tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post3034946525499549469..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Why don't Genealogical Search Engines Work?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-50362386827827226232014-03-14T15:36:54.509-07:002014-03-14T15:36:54.509-07:00It sounds like another blog post to me. Thanks. It sounds like another blog post to me. Thanks. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-78892937597160052352014-03-14T09:31:47.646-07:002014-03-14T09:31:47.646-07:00Thanks for the well written and thought provoking ...Thanks for the well written and thought provoking article. Once we build skill at using a particular search engine, we are frustrated when a company changes it and forces us to abandon that knowledge and relearn (a perceived slow-down in accomplishing our task). I think the company isn't focused on improvements for the user as much as improved access to the collection it hosts. What are your thoughts about user-controlled search filters? It gives us perceived control of results, but feels more like the automated phone service where we continually press 1 for English, press 3 for another option,...then another and another, losing our focus which was an answer to our question. To what extent are use-accessed filters an aid or a distraction? KaytAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-67897106480789992112014-03-13T17:48:37.850-07:002014-03-13T17:48:37.850-07:00interesting comments. There are a lot of highly op...interesting comments. There are a lot of highly opinionated thoughts on all sides of the issue. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-47951469166359909862014-03-13T17:46:41.267-07:002014-03-13T17:46:41.267-07:00This is a very common complaint and one of the rea...This is a very common complaint and one of the reasons why people feel that the search engine does not work. In fact, it is doing exactly what it was instructed to do, default to the next available jurisdiction. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-75784461832930812522014-03-13T16:22:56.289-07:002014-03-13T16:22:56.289-07:00Ancestry has a good search engine? When did that h...Ancestry has a good search engine? When did that happen? Old search or new, I consistently find that it is the least user friendly search engine and it comes up with the worst results compared to MyHeritage, Mocavo, or FindMyPast. <br /><br />Ancestry didn't get as far as they did as a database program because of their great search engine, they got as far as they did because they have sheer volume over their competitors. That's it. FindMyPast, on the other hand, seems to be growing based off their much more intelligent search engine that has many more options.<br /><br />Heritage Quest offers something for their search engine that I wish all of the sites had, which is advanced sorting of the results. If I want to see all results of a man named John sorted by age, I can do that. I can sort by his name, by his birth place, residence, etc. Why this isn't an option anywhere else I don't know. Even Google as a genealogical search engine allows us some sorting ability and filtering level that Ancestry does not. <br /><br />If we had more ability to filter and sort our results at Ancestry, it might put the search engine Ancestry uses into the good category. Until then, it mostly distributes garbage unless you go into one database at a time, and that makes people pigeonhole their view into a specific set of records (something that I think is a bad thing).Crafting in Yoohoovillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223824425648008880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-72370584419996442332014-03-13T15:00:00.035-07:002014-03-13T15:00:00.035-07:00Ok, I'll bite... I like and understand (mostly...Ok, I'll bite... I like and understand (mostly) your explanation about why search engines don't always seem to work. I acknowledge that I have complaints about Ancestry's new search, although I haven't done so in a public forum. However, I have experienced a problem with Ancestry's old search, and wonder if you can tell me if it's my fault or if it's perhaps that company's fault. Here's the problem: I use the "Drouin Collection" (French-Canadian records) to search for an ancestor in the province of Quebec. I know that he is born in a particular place, so put that place in the "Location" field. I don't put anything in any of the other fields, like name or year, because I want to see (quickly) my ancestor in the results list. However, the results come back with all sorts of other locations but the one I asked for. So, I then type the place in the "Keyword" field, and interestingly, the results come back for just that location. Why wouldn't the location show up in the field that Ancestry themselves created? You might not know the answer, James, but I thought I'd ask in case you could tell me if it's indeed me who doesn't know how to use that particular search engine, or if it's an Ancestry glitch. (By the way, I haven't yet tried to replicate this situation in the new search at Ancestry.)Yvonne Demoskoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13337822921875324881noreply@blogger.com