I noted yesterday that the Revolutionary War Rolls on Ancestry.com had been updated, and realized that I had not saved images of these records for my Revolutionary War soldiers. That lead me to do some searches for these records:
From the Military Records collection page (I tend to search now in specific collections and specific databases, rather than do a "global search"), I input "Martin" and "Carringer" in the search fields:
The list of matches came up, and I noted that the Revolutionary War Rolls, 1775-1783, was on the list (note that I tend to search according to "summarized by category"):
Clicking on the link for the Revolutionary War Rolls, I saw that there was one match for Martin Carringer:
The record indicates that he is in Roll Box 83 for Pennsylvania. There is no indication of page number or image number for the entry in the Roll Box 83.
I clicked on the "View Images" link and saw this:
So let's try to analyze this situation:
Doesn't Ancestry.com run these records through some sort of quality check so that a subscriber is assured of finding the actual record found by a search?
Was additional information added to the indexed information, such as the military organization, the year, the folder containing the soldier's record in this dataset? Having that information might help a searcher browse through the dataset as it is currently constituted.
My guess is that most researchers, encountering this problem on Ancestry.com, will grumble about and curse Ancestry.com. And then try to find the record elsewhere. I found it on http://www.footnote.com/ - and will show the results in a later post.
Perhaps this problem has existed since the first release of this database, and others have complained about the non-linking of requested names to record images in this particular database. I don't know - but in my first use of the dataset I am pretty frustrated. I think I'm being kind to call this database "Hard to Find Records." Actually, almost impossible.
Disclosure: I am not a paid employee, contractor or affiliate of Ancestry.com. I am a fully paid subscriber to the U.S. Deluxe collection.