1) Anonymous commented: "With the old search, I search for a person in a particular census in a particular county just by first name or by birthplace. This was invaluable when looking for relatives whose names were misspelled. Now when I search for Michael in Jones County, AR, I get results from Australia and Wyoming. My biggest beef is getting a kazillion hits in Las Vegas newspapers when I specifically narrow the search to another city and I can't skip forward through them, I can only go page by page. I plan to unsubscribe because there's no point in having the subscription if I can't narrow the results to ones that might be pertinent to me."
Tessa responded with: "Wondering about Anonymous' comment as there is no reference to a Jones County in Arkansas. When I do that search in Ancestry, it clearly tells me where there are Jones Counties AND if I am asking for records in the United States and/or Census records, I can easily limit it to just those records. It does not bring back data from Wyoming or Australia. What was the exact search Anonymous was doing - I think some of this might be user error rather than Ancestry error."
Paul K. Graham tried to help with: "By recreating the search, I think there are two thing that Anonymous needs to be aware of. There are a lot of valid argument for what's good and bad, but this is the reality of what's been implemented.
"First, getting hits from all over the world results from choosing 'Use default settings' with the place name. If you 'Restrict to this place exactly' the results will only be for that place. I personally use 'restrict to county/adjacent counties' most often. Make sure to use the drop-down list to pick your place, rather than typing it free-form.
"Second, having to browse page by page through all the results means Anonymous was using the 'Records' view in the results area. If Anonymous clicked on the 'Category' tab at the top of the results, they would see the results organized by record type and database.
"Even in the Records view, you can use the filters on the left side to drill down into specific record types.
"One of the things I don't like is that the Category view is sorted by number of matches. That means if you don't search exact place, the irrelevant matches from big collections float to the top. Using exact place removes that problem.
"I liked the old Category view because it could be sorted alphabetically by database title. The new system doesn't give you any choice in that. It's frustrating, but you can work around it by learning how to create more targeted searches."
"I do however object when they change things and it doesn't work properly. I don't know how many problems there are with the new search, but I know some aren't getting results when they did with the old. It's like when they went to the new viewer. While it was in beta problems were pointed out time and again. They acknowledged it was a problem but forced use of the new viewer anyway and still haven't fixed the problems although they say they will someday."
"New search seems designed specifically to impress everyone with the size of it its database, not to give useful information.
"New Search has rendered the way i prefer to search virtually useless. I search individual databases, and access to those are severely limited on New Search. New search is geared to those interested in gathering names and not to actually gathering information. Pray God new search is short lived."
"The deletion of the old Search has no effect on me as I am already used to the new search because I am already familiar with the new and now like it better than the old search with the improvements that have been made.
"I try to view change in anything as an opportunity to learn something new. Life is too short to go through it frustrated because of changes."