tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post2311190818866898200..comments2023-04-20T12:46:11.858-06:00Comments on The Ancestry Insider: One Step Backwards, Wait, Wait, Wait, Wait, One Step BackThe Ancestry Insiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02490682912125335188noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-24697868579816458902011-05-05T21:38:25.496-06:002011-05-05T21:38:25.496-06:00What I'd like to see, is the ability to search...What I'd like to see, is the ability to search for a surname ONLY at a<br />particular location.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-29686164070589710352011-05-05T21:35:08.765-06:002011-05-05T21:35:08.765-06:00I used to think I was a pretty smart feller with r...I used to think I was a pretty smart feller with regards to searching on familysearch. With the arrival of the new filters, I'm lost. How can a filter for "US, Canada and _____"<br />be better than the old "State, County, Town"???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-6472518135464702482011-05-02T18:08:59.573-06:002011-05-02T18:08:59.573-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-54145374558891569562011-05-02T18:08:38.504-06:002011-05-02T18:08:38.504-06:00The new filter setup is a bit silly. It all shoul...The new filter setup is a bit silly. It all should have been provided on one search form. Some of it is redundant. The prior and present 'advanced search' form allow specifying a location and date range. And there was no need to hide the search form behind a clicky arrow after the first search.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-969280454222257722011-05-02T12:10:12.897-06:002011-05-02T12:10:12.897-06:00Interesting to note - you can filter further than ...Interesting to note - you can filter further than USA, Canada, and Mexico - click on it again when it shows up in the left. It's not obvious though, and that's a problem!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-36076287838047235812011-05-01T14:17:02.709-06:002011-05-01T14:17:02.709-06:00What a hot mess!! Before you put in a name and a d...What a hot mess!! Before you put in a name and a date range and then when the results came up you could quickly scroll to the states pertinent to your search that were delineated by the years covered. It's almost worthless now unless you're prepared to give yourself carpal tunnel syndrome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-39002527387290235592011-04-29T19:55:37.506-06:002011-04-29T19:55:37.506-06:00A high-function 'advanced search' is cruci...A high-function 'advanced search' is crucial. It can't be easy to design, but that capability is almost a make-or-break for the more experienced, or those looking for specific individuals.<br /><br />On the other hand, I can see the filtering concept that is being worked on here as being very useful, eventually. Once the filters are not "US, Canada, Mexico" but rather "North Dakota" or "Quebec". Not "1700" or "1800" but a tighter date range. But the system doesn't seem to be ready for prime time....<br /><br />I can only figure this is being worked on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-18496029621229446822011-04-29T07:23:32.208-06:002011-04-29T07:23:32.208-06:00I agree. I teach genealogy, and one of the most im...I agree. I teach genealogy, and one of the most important things new genealogists need to understand is how to focus their research by looking for specific information, not just randomly seek whatever pops up. Filtering after the fact encourages really bad genealogical practices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5512311610334754148.post-57074311388667767822011-04-29T06:01:21.082-06:002011-04-29T06:01:21.082-06:00"RecordSearch pilot validated the search mode..."RecordSearch pilot validated the search mode of doing an initial search with…a single event and then filtering the results by secondary events and parameters."<br />This is utter nonsense. All it validates is his OPINION that a two-stage search using filtering is better than a one-stage advanced search. I am of the opposite opinion. A two-stage search takes longer, and is a pain in the neck compared to an advanced search that allows the user to specify multiple secondary parameters up front. All that freakin' clicking just to specify one single parameter - it's ridiculous!! Anyone who values form over function does not impress me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com