Hi........
Can someone tell me if there was a change recently in searching in the 1930
census?
A few weeks ago I found a family I been searching for:
John T McDermott, 14yrs old in Montclair, Essex Co NJ.
I didn't & can't recall why but I didn't copy it down. Stupid of me!
Anyway I tried again yesterday & I can no longer find him.
The McDermott's that do show isn't the right family.
Also when searching in the 1930 census & using the exact spellings &
location I
now get over 3,000 listings for all different first names & sometimes
different last
names. Besides for every state & not the one I am searching for.
I do see there is now two options to search in which the one does give over
3,000
matches. Not happy with this change, if there was any.
Whatever the change was I can no longer find families I have done in the
past.
Is there a possibility of a kink in their system with this new change, ya
think?
Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
CLARK1528
Re: Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
Watch closely to see if the box you're filling in is blue or peach (or some
version thereof). The blue is the exact spelling box, the peach is "Best
matches, ranked" That will give you the 3000 responses.
I checked, but could only find the John T. McDermot listed as head of
household.
Jennifer Clark
version thereof). The blue is the exact spelling box, the peach is "Best
matches, ranked" That will give you the 3000 responses.
I checked, but could only find the John T. McDermot listed as head of
household.
Jennifer Clark
Can someone tell me if there was a change recently in searching in the 1930
census?
A few weeks ago I found a family I been searching for:
John T McDermott, 14yrs old in Montclair, Essex Co NJ.
I didn't & can't recall why but I didn't copy it down. Stupid of me!
Anyway I tried again yesterday & I can no longer find him.
The McDermott's that do show isn't the right family.
Also when searching in the 1930 census & using the exact spellings &
location I
now get over 3,000 listings for all different first names & sometimes
different last
names. Besides for every state & not the one I am searching for.
I do see there is now two options to search in which the one does give over
3,000
matches. Not happy with this change, if there was any.
Whatever the change was I can no longer find families I have done in the
past.
Is there a possibility of a kink in their system with this new change, ya
think?
-
DLM
Re: Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
Thanks Jennifer,
When did this change do you know?
I guess in the transition some people got lost because this family was
there, on Ancestry. In fact there was another family by the same name in
Audubon,
Camden Co & even them I couldn't find again.
I guess I need to keep checking to see if they do show up.
Diane
"CLARK1528" <clark1528@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041201165335.11861.00001257@mb-m16.aol.com...
When did this change do you know?
I guess in the transition some people got lost because this family was
there, on Ancestry. In fact there was another family by the same name in
Audubon,
Camden Co & even them I couldn't find again.
I guess I need to keep checking to see if they do show up.
Diane
"CLARK1528" <clark1528@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041201165335.11861.00001257@mb-m16.aol.com...
Watch closely to see if the box you're filling in is blue or peach (or
some
version thereof). The blue is the exact spelling box, the peach is "Best
matches, ranked" That will give you the 3000 responses.
I checked, but could only find the John T. McDermot listed as head of
household.
Jennifer Clark
Can someone tell me if there was a change recently in searching in the
1930
census?
A few weeks ago I found a family I been searching for:
John T McDermott, 14yrs old in Montclair, Essex Co NJ.
I didn't & can't recall why but I didn't copy it down. Stupid of me!
Anyway I tried again yesterday & I can no longer find him.
The McDermott's that do show isn't the right family.
Also when searching in the 1930 census & using the exact spellings &
location I
now get over 3,000 listings for all different first names & sometimes
different last
names. Besides for every state & not the one I am searching for.
I do see there is now two options to search in which the one does give
over
3,000
matches. Not happy with this change, if there was any.
Whatever the change was I can no longer find families I have done in the
past.
Is there a possibility of a kink in their system with this new change, ya
think?
-
CLARK1528
Re: Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
Diane,
The change shouldn't have affected the names being there - just how they are
accessed.
I just did a search on John McDer* in Camden and got 3 responses.
WAIT!!!! Just discovered one issue - if you leave a space between "MC" and D
you get a different bunch of answers than if you have no space.
Try that and see what happens.
Jennifer
The change shouldn't have affected the names being there - just how they are
accessed.
I just did a search on John McDer* in Camden and got 3 responses.
WAIT!!!! Just discovered one issue - if you leave a space between "MC" and D
you get a different bunch of answers than if you have no space.
Try that and see what happens.
Jennifer
Subject: Re: Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
From: "DLM" dlemasson@NoSpam.prodigy.net
Date: 12/1/2004 4:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <zkrrd.1942$aO7.1916@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com
Thanks Jennifer,
When did this change do you know?
I guess in the transition some people got lost because this family was
there, on Ancestry. In fact there was another family by the same name in
Audubon,
Camden Co & even them I couldn't find again.
I guess I need to keep checking to see if they do show up.
Diane
-
Tara
Re: Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
Yep, the space is the difference. I seem to recall trying a space a few
months age and it didn't seem to make a difference. Overall, I like
Ancestry's versatility in their search engine. Another way you could have
recalled the info is to search for "John T" in Essex, born in 1916, no last
name required.
--
Tara Larkin
Remove NO SPAM to reply by email.
"CLARK1528" <clark1528@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041201175135.11861.00001263@mb-m16.aol.com...
months age and it didn't seem to make a difference. Overall, I like
Ancestry's versatility in their search engine. Another way you could have
recalled the info is to search for "John T" in Essex, born in 1916, no last
name required.
--
Tara Larkin
Remove NO SPAM to reply by email.
"CLARK1528" <clark1528@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041201175135.11861.00001263@mb-m16.aol.com...
Diane,
The change shouldn't have affected the names being there - just how they
are
accessed.
I just did a search on John McDer* in Camden and got 3 responses.
WAIT!!!! Just discovered one issue - if you leave a space between "MC"
and D
you get a different bunch of answers than if you have no space.
Try that and see what happens.
Jennifer
Subject: Re: Searching 1930 Census in Ancestry
From: "DLM" dlemasson@NoSpam.prodigy.net
Date: 12/1/2004 4:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: <zkrrd.1942$aO7.1916@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com
Thanks Jennifer,
When did this change do you know?
I guess in the transition some people got lost because this family was
there, on Ancestry. In fact there was another family by the same name in
Audubon,
Camden Co & even them I couldn't find again.
I guess I need to keep checking to see if they do show up.
Diane