tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post5258013350283913794..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Ancestry.com Old Search vs. New Search UpdateRandy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-64377276192842663142009-10-11T19:24:15.964-07:002009-10-11T19:24:15.964-07:00Hi Randy,
Thanks for posting the old vs. new prob...Hi Randy,<br /><br />Thanks for posting the old vs. new problems. I assume you will tell us more about it on Tuesday at COG in N. county? See you then.gsgenealogyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867730827629915956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-54357206097975133302009-10-10T16:36:29.916-07:002009-10-10T16:36:29.916-07:00Thanks Randy for the new look at the Old and New S...Thanks Randy for the new look at the Old and New Search User Interfaces.<br /><br />I strongly support your suggestions, especially making the link to switch to Old Search available on all search pages.<br /><br />I use Old Search exclusively. I do not do global searches across the Ancestry platform; rather I search specific databases. I find New Search UI takes too many clicks to get to a specific database, and has too many hidden foibles (such as if you specify a place, and NewSearchUI finds something that matches several other factors in your search parameters, it will exclude the result that does not have a place-field. Hunhhh?). Not to mention the illogical order in which search results are presented, and illogical retrieval of results that is the fault of the many basic indexing methods of the past.<br /><br />For example, want results regarding State of Delaware? You get databases regarding the Minisink region settlements on the Delaware River (mainly PA and NJ), items on the Lenni-Lenape, the Cumberland River settlements in Tennessee, Ohio land records, pictures of late 19th- to 20th-century NY passenger ships, and myriad other inexplicable 'hits' that may have the first name of the target person.<br /><br />The core problem is the lack of adequate indexing in many databases (such as key-word rather than surname/firstname). If Ancestry.com were to install a boolean-capable search engine, it would help to exclude the nuttier search-results components.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-51329081915969932312009-10-08T18:06:22.576-07:002009-10-08T18:06:22.576-07:00I am using the new search, probably usually from t...I am using the new search, probably usually from the home page. I still find it frustrating sometimes too and go back to the old - I was wondering how long it would be there - but sounds as if the Ancestry people don't know themselves. <br />One other thing I'd like to see is a prominent link to the card catalog on all the search forms.M. Diane Rogershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10081926719011983394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-33864616719924768062009-10-08T15:30:00.912-07:002009-10-08T15:30:00.912-07:00Currently I am using the older version search engi...Currently I am using the older version search engine. I am not one for change. I am use to it and know where everything is. I will read other recommendations such as yours and then maybe try the newer versions once they've worked out the kinks. I appreciate your doing the "leg work" on this. TinaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com