ancestry.com
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Patscga
ancestry.com
Tried to access the 1930 census and could only get the picture of a woman's
butt. Seriously.
Pat
butt. Seriously.
Pat
-
Dave Hinz
Re: ancestry.com
On 10 Dec 2004 22:26:27 GMT, Patscga <patscga@aol.com> wrote:
Do you have a URL? They've either got a security problem, or your
system has a particular virus. I'd suspect the latter, now would
be a good time to do a scan.
If you have the virus I'm thinking, if you got the butt picture you're
better off than some. I will not go into details in this forum.
Dave Hinz
Tried to access the 1930 census and could only get the picture of a woman's
butt. Seriously.
Do you have a URL? They've either got a security problem, or your
system has a particular virus. I'd suspect the latter, now would
be a good time to do a scan.
If you have the virus I'm thinking, if you got the butt picture you're
better off than some. I will not go into details in this forum.
Dave Hinz
-
James A. Doemer
Re: ancestry.com
"Patscga" <patscga@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041210172627.08116.00001917@mb-m05.aol.com...
Well, you were looking for YOUR family, right? LOL (Just kidding Pat, don't
hurt me!)
news:20041210172627.08116.00001917@mb-m05.aol.com...
Tried to access the 1930 census and could only get the picture of a
woman's
butt. Seriously.
Pat
Well, you were looking for YOUR family, right? LOL (Just kidding Pat, don't
hurt me!)
-
James A. Doemer
Re: ancestry.com
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:31umcsF3fopvjU1@individual.net...
As Earnest P. Whorrel would say: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
news:31umcsF3fopvjU1@individual.net...
On 10 Dec 2004 22:26:27 GMT, Patscga <patscga@aol.com> wrote:
Tried to access the 1930 census and could only get the picture of a
woman's
butt. Seriously.
Do you have a URL? They've either got a security problem, or your
system has a particular virus. I'd suspect the latter, now would
be a good time to do a scan.
If you have the virus I'm thinking, if you got the butt picture you're
better off than some. I will not go into details in this forum.
Dave Hinz
As Earnest P. Whorrel would say: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
-
MikeS
Re: ancestry.com
"Patscga" <patscga@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041210172627.08116.00001917@mb-m05.aol.com...
Hi Pat,
Now it seems you are the "butt" of all the jokes!
Mike
news:20041210172627.08116.00001917@mb-m05.aol.com...
Tried to access the 1930 census and could only get the picture of a
woman's
butt. Seriously.
Hi Pat,
Now it seems you are the "butt" of all the jokes!
Mike
-
Dave Hinz
Re: ancestry.com
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:04:23 GMT, James A. Doemer <jdjunkmail@earthlink.net> wrote:
You're familiar with the virus, then.
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:31umcsF3fopvjU1@individual.net...
If you have the virus I'm thinking, if you got the butt picture you're
better off than some. I will not go into details in this forum.
As Earnest P. Whorrel would say: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
You're familiar with the virus, then.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: ancestry.com
Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
Yeah, I had the displeasure of seeing it on a co-worker's computer about a
year ago. He wasn't fortunate enough to get the butt picture.
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:04:23 GMT, James A. Doemer
jdjunkmail@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:31umcsF3fopvjU1@individual.net...
If you have the virus I'm thinking, if you got the butt picture
you're better off than some. I will not go into details in this
forum.
As Earnest P. Whorrel would say: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
You're familiar with the virus, then.
Yeah, I had the displeasure of seeing it on a co-worker's computer about a
year ago. He wasn't fortunate enough to get the butt picture.
-
Patscga
Re: ancestry.com
Do you have a URL? They've either got a security problem, or your
system has a particular virus. I'd suspect the latter, now would
be a good time to do a scan.
I have McAfee and it shows nothing wrong.
Pat
-
Anne Nolan
Re: ancestry.com
"Patscga" <patscga@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041211085931.21787.00001590@mb-m12.aol.com...
Try a scan for spyware, using Spybot or AdAware. (Keyword SPYWARE on AOL
has a link to both these free products.) Antivirus products don't find
spyware.
Anne
news:20041211085931.21787.00001590@mb-m12.aol.com...
Do you have a URL? They've either got a security problem, or your
system has a particular virus. I'd suspect the latter, now would
be a good time to do a scan.
I have McAfee and it shows nothing wrong.
Pat
Try a scan for spyware, using Spybot or AdAware. (Keyword SPYWARE on AOL
has a link to both these free products.) Antivirus products don't find
spyware.
Anne
-
Charani
Re: ancestry.com
On 10 Dec 2004 22:26:27 GMT, Patscga wrote:
Sounds like you've been hijacked. A hijacker isn't a virus so McAffee
won't necessarily pick it up.
Spybot S+D should be able to find it and deal with it. Ad-Aware may
or may not since the two programs are designed to find different forms
of malware.
I would suggest that you install, update and run HiJack This which you
can get from http://www.majorgeeks.com, then post the log in
alt.privacy.spyware for one of the regulars in there to tell you what
should and should not be on your system.
Another useful program to have is SpywareBlaster which you can also
get from majorgeeks. It'll protect your registry and stop these
little blighters getting in in the first place.
As to how you got a hijacker, that's anyone's guess. You don't need
to go to dodgy or dubious sites to pick up these things.
Tried to access the 1930 census and could only get the picture of a woman's
butt. Seriously.
Pat
Sounds like you've been hijacked. A hijacker isn't a virus so McAffee
won't necessarily pick it up.
Spybot S+D should be able to find it and deal with it. Ad-Aware may
or may not since the two programs are designed to find different forms
of malware.
I would suggest that you install, update and run HiJack This which you
can get from http://www.majorgeeks.com, then post the log in
alt.privacy.spyware for one of the regulars in there to tell you what
should and should not be on your system.
Another useful program to have is SpywareBlaster which you can also
get from majorgeeks. It'll protect your registry and stop these
little blighters getting in in the first place.
As to how you got a hijacker, that's anyone's guess. You don't need
to go to dodgy or dubious sites to pick up these things.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Ancestry.com
Patscga@aol.com wrote in news:200.41888d.2f9e3538@aol.com:
Ancestry's serach engines ARE flawed; Unlike Google, where adding data
causes the results to contain ONLY those data, Ancestry's results will
include pages that have ANY of the data. It's Ancestry's biggest flaw
and you have to wonder where they found the idiot who designed their
serach engine.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Time's fun when you're having flies.
I agree. Even if I don't go for "close" matches, it gives me an
incredible amount of close and not even anywhere near matches.
Ancestry's serach engines ARE flawed; Unlike Google, where adding data
causes the results to contain ONLY those data, Ancestry's results will
include pages that have ANY of the data. It's Ancestry's biggest flaw
and you have to wonder where they found the idiot who designed their
serach engine.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Time's fun when you're having flies.
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry.com
I agree. Even if I don't go for "close" matches, it gives me an incredible
amount of close and not even anywhere near matches.
In a message dated 4/24/2005 10:18:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
NWEST1@austin.rr.com writes:
I have been a susbcriber to Anecestry.com for several years. However,
I have not accessed it for the last five or six months.
It appears they have changed all of their serach engines. What is
worse, they don't work. If I put in Ludwig Weber, born 1882 in
Germany and died 1910 in Marion County, Illinois, all known facts,
what I get is a listing of Webers. Some named Paul, some born in
1912, some died in 1953, some born in France and some died in
Scotland. Apparently the search engine ignores any imput other than
the surname. Why bother filling out all the other boxes!
Am I doing something wrong. Are others having a problem? I don't see
how they can charge for a sereach program this crummy.
Norm in Texas
amount of close and not even anywhere near matches.
In a message dated 4/24/2005 10:18:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
NWEST1@austin.rr.com writes:
I have been a susbcriber to Anecestry.com for several years. However,
I have not accessed it for the last five or six months.
It appears they have changed all of their serach engines. What is
worse, they don't work. If I put in Ludwig Weber, born 1882 in
Germany and died 1910 in Marion County, Illinois, all known facts,
what I get is a listing of Webers. Some named Paul, some born in
1912, some died in 1953, some born in France and some died in
Scotland. Apparently the search engine ignores any imput other than
the surname. Why bother filling out all the other boxes!
Am I doing something wrong. Are others having a problem? I don't see
how they can charge for a sereach program this crummy.
Norm in Texas
-
Huntersglenn
Re: Ancestry.com
Christopher Jahn wrote:
They brought him or her over from genealogy.com <grin>. The search
engine over there is even worse (imo), because you don't even have the
choice of close or exact match, you just get pages of stuff that doesn't
match what you put in.
With ancestry, I've been lucky in that for most of the people I've been
looking for, I haven't needed to do a general search. However, the few
times that I have had to do one of those searches, I've come away from
the computer wanting to pull out someone's hair.
Cathy
Patscga@aol.com wrote in news:200.41888d.2f9e3538@aol.com:
I agree. Even if I don't go for "close" matches, it gives me an
incredible amount of close and not even anywhere near matches.
Ancestry's serach engines ARE flawed; Unlike Google, where adding data
causes the results to contain ONLY those data, Ancestry's results will
include pages that have ANY of the data. It's Ancestry's biggest flaw
and you have to wonder where they found the idiot who designed their
serach engine.
They brought him or her over from genealogy.com <grin>. The search
engine over there is even worse (imo), because you don't even have the
choice of close or exact match, you just get pages of stuff that doesn't
match what you put in.
With ancestry, I've been lucky in that for most of the people I've been
looking for, I haven't needed to do a general search. However, the few
times that I have had to do one of those searches, I've come away from
the computer wanting to pull out someone's hair.
Cathy
-
red_devil
Re: Ancestry.com
I think it has to do with this misconception that genealogy should take
hours upon days upon months upon years upon decades to find anything.
Therefore these websites take it upon themselves to uphold this
misconception
Smurf
"Huntersglenn" <huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6c9be.33106$d43.29931@lakeread03...
hours upon days upon months upon years upon decades to find anything.
Therefore these websites take it upon themselves to uphold this
misconception
Smurf
"Huntersglenn" <huntersglenn@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6c9be.33106$d43.29931@lakeread03...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Patscga@aol.com wrote in news:200.41888d.2f9e3538@aol.com:
I agree. Even if I don't go for "close" matches, it gives me an
incredible amount of close and not even anywhere near matches.
Ancestry's serach engines ARE flawed; Unlike Google, where adding data
causes the results to contain ONLY those data, Ancestry's results will
include pages that have ANY of the data. It's Ancestry's biggest flaw
and you have to wonder where they found the idiot who designed their
serach engine.
They brought him or her over from genealogy.com <grin>. The search
engine over there is even worse (imo), because you don't even have the
choice of close or exact match, you just get pages of stuff that doesn't
match what you put in.
With ancestry, I've been lucky in that for most of the people I've been
looking for, I haven't needed to do a general search. However, the few
times that I have had to do one of those searches, I've come away from
the computer wanting to pull out someone's hair.
Cathy
-
Mark Barnett
Re: Ancestry.com
I have suggested to Google several times that they should work on a
Genealogy search engine.
Genealogy search engine.