New(ish) Version of FamilySearch

[Degan]

Does everyone like this new version, or is it just me that has trouble?

Even with the advanced search option I seem to get loads of results that I don't want. For instance I might want a birth/baptism record and amongst some baptisms I get census from various years. I have a subscription to FMP so don't need familysearch for census but I tried a search for someone and there doesn't seem a way of putting a year of birth, so if you have a common name there are tons of results.

Is this filter that they have added recently supposed to help?

On the IGI with a batch number you can find siblings by using a surname and a range of years, but how do you do that with this version?

It's probably me that is not using it correctly and I would appreciate any tips that might make searching easier.

Thanks in advance
Degan

On the plus side I have found original images of some American census which was a bonus.

[Elwyn Soutter]

I agree and have seen a number of similar comments on other sites. The lack of filters seems to be the main gripe but I am also seeing nonsensical results in some searches too. I have used the feedback link to comment on this whenever appropriate.

[warncoort]

Sibling search works when you specify exact match for location,surname and years.Some filters seem pointless,particularly location where you are restricted to Europe instead of an English county.
Feedback report is worth completing as they wont know what complaints we have otherwise.

[mags68]

All of the above, when it can be bothered to work!

[Desperate Dan]

I must agree with the above comments, and I have heard similar at my local F/History Society.
I wondered though if the main purpose of the site could be a little different to the use that we make of it. The Church of LDS have got their own reasons for recording everybody and I guess that it was designed primarily with their purposes in mind...?

Just a thought...

[Degan]

Thanks all for your input - I hesitated to send any comments on feedback as I thought it was me using the site wrongly. I do take your point Desperate Dan and we perhaps should just be glad the information is there! I may send a suggestion about putting some extra boxes in the search options to reduce the number of results.

Degan

[mags68]

I can tell you why they record everyone, as my sister is a Mormon.
They like to keep records of their own family tree, for a start.
BUT also , this is their primary Goal , They Baptise the dead into their own church ( The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormons) as their believe their Church is the one true church , so everyone they find & recorded is Baptised .

[Mary Young]

The "old" version of familysearch seems to be continually under Web Maintenance and unavailable. I am utterly and completely lost with the new site :-) All I need is access to the IGI for Scotland, particularly the ability to find children by entering the parents' names and county of birth - grateful for any help and advice - the Help Videos on-site are all gloss and no substance.

[v.wells]

I find the "new" family search site woefully useless, compared to the previous version. The "old" search used to be available but now not and it is definitely not user friendly. :(

[Colin Moretti]

It takes a little getting used to but they have some very good stuff there. Note that they have a lot of parish register images and some others too, and they are regularly adding to collection.

I find it best to go via by Browse by Location, Europe, then United Kingdom, I can then select the record set I want in the RH pane.

I rather like their interactive map of England, http://maps.familysearch.org/, alternatively click Learn, then Research Wiki and search for "England Jurisdictions 1851". Start by double clicking on the county of interest, you can then zoom down to parish level, list contiguous parishes, those within a specified radius, relevant registration district, probate court, diocese, hundred, etc. You can also overlay on an OS map from 1851 (click Layers on the LH pane)

Colin

[Julie.Spavins]

Having been to my local Family History Centre to view microfilms, have you considered visiting them and asking for a lesson in how to use the system?

The Assistants at the Stevenage LDS Centre were very very helpful and kind, they even said I could go anytime to use their systems on site for free - not practical though as I work full time.

While I was there one of the assistants was helping a chap get started on his family tree, showing him from scratch (and for free) what to look for and how to use A*****y and the internet.

Just a thought for you all!

Julie

[Yeates]

There are days I think, “I am finally getting the hang of this new familysearch.” There are other times I get so frustrated with it, I close the site, saying to myself, “Forget it.”

I find their new search form and collection choices efficient. The quick-view option is useful for ease of copying info from the same screen instead of having to go back and forth from search “hit” to the record. I still have a dial-up modem and this feature is a great time-saver.

I seem better able to refine my searches. For example, I am currently viewing a microfilm at an LDS Centre for a village where I am related to a great number of people. To maximize the time I have to visit this Centre (their limiting schedule combined with mine,) I look at the batch # online first to know exactly what records and surnames I am looking for.

It would be ideal to search on a film number which does not seem possible. I search on a batch # limiting it to an event (birth, marriage, etc.) and a time range. This technique limited my search to 1,259 baptismal records from the 19,200 when searching for the entire batch #. (heh heh; a mere 1,259…). Caution: the batch # criterion only seems to occur on the home page search and not within the “refined search” box provided on the search-results page. Also, I thought at first the option did not work until realizing it wanted to be “clicked” a second time to bring up the text box.

I do agree with Desperate Dan's point and feel non-LDS members are guests. I appreciate any records offered and also feel a welcoming spirit when at a Centre viewing microfilms or asking for help.

WHAT I MISS the most:

--when viewing an 1881 census record in “quick-view”, it only gives information for that individual and not the entire household. True, clicking on the actual record takes one to the household. HOWEVER, in the old version, it was possible to scroll forward and backward through the 1881. Therefore, when finding a relevant household, I could peruse an entire village looking for geographical clues to families or a child that might be in-service in the next block. This was a powerful option revealing relationships among surnames within the neighbourhood.

What I use “with a grain of salt:”
--I only use data attached to a parish register or official records. I have found personally-submitted data to be, at times, misleading and even erroneous. Such records provide clues for further research, but I do not list such as a source. This was true of the old version, also.

Familysearch allows one to search the old version. I’ve tried a couple of times but do not seem to get the same results I used to get. That is hard to believe and must be my imagination.

I remain grateful and patient as they hone the site,
Yeates

[Degan]

I think they must have taken note of comments they've received because the search "form" is different again. I seem to be getting better at finding what I'm after, although I still get burials in Ohio etc when I've asked for a baptism in Yorkshire!

I do think there is different information on the old and new sites as I've got copies of old IGI entries that don't appear on the new site. I'd have expected it to be the other way round!
Degan

[stepives]

If I had to pay for the privilege of using the site, then I would moan like hell. As it's it's free, I take what I can get.
I don't have to register, I don't get adverts and pop ups. Nor bombarded with emails.

I'm really grateful it's there, in whatever form it is.:clap:


Steve.|cheers|

[Mutley]

I have to admit that their information is second to none.
The fact that it is free, is such a bonus.
Their records pre 1837, well there is no other site that compares.

I just wish I could sort the blinking new search to find these gems. :confused5:

I've just entered the name of an ancestor, all I can really do from the front screen,
there are no fields for dates or places.
Wound down all the places and ended up clicking on
England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975
Then I found myself back at the front screen with empty fields.
Start again. ~sigh~

[RonOne]

I've just entered the name of an ancestor, all I can really do from the front screen,
there are no fields for dates or places.

On the main page: https://www.familysearch.org/ under the boxes for "Given name" and "Surname" are the links to enter more specific info.

Clicking on any of the links on the "Add an event:" line "Any", "Birth", "Marriage", "Residence", "Death" will allow you to enter a place name and year range.

To search using just the parents names leave the "Given name" and "Surname" blank, click the "Parents" link underneath and enter their names :smile:

[Mutley]

Thanks RonOne.

OK, I'll accept the title of 'twit of the month'

Mutley, read what the little blue links say (under the name fields) and click on them!
A whole new world opens up.

(do we not have an ejit smiley?)

[RonOne]

If your initial search returns too many results (which most do) you can narrow them down using "Filter your results by" and "Refine your search" on the left-hand side.

Don't forget you can also search using wildcards * (shift+8 on my keyboard). Most of my Lindop lot get mistranscribed usually as Lindof, Lindon etc... so when searching for them I use the surname Lind*

[Brian Turnbull]

I agree with V Wells, and emailed them with my concerns. In the old site if you put in name and date + or - for baptisms or marriages for a particular parish that is what you got. I went through 30 pages of results yesterday in the new site, although I entered the persons name dates from and to and that I was after births/baptisms. I got marriages, burials births but not in alphabetical order and the county was completely ignored. Is this an "improvement" I don't think so!
Brian

[jac65]

I agree with V Wells, and emailed them with my concerns. In the old site if you put in name and date + or - for baptisms or marriages for a particular parish that is what you got. I went through 30 pages of results yesterday in the new site, although I entered the persons name dates from and to and that I was after births/baptisms. I got marriages, burials births but not in alphabetical order and the county was completely ignored. Is this an "improvement" I don't think so!
Brian

The mistake many people are making is that they are doing their searching on the first page which means that they are searching hundreds of databases so naturally you are going to get results from all the databases. What you should do is to go to the specific database you want and then search. This way you only get results from that database. In the old IGI Familysearch you went to the IGI (ignoring databases such as Census) then narrowed it down by selecting British Isles, then the Country, then the County.

Andy

[v.wells]

The mistake many people are making is that they are doing their searching on the first page which means that they are searching hundreds of databases so naturally you are going to get results from all the databases. What you should do is to go to the specific database you want and then search. This way you only get results from that database. In the old IGI Familysearch you went to the IGI (ignoring databases such as Census) then narrowed it down by selecting British Isles, then the Country, then the County.

Andy

This seems to be a re-occurring theme even if you are specific. There appears to be no link to the"old" search data bases either. It makes it tedious when names are not in alphabetical order and not country specific, even when you have specified which country under "advanced search".

[DorothySandra]

If you Google "Family Search" rather than using your shortcut, you can get all the options including the old forms. I landed on it by accident, but it has its uses.

[Sedgepea]

There seems to be a lot of complaints about the new program but I must say that the new South African records are amazing. I would just like to say a big thank you to all the folk that put so much hard work into the transcription of the records. Sedgepea

[Mary Young]

My thanks to everyone who responded to my plea for help. First I should say, I wasn't meaning to complain about the new version of familysearch - after all, it's a wonderful resource and free to all. I was just frustrated by my own inability understand the layout, and to do what used to be so easy. Using various tips here, especially going through the geographical listing at the left-hand side, I have bookmarked a separate search page for each of the Scottish databases (there are only two!). It seems impossible to save pages with all the search options open, but I can live with that - just grateful to have access to the IGI without travelling to my City Library. I would love to visit the Family History Centre in my area, but unfortunately I'm not free when they are open.