tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post6025094859166856270..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Where Did 567 Databases on Ancestry.com Go? An Answer. UPDATED!Randy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-23260956001354379872016-01-12T10:11:54.540-08:002016-01-12T10:11:54.540-08:00Print out what you find immediately!! I found some...Print out what you find immediately!! I found some great information in October/November that I thought I would go back and find and print out. Now it is gone. There were 2 Marriage Databases for Manchester, NH. Some of the information was the same, but on one of they was information I couldn't find anywhere else. I found a marriage made in 1955, now the only database only goes to 1947. So frustrating.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00487923502391539745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-30407618443958956412016-01-12T10:11:53.590-08:002016-01-12T10:11:53.590-08:00Print out what you find immediately!! I found some...Print out what you find immediately!! I found some great information in October/November that I thought I would go back and find and print out. Now it is gone. There were 2 Marriage Databases for Manchester, NH. Some of the information was the same, but on one of they was information I couldn't find anywhere else. I found a marriage made in 1955, now the only database only goes to 1947. So frustrating.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00487923502391539745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-54214003869408315732015-10-09T13:20:44.056-07:002015-10-09T13:20:44.056-07:00"Among the collections that were removed, wer..."Among the collections that were removed, were some text-only city directory indexes that were deleted as we now have indexes and browsable images of those very same directories."<br /><br />I can't speak for anyone else, but I used BOTH the text-only indexes and the images themselves. Sometimes the image is not so wonderful, and having someone's index gives you an alternate reading. Knowing what was indexed in that text-only index is also valuable because you know what directories the indexers have seen. Having both databases on Ancestry allows you to cross-check what entries are in the index, and which images you've already looked at. And given how crappy Ancestry's indexing of the City Directory collection is, having someone else's index is useful.<br /><br />One of the tools I use is an add-on for Firefox called Scrapbook -- it allows you to save a copy of the web page you are looking at. I try to capture copies of the text-only indexes and Ancestry's 'abstract' pages for just this reason -- there's no guarantee they'll be available when you go back the next day. But I don't know if I have the information for a lot of those index-only directory entries, because I collected them when I was first starting out.<br /><br />So -- caveat emptor. If you want copies of the information you've attached to your tree or stuffed in your Shoebox, capture it and download it -- or else. <br /><br /><br />Jan Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06955777567178892247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-696933663103204462015-10-09T12:58:56.006-07:002015-10-09T12:58:56.006-07:00Ancestry has a whole lot of changes going on- in a...Ancestry has a whole lot of changes going on- in addition to the Canadian version now having switched to the 'New Ancestry,' Fold3 just got a new interface as well. <br /><br />The state of Colorado removed their online death certificates a while back, and none of our family researchers had actually downloaded the document- just kept the URL. They recently took our $25 for a copy but said that a great-grandson did not qualify so we did not get it- one has to be immediate family for a 1901 death certificate. (They are all underground...) So it taught me to download copies of everything important. I don't always do that in the heat of research, but am going to make that change after seeing what Ancestry has done with databases.<br /><br />The internet is truly more ephemeral than any of the thin papers I have floating around...<br /><br />Guess I need another external hard drive.<br />Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12287578478232223188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-45676704677210597072015-10-09T06:39:18.286-07:002015-10-09T06:39:18.286-07:00I am glad to see the small reply from Kristie. Wh...I am glad to see the small reply from Kristie. What she mentions makes sense, but some 550 deleted database items remain to be disclosed.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-30635251665110030952015-10-08T19:17:30.729-07:002015-10-08T19:17:30.729-07:00I have noticed that certain databases I have used,...I have noticed that certain databases I have used, and continue to use, change their names from time to time, get merged with other (similar) databases, and generally screw up my source citations. I think it's ok to continue to add to a database as the collection is digitized and new records from later years are released for publication (like the censuses), but that should not change the nature of the database itself, just its extent and range. Merging similar databases, as others have pointed out, can result in a loss of data or confidence. I say Ancestry should publish a database, then leave it be other than extending its range. Redo a database's design and how it looks in the (html) package behind the scenes, just notify people of the redesign.Donahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17521576471803541895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-92189225927018029572015-10-08T17:05:43.280-07:002015-10-08T17:05:43.280-07:00Difficult it is to adjust, alter or change Ancestr...Difficult it is to adjust, alter or change Ancestry Hall. http://www.germangenealogist.com/about-us-lynell-karl-michael-sala/German Genealogist since 1979! Karl-Michael Sala!https://www.blogger.com/profile/08979302630056398494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-38841884957403091642015-10-08T08:07:05.269-07:002015-10-08T08:07:05.269-07:00If you filter by collection:
Filter By Collection ...If you filter by collection:<br />Filter By Collection <br />Census & Voter Lists 583<br />Birth, Marriage & Death 4003<br />Military 1221<br />Immigration & Travel 465<br />Newspapers & Publications 1478<br />Pictures 38<br />Stories, Memories & Histories 23495<br />Maps, Atlases & Gazetteers 184<br />Schools, Directories & Church Histories 4611<br />Wills, Probates, Land, Tax & Criminal 1274<br />Reference, Dictionaries & Almanacs 1343<br />Family Trees 10<br />TOTAL 38705<br />Celtic Treehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722841959389221214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-30987464096505717732015-10-08T06:58:19.661-07:002015-10-08T06:58:19.661-07:00If you filter by language, the counts don't eq...If you filter by language, the counts don't equal the 32,272 record collections that Ancestry's catalog says they have:<br />German 1999<br />English 29150<br />Spanish 109<br />French 702<br />Italian 139<br />Swedish 29<br /> Total 32128Celtic Treehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722841959389221214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-69021035869641237662015-10-08T06:46:27.724-07:002015-10-08T06:46:27.724-07:00I don't think the counts on Ancestry's Car...I don't think the counts on Ancestry's Card Catalog are correct anyway.<br />If you filter by location and choose North America, it says there are 27,204 records.<br />Included in that number are:<br />USA: 25313<br />Canada: 1994<br />Mexico: 49<br />Those 3 alone total 27,356 - more than they show for all of North America!<br />So I think Ancestry should look at their calculations. Am I missing something?Celtic Treehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722841959389221214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-65850770631273649002015-10-08T06:37:02.127-07:002015-10-08T06:37:02.127-07:00Ancestry has shown over and over a real disrespect...Ancestry has shown over and over a real disrespect to its subscribers. Your subscription doesn't guarantee anything. We cannot assume that anything on Ancestry will be permanent as they keep changing all the time. Need to be proactive and save whatever you can elsewhere. I'm sure Ancestry knows what databases were deleted they just don't want to share it.Patricia Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07155332411150132634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-37702564684563577622015-10-08T06:10:10.209-07:002015-10-08T06:10:10.209-07:00It really looks like ancestry is going to concentr...It really looks like ancestry is going to concentrate on DNA and "health" and leave the research area more and more unattended. I can not in my wildest dreams understand why anyone would put their health information on ancestry! You're giving it to them to sell! They don't do a very good job on the DNA and health in the first place so while they transition everything is going to be poor quality. Wonder how many years it will take them to get rid of the research side. Wonder if that had anything to do with the For Sale sign that went up for 3 Billion dollars.<br /><br />The New Ancestry is horrible and I won't use it. As soon as the Old Ancestry goes away, so will I. I've found so many other places that do the job just as well, the only reason I even go there is because I have (had) a 5,000 member tree there. Since I already have it on my computer I will just drop ancestry all together. I'm liking findmypast pretty well. The break with ancestry wasn't nearly as painful as I expected. The bonus is that now that I've "branched out" in my research I'm finding things I never found on ancestry.<br /><br />Sign me, <br />Fed UpThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256855136448978468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-72487944579949483242015-10-08T06:03:16.588-07:002015-10-08T06:03:16.588-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-17234275200547490382015-10-08T04:44:38.760-07:002015-10-08T04:44:38.760-07:00I'm surprised that ANCESTRY isn't being a ...I'm surprised that ANCESTRY isn't being a bit more foresighted. I thought ALL of the collections are OLD??? I also thought? FORMAT is something that can be fixed. THEN the collection can be reactivated. AND while it's being reworked...just change the collection color in the catalog. If this is done 30 days BEFORE the rework....we all know to focus on THAT collection before it is disabled. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14486505766359389094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-88403355687374880532015-10-08T04:43:57.154-07:002015-10-08T04:43:57.154-07:00I'm surprised that ANCESTRY isn't being a ...I'm surprised that ANCESTRY isn't being a bit more foresighted. I thought ALL of the collections are OLD??? I also thought? FORMAT is something that can be fixed. THEN the collection can be reactivated. AND while it's being reworked...just change the collection color in the catalog. If this is done 30 days BEFORE the rework....we all know to focus on THAT collection before it is disabled. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14486505766359389094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-88187738796452382062015-10-08T04:37:47.688-07:002015-10-08T04:37:47.688-07:00Dislike that. Dislike that one clue that might ha...Dislike that. Dislike that one clue that might have broken a brickwall might have been deleted without my knowledge. Dislike that the answer was hidden far down on the newsfeed in Facebook and I can't find it! Thanks for posting this, Randy, or no one would have known you received an answer! Heather Wilkinson Rojohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704949156266722016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-31058066094317578532015-10-08T04:31:05.021-07:002015-10-08T04:31:05.021-07:00Though the timing of these removals seem to overla...Though the timing of these removals seem to overlap the transition to the "New Ancestry", the latter is about web pages and programming PHP to produce HTML and javascript and all sorts of bells and whistles for the end user web pages. The back end database management software will be something else, so I suspect the timing in this case is not caused by web page re-design effort per se.<br /><br />However, i do wonder how much of ancestry.com's resources are being sucked up by the web page redesign. Software engineering hours will accumulate quickly and perhaps the bean counters are pressing to reduce how much is spent by the software teams. They don't publicize what goes on in-house as far as system development, but I bet that there is pressure to reduce the number of staff. I also wonder if there are changes to the database management systems (this being independent of the web page redesign) that might be being cost constrained.<br /><br />Regardless, I seriously doubt this is the last time we will see a company delete information that they decide can no longer be profitable.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380365344412698845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-66245705277033913612015-10-08T04:11:36.153-07:002015-10-08T04:11:36.153-07:00As a programmer, I'm not sure I really buy the...As a programmer, I'm not sure I really buy their explanation of why they did this, but let's say I take it at face value and there was no way to avoid it. Why not just leave the link to the collection in place with a note in the collection description that states why the collection's records were removed and a reference or link to the other collection(s) in which they can be found. <br /><br />Programming 101 - Wherever possible, disable - don't delete. Otherwise, you lose the audit trail.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00175767037098625196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-48205999775200079322015-10-07T23:09:28.687-07:002015-10-07T23:09:28.687-07:00Given the large amount of files at this time so cl...Given the large amount of files at this time so close to the "switch-over" to New Ancestry, I suspect this is all about that new format. Bill Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01266937924453737084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-17512439901766081982015-10-07T20:57:45.440-07:002015-10-07T20:57:45.440-07:00I would like to add my thoughts on this. I have fo...I would like to add my thoughts on this. I have found that multiple copies of the same records coming from different companies is done differently which makes all the difference.<br /><br />I have found census records for an individual on one site but not on the other site just because of the way they were indexed and presented.<br /><br />The fact that 'they' are somewhere else doesn't add up and we don't know what those databases are and if the other locates are easier to access or not easier to access.<br /><br />Definitely this is poor business practice.<br /><br />TheLadyClairehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380808353735270704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-481049205985066462015-10-07T19:34:36.063-07:002015-10-07T19:34:36.063-07:00I am a long time user and defender of Ancestry. Un...I am a long time user and defender of Ancestry. Until recently. What with the new format, which I personally dislike and now this vague answer to a very easy question, I believe this website is headed in a dangerous direction. Geolover said it well "it is a sad organization that doesn't have a list of what was deleted."<br />Good business practices are basic to the continuing success of any business whether large or small. As a long time user I would like a list of the deleted databases, if for no other reason, than to update my source references in my Legacy database. I could at least note that the record is no longer available on the site. <br />Thank you for pursuing this matter Randy. Michigan Girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00414264287990684010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-12205013583915017172015-10-07T18:44:53.006-07:002015-10-07T18:44:53.006-07:00I find Kristie Wells' statement, "We are ...I find Kristie Wells' statement, "We are not able to provide more details," [about what was removed] rather inconsistent with her assertion, "Much of this data is also available in other collections." Experienced genealogists know that seemingly similar databases may be actually quite different in data type and quality. And it would be a sad organization if someone did not have a list of what was deleted.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-13939750951602028732015-10-07T18:29:12.663-07:002015-10-07T18:29:12.663-07:00Speculation: among what was removed were some of t...Speculation: among what was removed were some of those ratty old central-NY Lutheran and Reformed church records that are so hard to find unless you already know they are there. I am thinking of some poor copies of mimeographed or dittoed typescripts that were OCR-reproduced, a goodly portion of which were badly or not-at-all indexed, and for some of which Ancestry could not even manage to enter the compiler/author. I am going to check on this . . . .<br /><br />In response to Pat's no. 1, this duplication is at least partly in indexes copied from FamilySearch, and the cynical among us suspect that the duplication is in order to add to "record count" for marketing purposes.<br />Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-71214086296729742442015-10-07T17:49:52.028-07:002015-10-07T17:49:52.028-07:00I suspect that the probate records for New Jersey ...I suspect that the probate records for New Jersey may have been individual "databases" although they were grouped together for search purposes. <br /><br />I have still not had a response from Ancestry about the NJ probate records that disappeared, but I keep following up with them.Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484884075457514695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-11477823368565919482015-10-07T17:27:32.880-07:002015-10-07T17:27:32.880-07:00I consider this a bad businessbusiness practice.
...I consider this a bad businessbusiness practice. <br /><br />1. Why is info being duplicated in other Ancestry databses? <br /><br />2. When people make decisions about purchasing a product or service, they want to know what they are getting. <br /><br />DearMYRTLEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15684472865240981715noreply@blogger.com