tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post5941762403735970295..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Is this the Problem Users Have with Ancestry.com's "New Search?"Randy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-74267835313077929802013-06-29T10:11:51.231-07:002013-06-29T10:11:51.231-07:00I typically use the Old Search with Exact Matches ...I typically use the Old Search with Exact Matches checked and wildcards. I've compared it to the New Search with categories several times and I keep going back to the Old Search because it is just plain easier for me to read! <br /><br />I think the New Search has caught up as far as results go, but the Old Search is still laid out in a more compact way. The little divisions between the category types and less space between each category makes it not only easier for me to read, but I can see more matches at a glance.<br /><br />One area where I do prefer the New Search is for newspapers since it gives a preview of each match, while the Old Search only gives the title.Kathrynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13983843990930490265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-17604860998520827232013-06-29T04:58:04.382-07:002013-06-29T04:58:04.382-07:00I am a user of the old search. I have even found a...I am a user of the old search. I have even found a way to remove the ranking. Ancestry needs to listen to its customers. We want a one page summary of results, achievable in a quick intuitive way. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17514877313601379515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-8169215351301604192013-06-29T00:45:33.192-07:002013-06-29T00:45:33.192-07:00One problem with the "categories" view i...One problem with the "categories" view is that there may be many pages of listings, ranging from 27,000 'hits' to one 'hit' each. <br /><br />Ancestry.com always lists them in descending order of number of 'hits.' I have found that my actual pertinent results are nearly always in one of the items with a single 'hit.' But there is no way to navigate to the end of the list immediately or to reverse the numerical sorting order.<br /><br />This particularly irritating in the first round of searching from a tree, when the search engine disregards bracketing by the individual's vital dates, and may include databases for wrong places that "match" only an initial letter of a first or middle name. So sensible searching from a tree in NewSearch always requires several search-refinement operations to begin to get something manageable.<br />This can be frustrating.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-22779126986442024992013-06-28T21:40:22.501-07:002013-06-28T21:40:22.501-07:00The categories tab on New Search does make it more...The categories tab on New Search does make it more like the results on Old Search.<br /><br />The problem I have with it is the empty space between each item. They could be compacted, making it easier to scan through quickly.<br /><br /><br />Denise Fischernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-5817454092522045522013-06-28T21:23:54.022-07:002013-06-28T21:23:54.022-07:00I agree with you. Many people just don't know ...I agree with you. Many people just don't know about categories, don't restrict their search to a specific country, and don't unclick the member trees, stories, and images. These options are all "sticky" and stay from one session to the next. At least they do with my browser which is FireFox.<br /><br />I've found some interesting and unusual databases that I would never have seen using the usual types of search. There may be just a couple of hits in these databases and would be just lost in all the other hits.Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07230436754902585388noreply@blogger.com