Ancestry.com bug...
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Ancestry.com bug...
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the Soundex
spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting canned
replies and the usual run-around.
--
Dennis K.
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the Soundex
spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting canned
replies and the usual run-around.
--
Dennis K.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Dennis K. wrote in news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com:
I can confirm this bug. I've emailed Ancestry, but I expect they are off
on the weekend.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Horniness is a quintessential example of hope.
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the
Soundex spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting
canned replies and the usual run-around.
I can confirm this bug. I've emailed Ancestry, but I expect they are off
on the weekend.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Horniness is a quintessential example of hope.
-
Roland
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
<Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com...
Why would you want a soundex if you do an exact match search? It sounds like
Ancestry needs to remove the soundex option on this page. Or am I missing
something?
news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com...
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the
Soundex
spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting canned
replies and the usual run-around.
--
Dennis K.
Why would you want a soundex if you do an exact match search? It sounds like
Ancestry needs to remove the soundex option on this page. Or am I missing
something?
-
MikeS
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
"Roland" <steel@NOwoh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dwCCe.24895$zY4.13401@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
A Soundex search is vital to online searching. It is a means of finding an
individual whose first or last name may have been misrecorded by the census
enumerator or the person who is transcibing the data into a searchable data
base. Using an exact search means you would have to do separate searches on
all of the name variations which could be time consuming. For example the
name Roland -- Roland, Rolland, Rowland, Rolend, Rollend, Rollan, etc. etc.
etc.
Mike
news:dwCCe.24895$zY4.13401@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Why would you want a soundex if you do an exact match search? It sounds
like
Ancestry needs to remove the soundex option on this page. Or am I missing
something?
A Soundex search is vital to online searching. It is a means of finding an
individual whose first or last name may have been misrecorded by the census
enumerator or the person who is transcibing the data into a searchable data
base. Using an exact search means you would have to do separate searches on
all of the name variations which could be time consuming. For example the
name Roland -- Roland, Rolland, Rowland, Rolend, Rollend, Rollan, etc. etc.
etc.
Mike
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
"Roland" <steel@NOwoh.rr.com> wrote in
news:dwCCe.24895$zY4.13401@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
IF your Exact Match doesn't reveal an ancestor you know must be there,
you do a Soundex in case the name is mispelled - which it often is.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
If you hafta ask, you ain't never gonna find out.
news:dwCCe.24895$zY4.13401@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com...
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the
Soundex
spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting
canned replies and the usual run-around.
--
Dennis K.
Why would you want a soundex if you do an exact match search? It
sounds like Ancestry needs to remove the soundex option on this page.
Or am I missing something?
IF your Exact Match doesn't reveal an ancestor you know must be there,
you do a Soundex in case the name is mispelled - which it often is.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
If you hafta ask, you ain't never gonna find out.
-
JoAnne Linsenbach
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
an Exact search, I come up with 0 results. Then when I type in the same
name (again typed exactly correct), and do a Soundex spelling option, I
get a ton of results, many times with the answer I wanted, with the name
correctly spelled! Go figure!
JoAnne
Dennis K. wrote in news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com:
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the
Soundex spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting
canned replies and the usual run-around.
I can confirm this bug. I've emailed Ancestry, but I expect they are off
on the weekend.
Yeah, most of the time even when I type the name in correctly, and I do
an Exact search, I come up with 0 results. Then when I type in the same
name (again typed exactly correct), and do a Soundex spelling option, I
get a ton of results, many times with the answer I wanted, with the name
correctly spelled! Go figure!
JoAnne
-
singhals
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms. In fact, one
precludes the other. If I do an "Exact Match" search for CRESAP, that's
all I get. If I do a "Soundex" search for CRESAP, I get Cresap,
Creasap, Crissip et alii, but I *ALSO* get Crosby and Crazy Bull.
Neither search will find a simple typo, because hitting a t for an r
changes the Soundexing.
Cheryl
"Roland" <steel@NOwoh.rr.com> wrote in
news:dwCCe.24895$zY4.13401@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com...
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the
Soundex
spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting
canned replies and the usual run-around.
--
Dennis K.
Why would you want a soundex if you do an exact match search? It
sounds like Ancestry needs to remove the soundex option on this page.
Or am I missing something?
IF your Exact Match doesn't reveal an ancestor you know must be there,
you do a Soundex in case the name is mispelled - which it often is.
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms. In fact, one
precludes the other. If I do an "Exact Match" search for CRESAP, that's
all I get. If I do a "Soundex" search for CRESAP, I get Cresap,
Creasap, Crissip et alii, but I *ALSO* get Crosby and Crazy Bull.
Neither search will find a simple typo, because hitting a t for an r
changes the Soundexing.
Cheryl
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in news:Mo6dnf3Wxfj7L0bfRVn-
hw@rcn.net:
Who is saying that they are?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is
right.
hw@rcn.net:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
"Roland" <steel@NOwoh.rr.com> wrote in
news:dwCCe.24895$zY4.13401@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Dennis K.> wrote in message
news:4mnid1psv3tkum8bc3djrhb08gbsk9qr8n@4ax.com...
Heads up!!!
Ancestry's 1930 U.S. Census search has a bug.
If you use the Exact Search tab and enter a surname, then choose the
Soundex
spelling option, you only get Exact spelling matches.
I am trying to report this to Ancestry support, but am only getting
canned replies and the usual run-around.
--
Dennis K.
Why would you want a soundex if you do an exact match search? It
sounds like Ancestry needs to remove the soundex option on this page.
Or am I missing something?
IF your Exact Match doesn't reveal an ancestor you know must be there,
you do a Soundex in case the name is mispelled - which it often is.
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Who is saying that they are?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is
right.
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote:
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the tab.
"Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think of a better
name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this thread and take our
advice.)
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just like to see
the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain about it being broke
the more likely it is they will do something about it.
--
Dennis K.
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the tab.
"Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think of a better
name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this thread and take our
advice.)
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just like to see
the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain about it being broke
the more likely it is they will do something about it.
--
Dennis K.
-
singhals
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Dennis wrote:
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've upgraded
the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use that doesn't
have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like they always did.
Cheryl
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the tab.
"Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think of a better
name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this thread and take our
advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just like to see
the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain about it being broke
the more likely it is they will do something about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've upgraded
the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use that doesn't
have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like they always did.
Cheryl
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:51:07 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote:
Have you actually tried a soundex search on the Exact Search tab for the 1930
census? Other years work fine.
I wouldn't think the viewer would have anything to do with the search (the
viewer doesn't come in to play until a couple of windows later).
--
Dennis K.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've upgraded
the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use that doesn't
have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like they always did.
Have you actually tried a soundex search on the Exact Search tab for the 1930
census? Other years work fine.
I wouldn't think the viewer would have anything to do with the search (the
viewer doesn't come in to play until a couple of windows later).
--
Dennis K.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the 1930
census.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong.
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Dennis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com
wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search
argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the
tab. "Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think of
a better name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this
thread and take our advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just
like to see the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain
about it being broke the more likely it is they will do something
about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've
upgraded the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use
that doesn't have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like
they always did.
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the 1930
census.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong.
-
singhals
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Dennis wrote:
No, Dennis, I haven't. I'm making it alllllll up.
Sheesh.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:51:07 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote:
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've upgraded
the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use that doesn't
have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like they always did.
Have you actually tried a soundex search on the Exact Search tab for the 1930
census? Other years work fine.
I wouldn't think the viewer would have anything to do with the search (the
viewer doesn't come in to play until a couple of windows later).
No, Dennis, I haven't. I'm making it alllllll up.
Sheesh.
-
singhals
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Does for me.
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Dennis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com
wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search
argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the
tab. "Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think of
a better name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this
thread and take our advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just
like to see the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain
about it being broke the more likely it is they will do something
about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've
upgraded the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use
that doesn't have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like
they always did.
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the 1930
census.
Does for me.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:Q7mdnXrD2vrTnUDfRVn-iQ@rcn.net:
So you do an exact match search, then from that results page perform a
Soundex search and you get different results from the Exact Match report?
BEcause I've tried it in three browsers now and had the exact same
results - no soundex hits in the 1930 Census, only exact matches.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
If it's not fun, you're doing something wrong.
news:Q7mdnXrD2vrTnUDfRVn-iQ@rcn.net:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Dennis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com
wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search
argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the
tab. "Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think
of a better name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this
thread and take our advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just
like to see the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain
about it being broke the more likely it is they will do something
about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've
upgraded the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use
that doesn't have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like
they always did.
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the
1930 census.
Does for me.
So you do an exact match search, then from that results page perform a
Soundex search and you get different results from the Exact Match report?
BEcause I've tried it in three browsers now and had the exact same
results - no soundex hits in the 1930 Census, only exact matches.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
If it's not fun, you're doing something wrong.
-
singhals
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
Christopher Jahn wrote:
You're using it from the Refine Search screen. No, that's not what I've
tried.
All previous comments (with the exception of the Cresap/Crosby/Crazy
Bull related ones) hereby rescinded, withdrawn, and acknowledged to be
off-base.
Cheryl
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:Q7mdnXrD2vrTnUDfRVn-iQ@rcn.net:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Dennis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com
wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search
argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the
tab. "Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think
of a better name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this
thread and take our advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just
like to see the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain
about it being broke the more likely it is they will do something
about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've
upgraded the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use
that doesn't have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like
they always did.
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the
1930 census.
Does for me.
So you do an exact match search, then from that results page perform a
Soundex search and you get different results from the Exact Match report?
BEcause I've tried it in three browsers now and had the exact same
results - no soundex hits in the 1930 Census, only exact matches.
You're using it from the Refine Search screen. No, that's not what I've
tried.
All previous comments (with the exception of the Cresap/Crosby/Crazy
Bull related ones) hereby rescinded, withdrawn, and acknowledged to be
off-base.
Cheryl
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
resent
The post I made got moved to the US Census board
other posts ahve been deleted without reply
Hugh W
"Christopher Jahn" <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96986D1FCAE85xjahn@216.196.97.136...
going on. That is the entire purpose of newsgroups. This email address
is basically a spam trap: I only check it once a month.
Please keep all further contact in the group, thanks!
Hugh Watkins wrote:
The post I made got moved to the US Census board
other posts ahve been deleted without reply
Hugh W
"Christopher Jahn" <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96986D1FCAE85xjahn@216.196.97.136...
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:Q7mdnXrD2vrTnUDfRVn-iQ@rcn.net:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Dennis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com
wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search
argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the
tab. "Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think
of a better name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this
thread and take our advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just
like to see the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain
about it being broke the more likely it is they will do something
about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've
upgraded the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use
that doesn't have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like
they always did.
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the
1930 census.
Does for me.
So you do an exact match search, then from that results page perform a
Soundex search and you get different results from the Exact Match report?
BEcause I've tried it in three browsers now and had the exact same
results - no soundex hits in the 1930 Census, only exact matches.
I wish you'd made this reply to the group so everyone would know what's
going on. That is the entire purpose of newsgroups. This email address
is basically a spam trap: I only check it once a month.
Please keep all further contact in the group, thanks!
Hugh Watkins wrote:
The viewer and the search dialogue boxes are two seperate things
why don't you ask ancestry directly on the message board read by
ancestry staffers.
Boards > Topics > Ancestry.com
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=a ... s.ancestry
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=a ... ry.ancsite
Boards > Topics > Ancestry.com > Ancestry Site Comments
(is more active than the census baord)
K Freestone
Product Manager
Ancestry.com
is helping out just now too
this time I have asked on your behalf
(see below)
http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=st&dbidb24&ti=0
is that your starting point?
exact
1930 United States Federal Census
Viewing records 1-25 of 2,813 matches for:
Smythe
soundex
1930 United States Federal Census
Viewing records 1-25 of 2,813 matches for:
Smythe
http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=st&dbidg42&ti=0
exact
1880 United States Federal Census
Viewing records 1-25 of 913 matches for:
Smythe
soundex
1880 United States Federal Census
Viewing records 1-25 of 712,272 matches for:
Smythe
point made
soundex is IS broken in 1930
BTW I mostly use the pink fom to control the global number of reasuls
from 10 up to 50 set per paqge
I often go to
Boards > Topics > Ancestry.com > United Kingdom and Ireland
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=a ... try.uk-ire
to get problems sorted
those not coverd by the pop up windows ( like alternate names or image
errors)
click on author:-
Brian Edwards
L. Brown
may also be emailed directly to them
L. Brown
Project Manager
Ancestry
staffers all have email adresses at myfamilyinc.com
see more
1930 United States Federal Census soundex is broken : Hugh Watkins
-- 18 Jul 2005
http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=a ... .ancsite&m84
they are in Provo Utah time zone MON to FRI working hours
good hunting
Hugh W
On 7/19/05, Christopher Jahn <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote:
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:eYKdnQzzqaOhi0HfRVn-qw@rcn.net:
Dennis wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:45:09 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com
wrote:
Yes, but "Soundex" and "Exact Match" are NOT synonyms.
Think of it as an exact match using the soundex code as a search
argument.
And you can also use wildcards in your search criteria.
Sure; and then you get even wilder "hits" than Crazy Bull.
But I think we're quibbling over the name Ancestry.com chose for the
tab. "Exact Search" may not be the best name ... but can you think of
a better name? (Not that anyone from Ancestry.com will read this
thread and take our advice.)
I kinda favor "Exact Spelling" ...
I really don't care what Ancestry.com names the tab. I would just
like to see the soundex problem fixed. The more folks who complain
about it being broke the more likely it is they will do something
about it.
In the FWIW market -- The problem only seems to exist if you've
upgraded the viewer like they wanted you to. On the computer I use
that doesn't have that new (expletive) on it, the searches work like
they always did.
Not here. The Soundex Search doens't work in the basic viewer on the 1930
census.
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry.com bug...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:40:35 -0000, "Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com>
wrote:
The other posts were also moved to the US Census board ... still without reply
from anyone at Ancestry.
But the good news is that apparently the problem has been fixed.
--
Dennis K.
wrote:
The post I made got moved to the US Census board
other posts ahve been deleted without reply
The other posts were also moved to the US Census board ... still without reply
from anyone at Ancestry.
But the good news is that apparently the problem has been fixed.
--
Dennis K.