1) In Source Citations Created by Ancestry.com Mobile App (2 August 2012):
* GeneJ asked: "Being an over 50 iPhone user, do I dare ask if there is an "edit input" screen? I consider myself reasonably tech savvy. Still, I wanna know if other folks do much actual input on their phone devices. My thought is that I wouldn't want to type much in if I couldn't later later track it down and edit."
What if a person wanted to do 100 such entries for various people in their tree? Would it take 100 times as long, or are there shortcuts they could take that would save them time?"
"Use of a Template http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2012/04/use-of-template.html
"The only difference in the Citation (Reference Note) using an FTM2012 Template and the Evidence Explained! (page 248) is in two "fields" in the Reference Note.
"FTM2012 has "Population Schedule" followed by the Jurisdiction, while Evidence Explained has the two reversed. The FTM 2012 would look like this.
"1940 U.S. census, population schedule, Kansas, Morton County, Rolla; enumeration district 65-6; sheet number 3-B; family number 57; Lines 47 - 49; Harold Figart Worthington household; NARA microfilm publication T627, roll 1248; digital image, Ancestry.com (www.ancestry.com).
"Louis: The Time depends on 1) how you capture the Data, 2) do you have a Citation already (that would be a household citation, 3) Do you have that Source already in a Template and you are adding a Citation, 4) you have to create the Source, then add the citation.
"So, can't really answer how much time 100 people would take.
"Also, in FTM2012 we have a choice of Census Year or Census Year and Location (State and county). I chose the later. The probable average time per person (without doing a Web Merge (FTM2012 feature) would probably be a minute / person may be less. BUT the Citation is in the correct format."
"One problem is that the main players all aim at the same targets, so they all focused on the censuses first, then the GRO indexes to births, marriages and deaths from 1837 onwards and are only now turning their attention to parish registers. If one of these companies had focused on parish registers from the outset, they would by now have a great USP."
"My research interest is mainly in WWII weapons. Now, when I revise the search criteria, it takes me back to the main screen. It does not allow me to select WWII and return to that subject. Believe it or not, there were no bazookas in the Revolutionary War, but I have to reselect WWII anyway. What software can you think of that makes navigation a one way street?
"When you go back after enlarging a thumbnail, it does not take you back to where you were and it doesn't highlight the previous selection. I have to write down where I was before. This is unbelievably primitive. Maybe I should look for my abacus.
"In the entire history of computer software, developers have striven to maintain backwards compatibility. I have lost most of the functionality that served me so well under the old search."
"As to the Anonymous comment, without the details we can only speculate, but the reduced number of matches is quite likely due to our no longer showing each individual page of a document as a match, but grouping them by document. The results page will now give a count such as '108 matches in 56 results'.
"We will have a patch out this week to fix the disappearing category selections when a user revises the search criteria. That was a bug we did not catch earlier. As always, please contact our support line if you run into problems."