Thursday, April 22, 2010

New Ancestry.com Filters are Working!

...
Ancestry.com announced earlier this week that new Name and Place Filters would be installed and available for use on their databases in these posts on the Ancestry.com Blog:

* Preview of Changes to Ancestry.com Search by Tony Macklin

* Ancestry Search: Name and Place Filters coming to New Advanced Search this week! by Anne Mitchell

* Ancestry Search: Place Filters on New Advanced Search by Anne Mitchell

These posts provide all of the detail about "what it is" and "what your choices are."

I checked Ancestry.com this morning, and found that all of the described filters are in place and are working, seemingly well.

It's important to realize that these filters only work on New Search and on the Advanced Search screen in New Search. There are popup windows for details on the First Name Search and Last Name Search that explain the different terms - Default Search, Exact Search, and Exact Search with one or more of Soundex Variations, Phonetic Variations and Similar Variations.

I tested it on the 1880 US Census with my second great-grandfather, Isaac Seaver, and found:

* With Default Settings checked for both first and last names, I received 2,206 matches

* With Exact Search checked for both first and last names, I received 3 matches (including my guy)

* With Exact Search and Soundex Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 2,195 matches

* With Exact Search and Phonetic Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 1,610 matches

* with Exact Search and Similar Variations checked for both first and last names, I received 1,607 matches.

* with Exact Search for first name, and Default Settings for Last Name checked, I received 310 matches.

* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Soundex Variations for Last Name checked, I received 306 matches.

* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Phonetic Variations for Last Name checked, I received 16 matches.

* with Exact Search for first name, and Exact Settings with Similar Variations for Last Name checked, I received 14 matches.

Now I realize that Isaac Seaver isn't the hardest name to search, but I found it interesting to see what names the Default Settings returned (both first and last names), and the order in which they were listed:

* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Seaver" (3 matches)
* First Name = any with "I" in the first or middle name and Last Name = "Seaver" (9 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Saver" (2 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Saphra" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Savory" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schaeffer" (10 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schafer" (2 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schaffer" (4 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schapare" (1 match)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Schauber" (3 matches)
* First Name = "Isaac" and Last Name = "Scheafer" (1 match)

.... and on in alphabetical order by Last Name - including Seeber, Seiber, Sever, Severe, Shaefer, Shaeffer, Shafer, Shaffer, Shapire, Shaver, etc. These are listed by birth year order for each name.

* First Name = "any name" and Last Name = "Seaver" (many matches)

The above ordering is interesting - you can use a similar search to see how the Ancestry.com Search algorithms work if you have the time and patience to wade through all of the results.

I want to test this out with some of my known Carringer "interesting" indexed spellings to see if it catches them.

This change does make the search process even more complex on Ancestry.com, and will probably increase the learning curve time for new users, but for experienced users it will probably improve the search results.

Based on this first testing, I think that these name filters will be very helpful and useful for all researchers. It may even make me change my former opinion that Old Search is superior to New Search. Of course, Old Search could disappear at any time Ancestry.com chooses, and we "dinosaur searchers" will have to learn to use and enjoy New Search effectively.

No comments: