Ancestry Scottish Census search acting up?

[SarahND]

Got an answer from Ancestry... no help at all:

Dear Sarah,

We appreciate your message.

We have not changed the search parameters recently. One thing that can change things is the exact box might have been unchecked. That would throw you into ranked. Also, did you notice at the very bottom of every page there is a search section for re-fining the search, just scroll down. Thanks

If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.

Stacy
Member Solutions
Ancestry.com

Well, yes, I DID know that there was a search section at the bottom of the page and no, I did NOT uncheck the exact box

Would those of you who have an ancestry.com subscription please try this search I just performed in the 1891 Scottish census?

Exact search checked!
All boxes are left blank except:

First name: Walter
Birth year 1849 +/- 2
Birthplace: Leith

I get 28 hits, of which only 5 are named Walter
They all were born in Leith during the years 1847-1851
Each household has a Walter in it... but that Walter can be any age and born anywhere.

Is it just me, or does it do the same to you?
Thanks,
Sarah

[JustJean]

You mean like this?

Name/ Parent or spouse names/ Estimated birth year/ Birthplace/ Relation/ Civil parish/ County

Alexr S Allan/ Maryann/ abt 1847/ Leith, Edinr Head Duddingston Midlothian
C Archibald/ abt 1850 Leith Head Edinburgh St Cuthberts Midlothian
Mary Bartholemew/ Alexander/ abt 1848 Leith, Mid Lothian Wife Kirkcaldy and Abbotshall Fife
J W Bennett/ abt 1849/ Leith, Edinburghsh Head Dalkeith Midlothian
William Black/ Mary/ abt 1850/ Leith, So Head Edinburgh Canongate Midlothian
Janet Geddes Bortherston/ George Henderson/ abt 1849/ Leith, Edinburgh Wife Haddington East Lothian
Fanny Butler/ John/ abt 1848/ No Leith, Mid Lothian Wife Leith North Midlothian
Catherine Carnie/ abt 1851 No Leith, Mid Lothian Head Leith North Midlothian
Jemima Chalmers/ Walter P/ abt 1849/ Leith, Edinburghshire - Wife Edinburgh St Luke Midlothian
Walter Cunningham/ Mary G R/ abt 1851/ Leith, Midlothian Head Leith South Midlothian
George Easton/ Elizabeth/ abt 1851/ County of Edinr, Leith Head Glasgow Maryhill Lanarkshire
Jane Gibson/ Robert/ abt 1848/ South Leith, Mid Lothian Wife Edinburgh St Stephens Midlothian
George Gunn/ Margt/ abt 1847/ No Leith, Mid Lothian Head Leith North Midlothian
Margt Gunn/ George/ abt 1847/ No Leith, Mid Lothian Wife Leith North Midlothian
Isabella Hare/ Thomas/ abt 1851/ Mid Lothian, South Leith Wife Leith South Midlothian
Mary A Hutchison/ Robert/ abt 1848/ Leith, Edinburghshire Wife St Cuthberts Midlothian
Margret Irvine/ Walter/ abt 1851/ Leith, S Wife Leith South Midlothian
Janet Scott Laing/ Thomas Fraser/ abt 1849/ Leith, Midlothian Wife Edinburgh St Cuthberts Midlothian
John Liston/ Margaret/ abt 1851/ No Leith, Mid Lothian Head Leith North Midlothian
Ann McKinnon/ Donald/ abt 1851/ Mid Lothian, North Leith Wife Edinburgh St Cuthberts Midlothian
Walter Nicholson/ abt 1850/ North Leith, Mid Lothian Patient Greenock West Renfrewshire
John Paterson/ Catherine/ abt 1847/ Leith, Edinburghshire Head Leith South Midlothian
Andrew Scott/ Maryann/ abt 1849/ Leith Head St Cuthberts Midlothian
Walter Scott/ Welhelmina/ abt 1850/ So Leith, Edinburghsh Head Leith South Midlothian
Walter Thomson/ Barbara/ abt 1851/ Leith, Edinrshire Head Leith North Midlothian
George Trotter/ Elizabeth/ abt 1848/ Leith, Midlothian - S Head Leith South Midlothian
Margaret Watson/ Walter/ abt 1849/ No Leith, Edinrshire Wife Leith North Midlothian
Walter Watson/ Margaret/ abt 1848/ No Leith, Edinrshire Head Leith North Midlothian

[SarahND]

You mean like this?

Exactly

Thanks for replicating that I will now proceed to ask the ancestry folks to try it too and see what they say...

Regards,
Sarah

[sheilajim]

Hi Sarah

I got 28 hits, only a few were called Walter, but they were all in Leith.

The strange thing is that when I was searching for myself earlier today looking for Janet Miller, address Alloa , Clachmannanshire born Denny, and not using the exact button, I got nothing.
It wasn't until I just used Janet, born in Denny, that I got what I wanted.
Something is strange.

Regards

Sheila

[heymarky]

But.... more results is better, isn't it?

[kathyc]

There must be something strange. I did an exact match search for records I knew for sure are there today, because I've looked at them before. Got absolutely no matches, despite having included nothing but information I knew for sure was in the record as listed on Ancestry. I found them later, but only on a ranked search.

Kathy

[SarahND]

Hi all,
I finally got this dealt with... I think and hope. After my second message, telling them the problem again, assuring them I was not doing things I shouldn't with the boxes and asking them to try the search themselves... I got this response:

Dear Sarah,

We appreciate your message.

Well in that case, I am going to give you the number for our Family History Experts. They can walk you through the directions to make comments, corrections. For directions on the site, just hit the help tab by your username up at the very top, then type in "corrections". or 1-877-504-0905. Thanks.

If there is anything else with which we might assist you, please let us know.

Stacy
Member Solutions
Ancestry.com

So, it apparently needs a Family History Expert to replicate that search (JustJean and Sheila, take a bow!). I called the number, being tired of the fruitless back and forth with the help desk. Right away I got someone who checked, agreed, and called the programming department while I stayed on the line Hoorah! He didn't know how long it would take them to fix it, but at least they now know...

Before calling I narrowed down the problem. Here's the scoop: It only affects first name only searches (i.e. no surname, but anything else you would like to specify) on just the Scottish 1871 and 1891, the latest ones added. I checked all the others and they are fine. What you will get with a first name search is all the people with someone of that name in their household. If you add a year of birth, place, occupation, etc., these will all apply to the person who comes up in the result, but that person can have any name at all, as long as they have someone in their household with the name specified on the search.

So, for example, search in the 1871 census for anyone named James ("exact matches only" checked) born in 1870 in aberdeen*, occupation: ag lab. You'd think the search would come up with no results, given the combination of age and profession, but no... you get three hits: Ann Cruickshank, Jemima Mutch and Alexander Ridd-- all born in 1870 in Aberdeenshire. One can imagine the wee things crawling out to the fields with their little farm implements and helping Dad What they all have in common is that they all have an Ag Lab named James in the family.

Let's hope they clear it up quickly and that the new 1881 and 1901 censuses (coming "soon") will not have this glitch.
All the best,
Sarah

[JustJean]

Hi Sarah

Way hey. ....you got through to the people who call the shots....nice going!!! =D> No kidding they have a problem. I don't think it takes an expert to determine that...but I am surprised that maybe no one has complained loudly about it before your efforts...ALthough they didn't say that did they.........

Anyhow....caution will be rewarded when searching in 1871 and 1891 until they get it sorted. I had pretty much concluded too that it only affected first name no surname scenarios but had not gone so far as to test each year.

All in all...good job well done!!

Now if they would only come clean about the indexing.....is it people or is it OCR?? k ......we can conjecture and we can have our gut instincts....but until they recant their prior statements I guess we're really left with hoping they are listening to what the general public has to say about the quality. Personally I don't care if it's OCR or people related...I just wish like heck they could improve it because I think it's darn shoddy indexing!!!!!

Best wishes
Jean

[SarahND]

...but I am surprised that maybe no one has complained loudly about it before your efforts...ALthough they didn't say that did they.........

No, they didn't And I will believe the "fixing" when I see it accomplished. However, the guy did sound refreshingly intelligent, and was not trying to tell me that I didn't know how to check and uncheck boxes, like the first level "Member Solutions" staff The clincher, I think, was when I told Stacy that I had been a subscriber for SEVEN years and that I was fully aware of how the search function works She quickly decided I'd better get passed to the "Experts"

.Now if they would only come clean about the indexing.....is it people or is it OCR?? k

I just can't believe that occupations like:

Grocer Not A Herch On Th Ordowary Acceplatson Of The
R S A Portrail & Landlcape Paiuter
Royal & Cottish Academician Portrart Ainnial & Landscape Pointer
Retined Mershonat & Acculine Of 10 Acres Of Land
Assistant Keeper of General & Trastiaula Registrar Davies Edinburgh
qunner Royk An Liblery
Proppirval Phrendogist
Sovaneno Phranaker
Coal Fitter A Tichmeal Phrose Applud Person And Employ Loal Gar Scholar
Farmer Of 150 Acceres Feplaying Phree 3 Labourers
Phryhman
Journeyman Tippe Founder Bert Ulent
Eradle & Barket Maker

and place names like:

Zue Onaf Aryroad Nennl
Gasgoa, Lanarkshire
Somershire
Dundee, Glasgow
Resburlishire
Bermfshire
Linbethgoneshire
Kunkardee, Perthshire

were transcribed by humans. Especially the place names, where the trained transcribers should have had, minimally, a crib-sheet with the county names on it I have not been impressed with the level of knowledge of the people who deal with the public at Ancestry and I think we are just not getting access to the people who really know anything about how the indexes are made.
Regards,
Sarah

[kathyc]

That Linbeth must've been an important guy (girl?) in that area to have the whole county named after his/her departure.

Kathy