I’ve been a subscriber to ancestry for several years. Their collection of online material is, of course, unmatched. Some of the highlights are:
- Images, fully indexed and searchable from all of the US Federal Census returns (1790-1930)
- Note that they also have a partial collection of the US mortality schedules that survive from 1850-1880. Deaths that occurred within the prior year were recorded here.
- Their online family trees, don’t overlook their Ancestry World Tree (AWT) that they phased out this past March. You can view research notes in these trees which you cannot do with their current format without permission of the tree owner. http://www.ancestry.com/trees/awt/main.aspx
- Images and a full index of WWI US draft cards.
Overall, I love this site, but want to review some of the issues/suggestions I have for improving it. Their switch this past March to their new family tree system; I have mixed feelings about. Perhaps I was just used to the old AWT, but I was very disappointed when the research notes were made private in the new system. These notes are really the cornerstone for helping you to get to original documentation and to see what someone else has already learned. Please make them public again! I do miss having the links to the census images by year on the front page of the site as well. At any rate, I do like very much the ability to search and link images from their site to people in your tree. This would be a key aid to creating the ultimate ancestry wiki; where you link all existing documents for a single person to a common repository for that person.
Their searching capability can also be improved. I’d like to be able to search by multiple family members such as siblings or by their ages/gender; something to help deal with the dubious handwriting found in many records. Also, perhaps there could be a search, in the event you don’t know the married name of daughters in a later census (say 1860), you could start with the 1850 info, click and it would scan future census returns to try and ID them.
It would also be perhaps useful to extrapolate information from census records 1850 and after as well as any other relevant back to 1840, 1830, and so on in an attempt to reconstruct these census returns. Try to reconstruct the 1840 census as if it had been enumerated with every person in the family listed. Many times, with the statistical data found in 1840 and prior, people tend to assume younger members in the household were children of the eldest male and female which is not always the case.
Here is the link to their website: http://www.ancestry.com; they do offer a 14-day free trial. Also, ancestry can be viewed for free at your local Family History Center as I describe here:
http://webbpat.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/genealogy-research-getting-started-2/
Otherwise, it’s $12.95/mo. for the US Deluxe package and $24.95/mo. for their World package. You do get access to family tree information with the US Deluxe package.
Thoughts?
Pat
Thanks for the added link to my blog… I find yours equally as interesting. I too have Patrick surname on my family tree so we share that common interest as well.
I’m have been doing Genealogy for quite a very long time and am very disappointed in the new changes at the Ancestry website. The new search engines is inferior to the old one. It takes longer to utilize and their deciding if the information is less likely to be valuable with the ages of the person your researching being different or the soundex of the spelling. Sometime the families didn’t provide the information the neighbors or rel;atives did and they just guessed. Or the census taker was just lazy. I had a friend just yesterday say that all of her family genealogy information was wrong, she said, “her family lied from the womb”. LOL My favorite saying is, “If their lips are moving, their lying”!
I am thinking about sending feed back to Ancestry about all of their new amenities and suggest that newer may not be better. I know from their point of view, they get paid for the hunt and I do enjoy a good treasure hunt but it is much quicker if you can benefit from other researchers endeavorers.
Too many times we spends months going down the wrong the road when someone else has the quicker answer. Or at first glance we think we have the right information on a person, when their grandchild is living and knows first hand or better yet the documents.
I just wanted to thank you for the blog roll link and hope you found something of value there. It’s all about the research. Do take a few minutes and see if any of my Patrick’s are your Patrick’s and see if we have any information, to swap.
Thanks as always,
Sheila
By: Sheila on November 15, 2008
at 8:02 am
Hi Sheila, you are welcome! I came across your site via the Armchair Genealogist post and liked the link to the Virginia records. I was probably tag surfing. By all means, let Ancestry know! I sent a few e-mails to them when the tree migration was going on, but I didn’t get any response on why the notes were being made private.
YES, it is all in the research; that’s the fun! It’s kind of like Christmas day when you make a new connection.
Anyway, I searched for Patrick on your blog and only found a few Patrick given names, not surnames. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
As for my Patrick line, I haven’t done the proper due diligence to verify this line too far back, but it supposedly goes back to the immigrant John Patrick (1751-1782) who m. Mary —.
They had: Pernal Patrick (1776, Maryland – 1856, Dooly Co., Georgia) who m. Catherine Parsons (ca. 1784, Virginia – 1855, Dooly Co., Georgia) who had:
Churchwell Patrick (1812, Anson Co., North Carolina – 1880, Stewart Co., Georgia) who m2. Elvira Long (ca. 1818, Georgia – aft. 31 May 1900) who had:
John E. Patrick (ca. 1857-1906, both prob. in Dooly Co., Georgia), m. Mary E. McCorvey (ca. 1858 – ?) who had:
Eva Bell Patrick (July 1891, Dooly Co., Georgia – 1913, Stewart Co., Georgia) who m. my great-grandfather: Joseph Ralph Webb.
The main source I have for this line is: Patrick, P. N., et. al., “The History of a Patrick Family and Related Families 1751-1996″, Walsworth Pub. Co., Marceline, MO, 1997
Pat
By: webbpat on November 15, 2008
at 4:19 pm
Webbpat-
I happened across your blog as I would searching for Ancestry.com-related stuff…
I am a relatively new employee to Ancestry (just under 3 months) and have been actively looking people commenting on their use of Ancestry.com.
Thanks for your input on Ancestry’s trees and search capabilities. Just know that I have forwarded your blog posts (and the related comments from others) to the appropriate people on my team for consideration.
regards
Eric Shoup
VP Product
Ancestry.com
By: Eric Shoup on November 18, 2008
at 3:31 pm
Hi Mr. Shoup,
Thank you so much for your comment. It could be my imagination, but I believe
there is an opportunity to improve the relevance of search results. When
searching for possibly relevant documents to link to individuals in my public
tree, it doesn’t seem that birth/death info or residence that has been
entered
into the public tree is being accounted for in the search.
For example, when I go to my tree entry for Robert Seaman (1766-1845):
http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/person.aspx?tid=4792867&pid=-1544439601&pg=2
then click on “Search Historical Records”; the several of the top results are
clearly for Robert Seamans that were not living when my Robert lived.
Pat
By: webbpat on November 20, 2008
at 10:07 pm