sue345]

I don't like the new look at all. Too much information on a page so you have to look through a load of bumph to get what you want. I tried turning off the Family Events and Historical Insights but not much better. I think the colour on the main tree is not good and blurry to my eyesight.

I like the cleancut look of the old site, so I shall remain there. If they decide to get rid of the old site I will probably put my tree elsewhere.

 

[Bob Spiers]

It strikes me its far more likely to be a change of display

Yes I agree, I am sure Ancestry uses exactly the same data as before but has carried out a cosmetic upgrade to allow a display that is more pleasing to the eye in order to appeal to newcomers and those who may have thought the old display a little austere. This may not be so to those of us seasoned to the old Ancestry but then how often have I bemoaned browser windows doing the very same. Now't stays the same forever and as Family Historians we should know that. Just think of mobile phones, then and now!

 

[emjay]

Just been on Ancestry in response to an email informing me of "23 new hints". I actually don't mind the new format,but following up on some of these hints and looking at the public trees concerned....utter dismay at the 'fiction' of some of them. What really annoys me is the certificate and gravestone images of my family displayed on such trees.
This new format complete with 'sentences' will look so professional,plausible,polished, that to new or lazy family historians it will be gleefully accepted and copied as correct.

 

[Bob Spiers]

This new format complete with 'sentences' will look so professional,plausible,polished, that to new or lazy family historians it will be gleefully accepted and copied as correct.

Funnily enough I did a similar check on some hints and couldn't agree more, utter garbage some of them but NOT ALL of them; at least not on the ancestor name I checked. One looked interesting enough to follow up the rest can be totally ignored as wishful thinking -and that's being kind! But you make a good point about the lazy family historian -and I've met them time a plenty - who will copy without giving a thought to further scrutiny and additional research. Things that come naturally with experience.

 

[LynSB]

It strikes me its far more likely to be a change of display. Ancestry have hundreds of thousands of users that use FTM to merge their tree with the desktop version. If they unilaterally changed some location data and that is merged into peoples main desktop tree that would be a catastrophic change for vast numbers of users who are lazy at entering locations. (ie: missing off countries/counties).
.

I do not have an Ancestry tree but have to admit to having locations in my FTM trees that could cause problems if I did upload them. I have only found ONE ancestor who was not from the United Kingdom, so for my own private FTM tree I do not normally enter country in my data. United Kingdom is assumed unless otherwise stated. I prefer (for my personal use) not to clutter up my reports with extra information. I can see now that if I did upload a tree I would have weeks+ of work to do first to make my entries compatible with Ancestry. I can understand if other people's trees have this problem.
It is a shame that Ancestry is defaulting these trees to USA locations regardless of the tree's origin.

 

[Tim]

Just been on Ancestry in response to an email informing me of "23 new hints". I actually don't mind the new format, but following up on some of these hints and looking at the public trees concerned....utter dismay at the 'fiction' of some of them.

You do realise that Ancestry is able to "make" the hints possible by understanding what people have linked in their own trees?

So somewhere out there, someone has linked people and incorrect facts.

 

[emjay]

You do realise that Ancestry is able to "make" the hints possible by understanding what people have linked in their own trees?

"understanding"? Sorry Tim, not really when the list of hints are so diverse.

 

[Bob Spiers]

So somewhere out there, someone has linked people and incorrect facts.

One of the most common names in my Tree if not THE most common is a John Jones. So a hint for me to consider amongst some half a dozen others a John A Joynes was suspicious, and especially so when he turned out to be John Aloysius Joynes. Are you tell me someone actually linked that name to a John Jones? I'd be more inclined to think it was an Ancestry computer trawl using very liberal algorithm search techniques. And I thought Family Search led the field for that sort of thing.

 

[Tim]

Exactly Bob. Have you not wondered why you don't have 10,000 hits for John Jones? Haven't you wondered why some hints are 100% accurate?

Why have a fancy algorithm when you can review public and private trees and determine what to show as hints based on common details between trees? As people get better at tidying up their trees and adding facts, the hints will get better and better.

 

[jorghes]

That and they do tend to add a few from new databases, especially if the names match - I think I've mentioned before I've had a few hints in regards to the Cheshire records when they were added, and I'm 95% sure I don't have any ancestors/relatives in Cheshire.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I long ago stopped wondering about search results in Ancestry (and other data bases). Showing results from the length and breadth of the country with reasonably close name matches versus terrible name matches but reasonably close proximity to the given area of search. Add into that matches with elastic dates, and as this topic discusses, results from around the globe, emphasis the US, all are par for the course.

Having said all that I do agree with Tim's last point that as data base accuracy improves, so will search results, but just don't hold your breath it will be anytime soon. The best chance of success (as Peter as oft pointed out) lies in knowing the data base in question and how to use it to narrow down choice. That brings its own vexations of course but better to get a nil return from that than a hundred names of little or no consequence to your search.

 

[emjay]

Just been trawling through Ancesty's 'Phone Directory' records. Seems not to make any difference entering 'keyword' or trying to be more location specific,the same long list comes up and yes, I start to nod off

 

[Bob Spiers]

Seems not to make any difference entering 'keyword'

Yes emjay have long thought Keyword a complete waste of time and have long stopped using it.

 

[Britjan]

long thought Keyword a complete waste of time.

I have found that if I am very firm with Ancestry about "exact" in every spot where it can be specified I've had some luck but it has involved a lot of muttering to the site search box every time I click back and forth. When I was tracing a second cousin through the phone directory I had a quite good correlation to seeing him still employed at the RN dockyards and then his presumed retirement.