tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post873056402102405328..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Reader Issues, Suggestions and Questions for Ancestry.comRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-43462335061099283932013-06-11T07:47:51.573-07:002013-06-11T07:47:51.573-07:00Message from Ancestry Support:
"However, if ...Message from Ancestry Support:<br /> "However, if you are adding Research Notes on Family Tree Maker, there is no place for them to sync on Ancestry.com family trees. They will remain in Family Tree Maker only. We recommend keeping all notes under the "Person Notes" heading."<br /><br />Mystery solved, but why didn't any of the tech support people know this? I was quite detailed with my explanation. This message came through after a phone conversation with a tech.FranDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607037481295218017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-4094087481540214272013-06-10T16:27:15.161-07:002013-06-10T16:27:15.161-07:00Follow up to prior post.
I did as they suggested a...Follow up to prior post.<br />I did as they suggested and exported the extended chart then brought it in as a FTM file.<br />My notes are still there.<br />Then uploaded that file to Ancestry.<br />The other notes are gone.<br />I can see these particular notes in FTM under the family view, but in the person view there is only one note - the first -which got uploaded to Ancestry.<br />When I uploaded this "new" tree I was back to square one at Ancestry.com.<br />I generated a "Notes" report that does have all of the notes for this individual.<br />I guess I will have to go to prior backups before the time I had to unlink and re-upload. I have no idea how far back to go and which ones could be missing - or why.<br />I see no need to do the last steps because the data uploaded is not accurate. Why bother downloading again as they suggest?<br /><br />Compact the file<br />Exporting a new file from charts<br />Uploading and downloading your file<br />Exporting a GEDCOM<br /><br />So, so frustrating.FranDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607037481295218017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-12750013979329941722013-06-09T20:42:47.392-07:002013-06-09T20:42:47.392-07:00Thanks Randy (and all the other posters) for the f...Thanks Randy (and all the other posters) for the feedback. We are listening and appreciate the input. It helps us to know where we still need to improve the service.<br /><br />Thanks again.<br /><br />Eric Shoup<br />EVP Product, Ancestry.comEric Shoupnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-45954709959309710192013-06-08T20:39:52.674-07:002013-06-08T20:39:52.674-07:00OK I checked a couple more just to make sure I was...OK I checked a couple more just to make sure I wasn't being too harsh or remembering incorrectly. Besides spot-checking Dallas (1938) above, I found that Los Angeles 1941 & 1942 also end in the "L" listings.<br /><br />Los Angeles, 1941: image 692 ends in "L" listings<br />image 693: "Continued on next reel"<br />image 695: "City Directories of the United States, 1936-1960, Los Angeles CA, 1941: A- L"<br /><br />Los Angeles 1942, image 750 ends in "L" listings; image 751: "continued on next reel" (no more images until 1948 (telephone) directory)<br /><br />Thanks for reading.Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08224522354225404425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-79994615251269727382013-06-08T19:59:04.163-07:002013-06-08T19:59:04.163-07:00My biggest beef lately is the U.S. city directory ...My biggest beef lately is the U.S. city directory collection, and it's not even w/the bad indexing-by-OCR (though that can get really bad when it latches onto a name not quite in line w/the rest, like a business name, and then uses that as a surname for the next 20 lines--OR inexplicably just skips several lines completely). I rarely use the index--just search "manually," well, by estimating image #s in a volume until I find the surname. Although that's not really OK, either, I've just gotten used to it. My biggest annoyance is the more recent (??) digitizations--I know the collection was in "beta" but it looks not to be now--really, is there no QC going on at all? <br /><br />Several big city volumes around 1930s-40s were unusable for the 1940 census release, because apparently they're continued across microfilm reels, and no one seemed to digitize the next reel--so several vols. just stop around L or M. (Or was this a microfilming issue? Either way, it would be nice for you to indicate it, if so.) Anyway, reported several of these to Ancestry, but nothing's changed that I can see. I just spot-checked Dallas, TX, 1938--nope, still not a complete volume! If I remember correctly, there was one Dallas volume where the images were spread across 3-4 years, but it was only one volume. And I remember mentioning this to an Ancestry rep at Jamboree last year (and reporting to the site), so it's been this way for at least a year! I think other cities included Los Angeles a few years? Fort Worth? and recently I found El Paso. Maybe more. I didn't keep track of the ones I reported or I could be more specific now. C'mon guys, I've been a subscriber for 10+ years, I *know* you can do better! (I think.)Lizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08224522354225404425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-12382017582718318612013-06-07T00:54:01.789-07:002013-06-07T00:54:01.789-07:00In their new Story View feature, if the same file ...In their new Story View feature, if the same file appears in multiple SVs, you must edit it multiple times. Ask them if the number of edits on the same item can be reduced to just one edit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com