Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You may now congratulate me.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You may now congratulate me.

    Since last night I have traipsed through and opened 384 Ancestry records and finally FOUND THEM!

    Only mildly misspelled and ages and a precise birth place correct - why didn't Ancestry heave them nearer the top of the list of possibles??I tried every combo I could think of, but missed the correct one, naturally.

    I am going to celebrate by switching off and going down the Co-op for a loaf before it starts raining here.

    OC

  • #2
    Congratulations, ma'am!

    Christine
    PS - I sometimes reckon that things don't come up even when the criteria match. I haven't spotted the common denominator yet - it doesn't happen often enough.
    Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

    Comment


    • #3
      Well done OC - I wish had half your patience with lot.

      To late here it is already raining and guess who forgot to bring a brolly to work?
      Bo

      At present: Marshall, Smith, Harding, Whitford, Lane (in and around Winchcomb).

      Comment


      • #4
        Only mildly misspelled and ages and a precise birth place correct - why didn't Ancestry heave them nearer the top of the list of possibles??
        I've had odd things like that happening occasionally where the transcriber's introduced a hyphen or even a space in the wrong place.

        Comment


        • #5
          Congratulations on having the patience and stamina to find them!

          As Anthony Camp says, If you haven't found them , you haven't looked!
          Phoenix - with charred feathers
          Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
            ..... - why didn't Ancestry have them nearer the top of the list of possibles??
            Do you tick the box that says "exact matches only". Personally I find it better to do this or else you are presented with a list of what Ancestry calls possibles- which are usually so far from what you are looking for that they are just a waste of time.
            Elaine







            Comment


            • #7
              I always tick "exact matches only" too - I've never seen the point of the list of possibles, because the criteria they use to rank them are so unhelpful.

              Comment


              • #8
                No, it didn't work with exact matches only, nor with exact matches and soundex.

                I was determined to find them, and having "dipped in" to try to hit lucky, I decided to go back and open EVERY image just in case there was something daft going on.

                Elizabeth spelled EliSabeth, William as Wm.

                Still, it enabled me to firmly discount a submitted entry on IGI as not mine - I found their lad visiting his maternal grandparents, so I needn't bother faffing with that family, mine's with his mum!

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well done OC!
                  Jean



                  To forget your ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without a root....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I always use exact matches too.

                    Are you going to tell us how they were transcribed, OC??

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hope you had a celebratory quaff of your favourite with the loaf :D !

                      Gwyn
                      Freya - a lovely, funny human-friendly disaster waiting to happen....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                        Elizabeth spelled EliSabeth, William as Wm.

                        Exact matches finds Wm for William and Elisabeth would be found if you only enter Eli* which is all I ever put for Elizabeth

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Congratulations!
                          ~ with love from Little Nell~
                          Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well done O.C. - have to say my eye sight has deteriorated quite a bit over the last 18 months and I do find I quickly get too tired to trawl as I did in the days of yore. I wish I still had the patience and sight to do so!

                            Ancestry is strange sometimes though it will churn out hundreds of people of pretty unlikely
                            matching and then you will find something only slightly off track but its pages and pages off.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Just done another marathon for one of their sons, whom I eventually found on all census EXCEPT 1881, tried all combinations, nothing.

                              Went in desperation to the LDS 1881 and found them immediately. Took the reference, went back to Ancestry, used the ref only and up they came. Tried again with my old search terms - nothing! Tried again with a new child and up they came.

                              I must be doing something wrong.......

                              I have often tried searching using wild cards, but it won't let me - tells me there will be too many hits.

                              I've submitted 34 corrections to Ancestry today, lol!! All very minor spelling mistakes from incorrect originals, and hopefully I have now standardised the spelling of the surname of this family for future researchers.

                              OC

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post

                                I must be doing something wrong.......
                                OC - maybe you are putting too much information in the search request. I find that using the minimum amount of info is often best, with the use of wild cards where there could be variations in the spelling of names or places.
                                Elaine







                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  You can't use wildcards in the first three letters of the name on Ancestry, which is a pity. That's what gives the "too many hits" error message.

                                  Do you want to post one of the names so we can try and work out why you aren't getting any hits?

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                    Went in desperation to the LDS 1881 and found them immediately. Took the reference, went back to Ancestry, used the ref only and up they came. Tried again with my old search terms - nothing! Tried again with a new child and up they came.
                                    That's odd, because as far as I know Ancestry uses exactly the same copy of the 1881 census as the LDS. Hence spelling errors on one are the same on the other!

                                    Maybe you are entering too much info on Ancestry? When you got them eventually, were the details the same as on the LDS version???

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Ok, this is what I did for 1881:

                                      Thomas Whittaker b 1835 +/-5, born Manchester Lancs. Living Lancashire.

                                      Jane Whittaker wife bc 1840 +/- 5 born Manchester

                                      James Whittaker son bc 1864 +/-2 born Manchester.

                                      Alice Whittaker daughter bc 1873 Manchester.

                                      (I also searched for other children who, it turns out, had left home by 1881 so I won't muddy the water!)

                                      I tried Tho*, Thos, T, Whit?aker.

                                      I tried Thomas no surname born blah blah with wife Jane
                                      I tried James no name with parents Thomas and Jane.

                                      OC

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        RG11; Piece: 3932; Folio: 74; Page: 20

                                        ????? Correct or not?
                                        Elaine







                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X