tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post5058931964996405703..comments2024-03-07T23:20:49.790-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: A solution to unresponsive searches in Ancestry.com and other databasesJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-73036707493745823102013-11-03T06:27:54.046-07:002013-11-03T06:27:54.046-07:00The trick, of course, is trying to find out how th...The trick, of course, is trying to find out how the database was indexed. I think this is something that comes with practice. Thanks for all your very good comments.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-26054048626583236132013-11-03T04:08:43.061-07:002013-11-03T04:08:43.061-07:00"doing so assumes I know how Ancestry.com or ..."doing so assumes I know how Ancestry.com or whatever has indexed the content of the document I am looking for correctly"<br />A good point that. Working entirely from (fallible) memory I think one of the Arizona state censuses for Eliza Tanner indexed her name but not her husband's name (by which I mean Henry was indexed but at no point was it indexed what their spouse's name was). Not what I would have expected - but I've not found the opportunity to use US State censuses)<br /><br />So if you know the indexing, it can pay to use the exact search option - if you don't know what indexes are (consistently) used, then a more generic search is better.Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-8836268561668167512013-11-02T16:00:55.322-07:002013-11-02T16:00:55.322-07:00The reason I don't apply the "exact"...The reason I don't apply the "exact" filter at first is because doing so assumes I know how Ancestry.com or whatever has indexed the content of the document I am looking for correctly. Perhaps I am more of a pessimist in thinking that I have guessed wrongly. I will certainly use it in some searches where it is indicated. Thanks for the interesting comments. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-37000738924820863922013-11-02T13:29:39.245-07:002013-11-02T13:29:39.245-07:00"Apparently, you and I have a different level..."Apparently, you and I have a different level of confidence in the indexing functions of the major programs."<br />I doubt that - between the idiosyncratic view our ancestors had of their own history, dreadful handwriting (or microfilms), harassed indexers and peculiarly specified software, it's a wonder we find anything. <br /><br />You are absolutely right to say "It goes far beyond making one cursory search and letting it go at that." It's just that my feeling is that too many people see 875,000 answers and see that Ancestry has "ignored" Arizona, so deduce Ancestry must be rubbish. While I appreciate you are trying to educate them (for which you have my admiration) I still feel it better that they start with a manageable number, by specifying the exact search option.<br /><br />However - I will admit that when using the exact search option, you must know what you are looking for so that you can recognise it when you see it and gradually loosen the criteria when you can't see it. <br /><br />Adrian Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-10708862271846733602013-11-02T10:09:19.486-07:002013-11-02T10:09:19.486-07:00Apparently, you and I have a different level of co...Apparently, you and I have a different level of confidence in the indexing functions of the major programs. My experience is that starting out with the exact function is just one more level I don't need to use. I am certainly not advocating changing anyone's search procedures. But if you don't understand what is going on with a search, you need to know all of these methods and alternatives for finding what may be in the database. It goes far beyond making one cursory search and letting it go at that.James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-56626206507964868502013-11-02T10:04:33.938-07:002013-11-02T10:04:33.938-07:00While you clearly have your methodology for naviga...While you clearly have your methodology for navigating your way round a search that means you don't use the "exact" option, I think that the vast majority of searchers would be better served by using the "exact" option for two reasons: <br /><br />1. It reduces the list to manageable numbers immediately;<br />2. It's what people *believe* that Ancestry (and the others) are doing. <br /><br />The instructions for Ancestry are simple:<br /> - click "Show Advanced";<br /> - click "Match all terms exactly" so it gets an "x" in the box;<br /><br />To take your Eliza Tanner example, if I repeat your selections but with "Match all terms exactly", then I get just 12 results:<br /> - 4 from different family trees;<br /> - 1 each from the 1880, 1900, 1910 censuses;<br /> - 2 each from the 1920 & 1930 censuses;<br /> - 1 from a US City Directory.<br /><br />Now, if I didn't find what I wanted, then I'd start looking at loosening some of those criteria. For instance, what if Henry didn't have his full name? So I'd remove the "exact" checkbox from his name first. I now get 90 results, primarily because it's now giving me Elizas with no spouse, I guess.<br /><br />We might argue about whether starting tight and working looser is the best way of doing it (and I seem to remember advocating the opposite with geography!) but for me the essential point is that so many people panic when they see 87,000 results that it makes more sense to start with the manageable number first. <br /><br />Adrian <br /><br />PS - I can't help wondering, when looking at "Heart Throbs of the West: Volume 7" (picked up in "Stories, Memories & Histories"), just what the recitation was that is referred to in 'Henry M. Tanner's favorite recitation was "Soap Your Coat Tail." His wife, Eliza, was exceptionally good at reciting "Betty and the Bar." '! Google does not help, for once!Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-46227957781147452362013-11-02T08:27:51.666-07:002013-11-02T08:27:51.666-07:00First, I very, very seldom use wildcards. I also s...First, I very, very seldom use wildcards. I also seldom use the "exact" filter either. This is because I seldom need to. I almost always find what I am looking for immediately. The long search sequence only happens infrequently. Both options, wildcards and exact searches, are way down on my list of options to try, but eventually I do get to them. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-81904693126739984132013-11-02T08:06:17.578-07:002013-11-02T08:06:17.578-07:00Hi James, I was intrigued by this post and tried d...Hi James, I was intrigued by this post and tried doing the same search you did, only specifying "restrict to exact" for Arizona, U.S.A. This reduces the number of records to 41,103. Do you find it helpful to play with the default settings in the search screen, before resorting to wildcards?Jackie Corriganhttp://hoguegirardin.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com