Ancestry Search issues

[Pauline]

I know this has been raised before but it seems to me that over the last couple of weeks, there have been numerous additional problems when searching at Ancestry.

I have a UK subscription (and I'm using Chrome) and I've mentioned before (as have others) that the search results periodically appear on the .com site and while I can get round this by changing the URL to .co.uk and reloading the page, it is a nuisance.

Then there are the times when I click to view an image and it starts loading on the .com site before redirecting me to a sign-in page, and I have to go back and start again.

In some databases specifying a place for the event I'm looking for is either disregarded so I get thousands of results, or I get no results at all. I used to get around this by adding the place as a Keyword instead, but that's now stopped working as well.

Today I have been trying to check out something in the tree of a DNA match which I think is probably incorrect. Having previously found other trees showing the same people, I tried searching for these trees again but they won't show up. Often I get a page showing 'Results 1 of 1' followed by no results!

Then after several unsuccessful searches I was given the results on a .com page, and there were all the trees I was looking for. But if I tried to access any of them from the list I was redirected to a sign-in page. I tried signing in at the .com site and re-running the search - but then none of the relevant trees showed up.

It's driving me crazy!

Edit: I should add that although Chrome is my usual browser, exactly the same issues occur in Firefox, and in Safari on my iPad.

 

[Bryman]

In some databases specifying a place for the event I'm looking for is either disregarded so I get thousands of results, or I get no results at all.

This does seem to be an unannounced change made by Ancestry a few weeks ago. I don't get the redirection to other sites that you mention but my connection defaults to the Australian location (.com.au) with apparent preference given to North America in the search results.

Most of my research is concentrated in England so I had taken to always specifying that country against B/M/D search entries even if I would normally leave some blank. That used to avoid getting dozens of NA records returned just because the names matched. However, that is no longer a guarantee, even when the location is given as exact or adjoining counties, etc.

I have also found recently that giving an exact(ish) specification for the search can result in no records being found. When I repeat the search having removed the restriction only, records are returned for the location requested!!!

 

[peter]

This does seem to be an unannounced change made by Ancestry a few weeks ago. I don't get the redirection to other sites that you mention but my connection defaults to the Australian location (.com.au) with apparent preference given to North America in the search results.

Most of my research is concentrated in England so I had taken to always specifying that country against B/M/D search entries even if I would normally leave some blank. That used to avoid getting dozens of NA records returned just because the names matched. However, that is no longer a guarantee, even when the location is given as exact or adjoining counties, etc.

I have also found recently that giving an exact(ish) specification for the search can result in no records being found. When I repeat the search having removed the restriction only, records are returned for the location requested!!!

Most of the time you'll get better results by searching individual datasets (as recommended).

 

[Pauline]

Most of the time you'll get better results by searching individual datasets

Almost without exception, I do my searching in individual datasets. I use Ancestry daily and recently I've mostly been searching for early Wiltshire folk, and using the Wiltshire PR and Wills sets. I always do exact searches, though I have the two name fields (only) set to 'exact and similar'.

One recent change which may be deliberate, is that when searching for a baptism the list includes (and usually starts with) a whole load of baptisms where a person of the same name was the father. These results appear without place or date details so are completely useless as well as unwanted.

Another recent issue is that the results now seem to be appearing in a completely random order. So when searching for something in a particular parish, not only am I often getting results for the whole county, but those for the parish in question will be scattered randomly throughout the list. So I might expect a search to yield, say, around 6-10 results but find myself having to search through 300+ results to find them. Yesterday, searching for a burial in the quiet parish of Sopworth yielded over 40,000 results!

And I'm now noticing with all searches that if I get the results on a .com page, when I change the URL to .co.uk and reload, the results are different - either I am getting a different list of results, or the same results in a different order.

 

[Susan]

I am also experiencing problems.


I select a database on the .co.uk site, enter the details and get a list of results with no data in them because I'm now on the .com site and not registered there.

I select a database, fill in the details, then I'm told I need to log in to see the results. Reloading the page does not work; I have to go back to the menu, load the database search page again and fill in the details again.




I always use specific databases.

 

[Margery]

Makes me glad that I haven't an Ancestry subscription.

 

[Susan]

On the plus side, I forgot to mention that the results page defaulting to 20 per page, which was reported a few months ago, seems to have been sorted out. All my searches have defaulted to 50 results per page for several weeks now. I realised that the pages with only 20 results only occurred when I edited the search; there were always 50 per page when performing a new search.

I will now pay more attention - do the problems I reported above occur at any time, or only if I edit the search?

 

[Pauline]

Makes me glad that I haven't an Ancestry subscription.

You are not alone in that and there are posts on other forums where people are saying they will not be renewing their subscriptions because of numerous ongoing issues. However, I use the original records at Ancestry so much in my research that I think I will just have to live with the problems until they get their act together.

 

[Pauline]

All my searches have defaulted to 50 results per page for several weeks now

Yes, that one seems to have been fixed, and for the last few days I haven't had any of the frequent 404 errors either, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that that one's been fixed too.

do the problems I reported above occur at any time, or only if I edit the search

Both I think. I did notice yesterday that the tick in the "match all terms exactly" box kept disappearing, so maybe that is part of the problem.

 

[peter]

Another recent issue is that the results now seem to be appearing in a completely random order.

That might be to do with whether you've specified exact matches.

I select a database on the .co.uk site, enter the details and get a list of results with no data in them because I'm now on the .com site and not registered there

Have you tried logging-in at Ancestry.com using your existing log-in details? I think it should work.

 

[Pauline]

That might be to do with whether you've specified exact matches.

I always specify exact matches, as I mentioned above, and always have done, but recently it doesn't seem to be working properly.

 

[Pauline]

recently it doesn't seem to be working properly.

And now it seems to be behaving itself again - fingers crossed it stays that way ........

I still get no results in the Wiltshire PR dataset if I put the parish in the location field, but it's working as before if I add the parish in as a keyword.

 

[Susan]

I hadn't realised the 404 errors haven't appeared of late, but now that you mention it, I haven't seen any for a week or two.


Peter, I just logged in to Ancestry.com using my .co.uk details and it worked. I had not realised this was possible until now. I did try several years ago but Ancestry.com redirected me to the .co.uk site and I hadn't tried since then until today.

 

[peter]

I always specify exact matches, as I mentioned above, and always have done, but recently it doesn't seem to be working properly.

I tend not to specify exact matches on every field - whether at Ancestry or Findmypast.

 

[Pauline]

I tend not to specify exact matches on every field - whether at Ancestry or Findmypast.

I guess it depends what you mean by specifying exact matches. At Ancestry I always have the box ticked to “match all terms exactly” (unless it unticks itself without me noticing) but I have the name fields set to exact and similar, and I will usually set a range of dates. At FMP I generally tick the boxes for name variants.

When looking for folk in the 16th and 17th century it’s essential to allow for variations in the spelling of names.

 

[Helen7]

I tend not to specify exact matches on every field - whether at Ancestry or Findmypast.

I agree. I've found specifying exact matches tends to be counter-productive. I always give a date range and I always tick 'name variants' at FMP (and don't tick exact match at Ancestry). Even in the 19th century I've found variants in my ancestor's names appearing in records (in one case, the father on a 1841 birth certificate had his surname spelt two different ways in the 'father' and 'informant' boxes).

 

[Pauline]

We will all no doubt have our preferred ways of searching, which may vary according to where and when we are searching etc.

However, what matters most to me is that the search does what it’s supposed to, and works reliably. Too often recently at Ancestry that hasn’t been the case.

 

[Helen7]

what matters most to me is that the search does what it’s supposed to, and works reliably. Too often recently at Ancestry that hasn’t been the case.

I agree, most of the symptoms you report I have also noticed, and it does seem to have been worse lately. I have also often been redirected to the .com site for no apparent reason (though my UK login works for this and .com.au). Searches of DNA matches don't seem to be working properly either at the moment, as I've mentioned on another thread (re large trees)

 

[Pauline]

I agree, most of the symptoms you report I have also noticed, and it does seem to have been worse lately. I have also often been redirected to the .com site for no apparent reason (though my UK login works for this and .com.au).

I don't usually use the .com site, as aside from other considerations, I haven't set up a personalised homepage there so my Quick Links are not available. However, I've now logged myself in there while still using the .co.uk site for searching, and will see if it makes any difference to this redirection issue.

Searches of DNA matches don't seem to be working properly either at the moment

This one is a long standing issue unfortunately, and I raised it here back in March.

 

[Helen7]

This one is a long standing issue unfortunately, and I raised it here back in March.

Thanks for directing me to this discussion, which I've now read, having missed it back in March (only joined these forums recently and didn't pick up on that one before - apologies!). I'm glad it's not just me having these problems. Perhaps Ancestry might fix it soon, though I'm not too hopeful!