Discover your family history at the Genealogical Forum of Oregon! Whether you are from Oregon, Virginia, Canada, or Ireland, our research library offers over 42,000 holdings with records from around the globe. As the largest genealogical library between Seattle and San Francisco, visitors have access to many popular genealogy websites. Check our website at gfo.org for online resources, our library catalog, and the GFO calendar for upcoming free classes and workshops. Open seven days a week, the Library is located on the lower level of the historic Ford Building in southeast Portland. Volunteers are always ready to help you Discover Your Heritage! Learn more. Get Involved.
Once again, I am taking a “little trip.” If you have been reading this newsletter for some time, you already know that I travel often. However, this trip may not be so little. By the time you read these words, I should be on board IcelandAir someplace over the Atlantic or possibly may have already landed […]
Judy G. Russell
Solid guidance for genealogical pros… and consumers The Association of Professional Genealogists has long had a code of ethics to guide genealogical professionals and consumers through some of the murky waters of ethical issues underlying this field of ours. And it’s just been updated to clarify some elements of ethical behavior that impact the professionals […]
The Ancestry Insider
For years people have told me that there are bugs in Ancestry’s search. It was returning something it shouldn’t. But each time they sent me an example, I found the search system was working as intended. It was displaying results that partially mismatched because other parts matched so strongly. There was a distinct possibility it really was the person you were looking for, albeit you might have provided a little bit of incorrect information, or the record itself contained a little bit of erroneous information. Now whether you agree or disagree with that approach, the fact remains, the system was working as Ancestry intended it to work.
Another scenario users experience is that the library version returned different results than the home edition. I haven’t bothered to track that one down, but I don’t believe it. It would require adding special code to handicap one or the other. There is no incentive for them to add extra code that would lead library users to believe Ancestry works poorly. If you experience this phenomena, chances are more likely that you have the filters set differently between the two.
Another phenomena users experience is that they perform the same search twice in a row and once it returns less results. When I instruct them to try it several more times, it always returns the greater number of results. This is not a bug in their code, although I suppose it should be considered a bug in their architecture. Years ago Ancestry met with bloggers and explained that their search system divided up global searches among several computers. The search system took the results from the several computers and assembled them for presentation to you. This architecture had two ramifications. The several computers didn’t all finish at the same time and the order they completed was not fixed, resulting in the search results being in a different order each time. I don’t know if they still have that architecture, but if they do, it explains why once in a great while a search returns fewer results than it does every other time you run it. What happens is that one of the computers assigned part of the global search completely failed. It’s results were never returned to you.
Still, the specter of an elusive bug persists.
Well, I think I finally have evidence that the bug exists.
If you perform this search, the only result is Thelma I Raymond (shown below).
One of the search parameters specifies she was born in 1909. If I remove that constraint, I should get additional results—and I do. But she still matches, so she should be included in those results—and she isn’t (shown below). I get six results and she isn’t one of them. She matches better than the other six results so she should be included.
I don’t believe this is the intended behavior. That makes it a bug. So if you have long believed you’ve experienced erroneous results, you may be right.
Notice: The opinions expressed herein are those of the Ancestry Insider, not necessarily those of Ancestry.com or FamilySearch. All content is copyrighted by the Ancestry Insider unless designated otherwise. See http://ancestryinsider.org for other important legal notices.
In a previous post, I mentioned that my mother had received several pictures and other items that belonged to my grandparents. In addition to the certificate that belonged to my great-grandfather, which I mentioned in my last blog post, I came across a book entitled The Muir Family Heritage Book. According to one of the … Continue reading Still looking →