Ancestry wildcard searches
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Jim Elbrecht
Ancestry wildcard searches
I'm trying to find Luer SIEMS b. abt1821, or his son, Luer SIEMS b.
abt1846.
[both from passenger list Germany-NY 1873]
I have tried soundex searches- substituting L's and S's- and finally
tried 'born Germany -enumerated in Westchester County, NY-- with no
name.
That gets 1600 hits which I might even try mucking through sometime--
but if I could narrow it down to L* S* I could probably save a lot of
time- and maybe even broaden the search statewide.
But Ancestry's search engine requires 3 letters before a wildcard.
This has been an issue for a while- has someone come up with a
workaround? [and does someone know why blank entries are OK- but L*
S* "returns too many hits"]
Jim
abt1846.
[both from passenger list Germany-NY 1873]
I have tried soundex searches- substituting L's and S's- and finally
tried 'born Germany -enumerated in Westchester County, NY-- with no
name.
That gets 1600 hits which I might even try mucking through sometime--
but if I could narrow it down to L* S* I could probably save a lot of
time- and maybe even broaden the search statewide.
But Ancestry's search engine requires 3 letters before a wildcard.
This has been an issue for a while- has someone come up with a
workaround? [and does someone know why blank entries are OK- but L*
S* "returns too many hits"]
Jim
-
Liz_in_Calgary
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
I have had some luck using the first name only. I think I
may have found my Henry in Cincinnati. that way. It seems
that his last name was spelled with 2 f's instead of 2 m's
- go figure - living in a boarding house - but if it is him
it really doens't tell me anthing I don't know.
take care
Liz
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:49:12 -0500, in alt.genealogy Jim
Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com> wrote :
may have found my Henry in Cincinnati. that way. It seems
that his last name was spelled with 2 f's instead of 2 m's
- go figure - living in a boarding house - but if it is him
it really doens't tell me anthing I don't know.
take care
Liz
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:49:12 -0500, in alt.genealogy Jim
Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com> wrote :
I'm trying to find Luer SIEMS b. abt1821, or his son, Luer SIEMS b.
abt1846.
[both from passenger list Germany-NY 1873]
I have tried soundex searches- substituting L's and S's- and finally
tried 'born Germany -enumerated in Westchester County, NY-- with no
name.
That gets 1600 hits which I might even try mucking through sometime--
but if I could narrow it down to L* S* I could probably save a lot of
time- and maybe even broaden the search statewide.
But Ancestry's search engine requires 3 letters before a wildcard.
This has been an issue for a while- has someone come up with a
workaround? [and does someone know why blank entries are OK- but L*
S* "returns too many hits"]
Jim
-
Michael Kenefick
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
Have you been able to translate Luer into English? Have you found them
on any Census records? I can find many Siems, but few Luers and none
together on Census records.
Mike in Ohio
Liz_in_Calgary wrote:
on any Census records? I can find many Siems, but few Luers and none
together on Census records.
Mike in Ohio
Liz_in_Calgary wrote:
I have had some luck using the first name only. I think I
may have found my Henry in Cincinnati. that way. It seems
that his last name was spelled with 2 f's instead of 2 m's
- go figure - living in a boarding house - but if it is him
it really doens't tell me anthing I don't know.
take care
Liz
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:49:12 -0500, in alt.genealogy Jim
Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com> wrote :
I'm trying to find Luer SIEMS b. abt1821, or his son, Luer SIEMS b.
abt1846.
[both from passenger list Germany-NY 1873]
I have tried soundex searches- substituting L's and S's- and finally
tried 'born Germany -enumerated in Westchester County, NY-- with no
name.
That gets 1600 hits which I might even try mucking through sometime--
but if I could narrow it down to L* S* I could probably save a lot of
time- and maybe even broaden the search statewide.
But Ancestry's search engine requires 3 letters before a wildcard.
This has been an issue for a while- has someone come up with a
workaround? [and does someone know why blank entries are OK- but L*
S* "returns too many hits"]
Jim
-
Norman J. Garland
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
Jim When Leur came to the USA in 1873, He was 52, His wife Anna was 52,
and the son Leur was 9. So I believe Leur Jr. was born in 1864, not
1846. I found them in the 1900 NY census. Junior is living there and his
Mother is living with him. She is widowed......Norman
Michael Kenefick wrote:
and the son Leur was 9. So I believe Leur Jr. was born in 1864, not
1846. I found them in the 1900 NY census. Junior is living there and his
Mother is living with him. She is widowed......Norman
Michael Kenefick wrote:
Have you been able to translate Luer into English? Have you found them
on any Census records? I can find many Siems, but few Luers and none
together on Census records.
Mike in Ohio
Liz_in_Calgary wrote:
I have had some luck using the first name only. I think I
may have found my Henry in Cincinnati. that way. It seems
that his last name was spelled with 2 f's instead of 2 m's
- go figure - living in a boarding house - but if it is him
it really doens't tell me anthing I don't know.
take care
Liz
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:49:12 -0500, in alt.genealogy Jim
Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com> wrote :
I'm trying to find Luer SIEMS b. abt1821, or his son, Luer SIEMS b.
abt1846.
[both from passenger list Germany-NY 1873]
I have tried soundex searches- substituting L's and S's- and finally
tried 'born Germany -enumerated in Westchester County, NY-- with no
name.
That gets 1600 hits which I might even try mucking through sometime--
but if I could narrow it down to L* S* I could probably save a lot of
time- and maybe even broaden the search statewide.
But Ancestry's search engine requires 3 letters before a wildcard.
This has been an issue for a while- has someone come up with a
workaround? [and does someone know why blank entries are OK- but L*
S* "returns too many hits"]
Jim
-
Jim Elbrecht
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
Thanks to Liz & Michael-- as well as Norm. And apologies to Liz &
Michael for my email replies. I know better & I've been using this
software for nearly a decade so 'brain fart' is my only excuse.
To summarize-- The family referred to Luer jr. as Louis. He is with
his mother in 1900- still single.
I agree with Liz that first name only searches are handy. Still
puzzles me why you can leave a field blank-- but can't use a single
letter and wildcards. Probably some geek-magic that we mere mortals
can't understand.
"Norman J. Garland" <kane@citlink.net> wrote:
Norm- Thanks. Bad brain day yesterday for me. 1846 is young Luer's
birth year. That is them in 1900. Thanks. So where are they
in 1880?<g>
Jim
Michael for my email replies. I know better & I've been using this
software for nearly a decade so 'brain fart' is my only excuse.
To summarize-- The family referred to Luer jr. as Louis. He is with
his mother in 1900- still single.
I agree with Liz that first name only searches are handy. Still
puzzles me why you can leave a field blank-- but can't use a single
letter and wildcards. Probably some geek-magic that we mere mortals
can't understand.
"Norman J. Garland" <kane@citlink.net> wrote:
Jim When Leur came to the USA in 1873, He was 52, His wife Anna was 52,
and the son Leur was 9. So I believe Leur Jr. was born in 1864, not
1846. I found them in the 1900 NY census. Junior is living there and his
Mother is living with him. She is widowed......Norman
Norm- Thanks. Bad brain day yesterday for me. 1846 is young Luer's
birth year. That is them in 1900. Thanks. So where are they
in 1880?<g>
Jim
-
Dennis K.
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:01:12 -0500, Jim Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com>
wrote:
Yes, there is probably a good reason for this ... but I doubt if they'll
tell us what it is.
Have you tried Dr. Morse's front-end?
http://www.stevemorse.org/census/ancestry.html
I have trouble with it on my dialup connection, but maybe it will work
better for you.
--
Dennis K.
wrote:
I agree with Liz that first name only searches are handy. Still
puzzles me why you can leave a field blank-- but can't use a single
letter and wildcards. Probably some geek-magic that we mere mortals
can't understand.
Yes, there is probably a good reason for this ... but I doubt if they'll
tell us what it is.
Have you tried Dr. Morse's front-end?
http://www.stevemorse.org/census/ancestry.html
I have trouble with it on my dialup connection, but maybe it will work
better for you.
--
Dennis K.
-
Jim Elbrecht
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
Dennis K. <nobody@iglou.invalid> wrote:
-snip-
Worked fine-- but I'm not sure of the advantage. I tried using first
initials only and got this message;
"Your search specified a partial first name having only 1 character.
Your search specified a partial last name having only 1 character.
Ancestry.com does not permit searches with partial first or last names
of less than three characters."
Pooh-- I got all excited, too.<g>.
I think he put that page up when Ancestry didn't allow a lot of the
fields they do now. Their search is much improved from several years
ago when they went online.
Jim
-snip-
Have you tried Dr. Morse's front-end?
http://www.stevemorse.org/census/ancestry.html
I have trouble with it on my dialup connection, but maybe it will work
better for you.
Worked fine-- but I'm not sure of the advantage. I tried using first
initials only and got this message;
"Your search specified a partial first name having only 1 character.
Your search specified a partial last name having only 1 character.
Ancestry.com does not permit searches with partial first or last names
of less than three characters."
Pooh-- I got all excited, too.<g>.
I think he put that page up when Ancestry didn't allow a lot of the
fields they do now. Their search is much improved from several years
ago when they went online.
Jim
-
Dennis K.
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:24:34 -0500, Jim Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com>
wrote:
I'm sorry. I thought that Dr. Morse had things configured so that a
partial search of AB* on a field actually did 26 individual searches of
ABA thru ABZ and returned the results. And a search on A* did 26*26
individual searches. I guess I was mistaken. Maybe a search on A* for a
first name and Z* on a last name were just too many searches.
--
Dennis K.
wrote:
Dennis K. <nobody@iglou.invalid> wrote:
-snip-
Have you tried Dr. Morse's front-end?
http://www.stevemorse.org/census/ancestry.html
I have trouble with it on my dialup connection, but maybe it will work
better for you.
Worked fine-- but I'm not sure of the advantage. I tried using first
initials only and got this message;
"Your search specified a partial first name having only 1 character.
Your search specified a partial last name having only 1 character.
Ancestry.com does not permit searches with partial first or last names
of less than three characters."
Pooh-- I got all excited, too.<g>.
I think he put that page up when Ancestry didn't allow a lot of the
fields they do now. Their search is much improved from several years
ago when they went online.
I'm sorry. I thought that Dr. Morse had things configured so that a
partial search of AB* on a field actually did 26 individual searches of
ABA thru ABZ and returned the results. And a search on A* did 26*26
individual searches. I guess I was mistaken. Maybe a search on A* for a
first name and Z* on a last name were just too many searches.
--
Dennis K.
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
server limitations
leading wildcards are too "expensive" of cpu time
you would get many failed searches because of time outs
Hugh W
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
--
Beta blogger
http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past
http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks
old blogger
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
leading wildcards are too "expensive" of cpu time
you would get many failed searches because of time outs
Hugh W
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Thanks to Liz & Michael-- as well as Norm. And apologies to Liz &
Michael for my email replies. I know better & I've been using this
software for nearly a decade so 'brain fart' is my only excuse.
To summarize-- The family referred to Luer jr. as Louis. He is with
his mother in 1900- still single.
I agree with Liz that first name only searches are handy. Still
puzzles me why you can leave a field blank-- but can't use a single
letter and wildcards. Probably some geek-magic that we mere mortals
can't understand.
"Norman J. Garland" <kane@citlink.net> wrote:
Jim When Leur came to the USA in 1873, He was 52, His wife Anna was 52,
and the son Leur was 9. So I believe Leur Jr. was born in 1864, not
1846. I found them in the 1900 NY census. Junior is living there and his
Mother is living with him. She is widowed......Norman
Norm- Thanks. Bad brain day yesterday for me. 1846 is young Luer's
birth year. That is them in 1900. Thanks. So where are they
in 1880?<g
Jim
--
Beta blogger
http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past
http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks
old blogger
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
-
jj206
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
Hugh Watkins wrote:
Maybe ancestry.com should hire google to help in their search
software and hardware ?
Jonathan
server limitations
leading wildcards are too "expensive" of cpu time
you would get many failed searches because of time outs
Hugh W
Maybe ancestry.com should hire google to help in their search
software and hardware ?
Jonathan
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Thanks to Liz & Michael-- as well as Norm. And apologies to Liz &
Michael for my email replies. I know better & I've been using this
software for nearly a decade so 'brain fart' is my only excuse.
To summarize-- The family referred to Luer jr. as Louis. He is with
his mother in 1900- still single.
I agree with Liz that first name only searches are handy. Still
puzzles me why you can leave a field blank-- but can't use a single
letter and wildcards. Probably some geek-magic that we mere mortals
can't understand.
"Norman J. Garland" <kane@citlink.net> wrote:
Jim When Leur came to the USA in 1873, He was 52, His wife Anna was 52,
and the son Leur was 9. So I believe Leur Jr. was born in 1864, not
1846. I found them in the 1900 NY census. Junior is living there and his
Mother is living with him. She is widowed......Norman
Norm- Thanks. Bad brain day yesterday for me. 1846 is young Luer's
birth year. That is them in 1900. Thanks. So where are they
in 1880?<g
Jim
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Ancestry wildcard searches
jj206 wrote:
snip
google allows no wild cards
but searches some of the static pages well
site:ancestry.com html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=si ... gle+Search
Hugh W
--
Beta blogger
http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past
http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks
old blogger
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Hugh Watkins wrote:
server limitations
leading wildcards are too "expensive" of cpu time
you would get many failed searches because of time outs
Hugh W
Maybe ancestry.com should hire google to help in their search
software and hardware ?
Jonathan
Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Thanks to Liz & Michael-- as well as Norm. And apologies to Liz &
Michael for my email replies. I know better & I've been using this
software for nearly a decade so 'brain fart' is my only excuse.
To summarize-- The family referred to Luer jr. as Louis. He is with
his mother in 1900- still single.
I agree with Liz that first name only searches are handy. Still
puzzles me why you can leave a field blank-- but can't use a single
letter and wildcards. Probably some geek-magic that we mere mortals
can't understand.
snip
google allows no wild cards
but searches some of the static pages well
site:ancestry.com html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=si ... gle+Search
Hugh W
--
Beta blogger
http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past
http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks
old blogger
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG