There are 2 ways for a company to handle complaints: one is to ask their customers if they have any and then take appropriate action.
There are 2 ways for a company to handle complaints: one is to ask their customers if they have any and then take appropriate action. The other, which is the one adopted by Ancestry, is to cause loads of them but then
make it almost impossible to receive any of them.
For some time now several things about the Ancestry website have
seriously niggled me (1) and when they invited me to take a survey I
thought it would be a good chance to air my thoughts. Question: "Would
I recommend Ancestry?"Â End of survey!
Then just recently I found that a page was missing from the 1861 Census
and I wanted to inform them of this. Was their a quick and easy way of reporting this (as there is on FMP)? of course not! After trawling the site in vain I resorted to making my complaint to a robot. The robot answered a question I hadn't asked. I was then told I could "chat" to a real person ... but I was told I was 8th in a queue and I was past
caring so I abandoned.
Why can't I quickly and easily send an e-mail which someone with some authority can read and act upon? - even if the only action is to say
"we're not going to change that."
(1) My most pressing complaints:
(a) The impossibility of e-mailing them.
(b) The difficulty in informing them of missing items.
(c) I can't search the 1861 Census by reference (piece, folio, page.)
d) I can't search the 1891 Census by reference to a specific page.
(e) The Quick Links feature is really useful and I've used it a lot, but
now they are going to remove it.
(f) When I enter someone's name in a Search I do not want ALL their
details, including the names of their wife and 12 children automatically populating the entire page. No one in their right mind would ever want
to search like that.
(g) I am subscribed to Ancestry.co.uk. Why do they keep sending me
links to Ancestry.com?
The most effective way to complain to any big organisation these days is
to call them out on (anti-)social media. Those of us who eschew such
things seem to be disenfranchised.
The most effective way to complain to any big organisation these days >is
to call them out on (anti-)social media. Those of us who eschew such
things seem to be disenfranchised.
Twitter can be effective because it is public.
Post by Ian Goddard
The most effective way to complain to any big organisation these
days >is to call them out on (anti-)social media. Those of us who
eschew such things seem to be disenfranchised.
Twitter can be effective because it is public.
I have ver mixed feelings about soshul meeja. i fervently eschew it
all (apart from a few mailing lists and newsgroups, which don't
count!) but I then think I am like the people who refused to have one
of those new-fangled gadgets called a telephone. I remember my
father ranting about one of my school teachers not having a telephone
- he considered it quite disgraceful. There are, though, many
instances - like this Ancestry business - where I realise I am
cutting off my nose to spite my face.
I spent ages yesterday trying to find an Ancestry forum for general discussion on a particular function of Ancestry but the only groups I
could find were either Surname or Place groups. Nowhere could I find
a forum for "how to do this or that" I gave up and tried CHAT. On
the second attempt at this, I finally got an answer after repeating my question 3 times to him. The question?........Just a simple "If I
change my user name, do I have to update my DNA link? I did finally
get the answer....NO!
On 11/02/2023 15:15, Geoff wrote:
I spent ages yesterday trying to find an Ancestry forum for general discussion on a particular function of Ancestry but the only groups
I could find were either Surname or Place groups. Nowhere could I
find a forum for "how to do this or that" I gave up and tried
CHAT. On the second attempt at this, I finally got an answer
after repeating my question 3 times to him. The
question?........Just a simple "If I change my user name, do I have
to update my DNA link? I did finally get the answer....NO!
Ancestry.com
(See All)
"Ancestry.com" Categories
Category
Sub-Categories
Boards
NBC's Who do you think you are?
0
2
"Ancestry.com" Boards
Boards
Threads
Messages
Last Post
Ancestry Health
7
12
05 Apr 2021 4:26 PM
Ancestry Improvements
1427
10731
03 Feb 2023 11:25 PM
Ancestry Site Comments
8745
60053
11 Feb 2023 8:40 PM
Ancestry Site Search
107
398
03 Feb 2023 9:16 PM
AncestryPress
16
39
17 Aug 2013 11:53 PM
Copyright Infringement
8
71
21 Nov 2022 7:39 PM
Family & Local Histories Collection
48
160
16 Dec 2022 2:18 PM
Historical Newspapers
121
451
08 Jul 2022 5:29 AM
Infosec
3
4
02 Mar 2020 3:28 AM
Obituary Collection
115
309
25 Oct 2022 5:10 PM
OneWorld Tree
6
24
28 Feb 2017 10:11 PM
StoryScout
2
2
17 Sep 2022 1:49 PM
Success Stories (How I Found Family)
128
252
03 Apr 2021 12:17 PM
U.S. Immigration Collection
35
121
08 Jul 2022 5:32 AM
U.S. Records Collection
222
592
08 Jul 2022 2:11 PM
United Kingdom and Ireland
856
3587
24 Jul 2020 12:36 AM
United States Census
1010
3131
26 Jun 2022 12:02 AM
Using Ancestry
464
1802
03 Feb 2023 6:57 PM
Ancestry Member Trees
2772
14672
10 Feb 2023 5:32 PM
Ancestry Tree Source Tips
107
454
16 Oct 2022 12:15 AM
AncestryDNA
603
3823
07 Feb 2023 10:58 PM
AncestryDNA ThruLines
126
455
24 Jan 2023 1:55 AM
iOS Support
41
139
31 Jan 2023 2:03 PM
Is it me or is Ancestry.com becoming more and more a gimmiky commercial enterprise rather that a serious research site?
What with "2 stage log-ins through Google", "back stories", "My
family stories", "Pet's DNA" It used to be a decent research site.
It still is I suppose, if you you can get through the tangled web it
has weaved.
Or of course perhaps it's just me, a grumpy old man sounding off.
p.s. I hope the hyphen is in the right place!! Re. previous remarks
The 2 stage login stinks. I had been working on Ancestry yesterday,
and left it for a couple of hours. I think was running out of time
and wanted to quickly check something. Could not because of the
Ancestry 2 step.
As you say, my Ancestry subscription is become less and less valuable,
and is quick reaching the point where it is more bother that good.
Is it me or is Ancestry.com becoming more and more a gimmiky commercial >enterprise rather that a serious research site?
And you can tell that its focus is the US market by the way that it incorporates US place names in the database of UK placenames, despite
knowing that UK users are not in the US.
Is it me or is Ancestry.com becoming more and more a gimmiky
commercial enterprise rather that a serious research site?
What with "2 stage log-ins through Google", "back stories", "My
family stories", "Pet's DNA" It used to be a decent research site.
It still is I suppose, if you you can get through the tangled web it
has weaved.
Or of course perhaps it's just me, a grumpy old man sounding off.
p.s. I hope the hyphen is in the right place!! Re. previous remarks
I wouldn't be surprised if they get more signing up for a DNA test andDNA match, you would get more that about 7% response rate to your request.
to find out their "ethnicity" than to do serious genealogy research. For several years now, I've got a large number of DNA hits where there is no
or only a minimal tree so impossible in most cases to work out a
connection, possibly due to past Christmas gift promotions?I truly believe that is the case, otherwise when you try to contact a
The 2 stage login stinks.  I had been working on Ancestry yesterday,
and left it for a couple of hours.    I think was running out of time and wanted to quickly check something.  Could not because of the
Ancestry 2 step.
On 08/12/2023 10:15, Colin Bignell wrote:
I have always ignored their story lines, but I think that pet DNA has
to be the silliest idea yet.
I can see there could be a market for pet DNA testing but it will (hopefully!) be completely separate from the normal human DNA service.
There is always going to be a bias towards the USA because of the size
of the customer base.
Ancestry know that and have done nothing to make it easy for a person seriously working on their ancestry, otherwise they would have a system
to better filter the DNA matches.
I have always ignored their story lines, but I think that pet DNA has to
be the silliest idea yet.
It's never been a 'serious research site.' You can tell that because
it assumes that every user is researching their own family.
For people with pedigree animals, perhaps, but I doubt any of the
moggies I have ever had cared who their parents were.
Is it me or is Ancestry.com becoming more and more a gimmiky commercial >enterprise rather that a serious research site?
What with "2 stage log-ins through Google", "back stories", "My
family stories", "Pet's DNA" It used to be a decent research site.
It still is I suppose, if you you can get through the tangled web it
has weaved.
Or of course perhaps it's just me, a grumpy old man sounding off.
p.s. I hope the hyphen is in the right place!! Re. previous remarks
Could you tell us more about the utility?
On 08/12/2023 16:14, Peter Johnson wrote:
It's never been a 'serious research site.' You can tell that because
it assumes that every user is researching their own family.
I researched some friends' family and did not have any problem doing so.
I have looked at others as well.
It is my impression that Findmypast is oriented toward Britain and Europle. That's because you're using the .co.uk version
Would a person whose family is mainly in Pennsylvania and Northern
Indiana see any benifit for Findmypast?
On 08/12/2023 18:11, knuttle wrote:
Ancestry know that and have done nothing to make it easy for a person >>seriously working on their ancestry, otherwise they would have a
system to better filter the DNA matches.
Don't most people download their DNA data and upload to sites like
GEDMatch. I don't think other DNA site allow that.
On 08/12/2023 15:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <ukuv4r$1nkf0$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Dec 2023
06:36:58, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> writes
As you say, my Ancestry subscription is become less and lessI've let mine lapse until they have a good offer: last renewal would
valuable, and is quick reaching the point where it is more bother
that good.
have been more than twice what I paid last year, so they can stuff
that! I much prefer FindMyPast's search anyway, with the on-screen
hit counter making it very easy to adjust what you're specifying.
I switched my account subscription from Ancestry UK to Ancestry DE.
Their International Deluxe is currently 59€ for six months. There is
no problem logging in to the UK website and using that.
I wouldn't be surprised if they get more signing up for a DNA test and
to find out their "ethnicity" than to do serious genealogy research.
For several years now, I've got a large number of DNA hits where there
is no or only a minimal tree so impossible in most cases to work out a >connection, possibly due to past Christmas gift promotions?
After the England/Wales 1921 census are there any major databases to
add which would attract researchers? I doubt many "millennials" will be >interested (and their parents/grandparents will possibly already have
done significant research?) It is mainly filling gaps so they will have
to invent "gimmicks" to keep the money flowing in.
On 08/12/2023 10:15, Colin Bignell wrote:
I have always ignored their story lines, but I think that pet DNA has
to be the silliest idea yet.
I can see there could be a market for pet DNA testing but it will >(hopefully!) be completely separate from the normal human DNA service.
There is always going to be a bias towards the USA because of the size
of the customer base.
Out of interest, is it possible to upload the media as well as the GED
file from Ancestry to FMP? I have it all downloaded onto RootsMagic if
it can be done that way.
BTW Just in case anyone doesn't know, there is a very old but very
useful piece of software called Simple Family Tree which I have used
for many years. As I say it is simple but so useful for quick
references, it is still available at >https://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=922
Geoff
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 10:03:04 -0000 (UTC), "Geoff"
<onlyme101@btinternet.com> wrote:
Is it me or is Ancestry.com becoming more and more a gimmiky commercial >>enterprise rather that a serious research site?
It's never been a 'serious research site.' You can tell that because
it assumes that every user is researching their own family.
And you can tell that its focus is the US market by the way that it >incorporates US place names in the database of UK placenames, despite
knowing that UK users are not in the US.
Having said that, I have got used to its search quirks over the years
and can get more out of it now than used to be the case.
I don't like the way that FMP works although I do make use of it >occasionally, for things not on Ancestry.
In message <ukvhpi$1qfel$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Dec 2023
16:55:14, Geoff <onlyme101@btinternet.com> writes []
Out of interest, is it possible to upload the media as well as the
GED file from Ancestry to FMP? I have it all downloaded onto
RootsMagic if it can be done that way.
Harrumph. If you mean what I think you mean, it isn't possible to
upload anything other than the GED file even from Ancestry to
Ancestry. I keep my master data out of Ancestry's clutches, uploading
a GEDCOM occasionally; they turn that into one of their trees, and
things (media, links to records) get attached to it. But they have no
way of transferring such foliage from one tree to an updated one.
(They even suggested I do it manually; for even my relatively small
tree of only a few thousand people, no thanks!)
BTW Just in case anyone doesn't know, there is a very old but very
useful piece of software called Simple Family Tree which I have used
for many years. As I say it is simple but so useful for quick
references, it is still available at https://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=922
Geoff
What is it, a GEDCOM editor/viewer?
Yes, I suspect a lot are _either_ people who got it as a present and did
it (and sometimes a token amount of research) in order to not hurt the feelings of the giver, _or_ (mostly USians) people who did it for the "ethnicity estimate". (Pretty useless: mine's "47% England &
Northwestern Europe, 22% Scotland, 21% Wales, 9% Ireland, 1% Sweden & Denmark" - yet of my 32 G3GP, only one is Wales and one is Scotland,
rest all England.)
Judging by the instructions on GEDMAtch, quite a few of the sites that
do testing let you download their data and then upload it to GEDMatch. I think some of the testing sites let you upload DNA data from other sites
to them, too. I know Ancestry do not allow that. (And have more people
who have tested with them than all the others put together.)
I guess it's familiarity; I don't like the way Ancestry works, although
I have used it, for things not on FMP.
And, one gets the impression, greater interest in ethnic origin.
On 09/12/2023 22:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Yes, I suspect a lot are _either_ people who got it as a present and
did it (and sometimes a token amount of research) in order to not
hurt the feelings of the giver, _or_ (mostly USians) people who did
it for the "ethnicity estimate". (Pretty useless: mine's "47% England
& Northwestern Europe, 22% Scotland, 21% Wales, 9% Ireland, 1% Sweden
& Denmark" - yet of my 32 G3GP, only one is Wales and one is
Scotland, rest all England.)
I think the UK is particularly difficult for them. There seems to be a
lot of genetic overlap between Wales, North of England, Ireland and
parts of Scotland.
On 09/12/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
And, one gets the impression, greater interest in ethnic origin.
There are many who only have a darker skin to indicate some unknown
ancestry. It does seem easier to differentiate different areas than it
is to separate some of the British regions.
In message <ul4rep$2o5gt$4@dont-email.me> at Sun, 10 Dec 2023 17:10:48,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
On 09/12/2023 22:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Yes, I suspect a lot are _either_ people who got it as a present and
did it (and sometimes a token amount of research) in order to not
hurt the feelings of the giver, _or_ (mostly USians) people who did
it for the "ethnicity estimate". (Pretty useless: mine's "47%
England &Â Northwestern Europe, 22% Scotland, 21% Wales, 9% Ireland,
1% Sweden &Â Denmark" - yet of my 32 G3GP, only one is Wales and one
is Scotland, rest all England.)
I think the UK is particularly difficult for them. There seems to be
a lot of genetic overlap between Wales, North of England, Ireland and
parts of Scotland.
That would match what they report for me. My _actual_ ancestry (that I
know of) is Northumberland, Norfolk, and midlands, including a couple of hamlets straddling the Welsh border.
On 10/12/2023 19:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <ul4rep$2o5gt$4@dont-email.me> at Sun, 10 Dec 2023
17:10:48, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
I think the UK is particularly difficult for them. There seems toThat would match what they report for me. My _actual_ ancestry (that
be a lot of genetic overlap between Wales, North of England, Ireland
and parts of Scotland.
I know of) is Northumberland, Norfolk, and midlands, including a
couple of hamlets straddling the Welsh border.
I reckon my tiny bit of Scandinavian DNA may be due to the Danelaw and
King's Lynn, where my maternal ancestors lived for centuries, being a
Hansa port.
On 09/12/2023 22:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Yes, I suspect a lot are _either_ people who got it as a present and
did it (and sometimes a token amount of research) in order to not hurt
the feelings of the giver, _or_ (mostly USians) people who did it for
the "ethnicity estimate". (Pretty useless: mine's "47% England &
Northwestern Europe, 22% Scotland, 21% Wales, 9% Ireland, 1% Sweden &
Denmark" - yet of my 32 G3GP, only one is Wales and one is Scotland,
rest all England.)
I think the UK is particularly difficult for them. There seems to be a
lot of genetic overlap between Wales, North of England, Ireland and
parts of Scotland.
In message <AR6dnUsYG6uBzev4nZ2dnZeNn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> at Sun, 10
Dec 2023 23:58:59, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> writes
On 10/12/2023 19:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <ul4rep$2o5gt$4@dont-email.me> at Sun, 10 Dec 2023
17:10:48, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
I think the UK is particularly difficult for them. There seems to That would match what they report for me. My _actual_ ancestry (that
be a lot of genetic overlap between Wales, North of England,
Ireland and parts of Scotland.
IÂ know of) is Northumberland, Norfolk, and midlands, including a
couple of hamlets straddling the Welsh border.
I reckon my tiny bit of Scandinavian DNA may be due to the Danelaw and
King's Lynn, where my maternal ancestors lived for centuries, being a
Hansa port.
Basically, if you go back far enough, populations moved around: it'd be
good to know roughly _when_ the percentages Ancestry give us are
supposed to be. 2000 years ago? 5000?
It'd be (moderately) interesting to know how many people _don't_ have
any, say, "Scandinavian" DNA.
That would match what they report for me. My _actual_ ancestry (that I
know of) is Northumberland, Norfolk, and midlands, including a couple of hamlets straddling the Welsh border.
Basically, if you go back far enough, populations moved around: it'd be
good to know roughly _when_ the percentages Ancestry give us are
supposed to be. 2000 years ago? 5000?
It'd be (moderately) interesting to know how many people _don't_ have
any, say, "Scandinavian" DNA
I think when is a question that cannot be answered by DNA. It needs traditional research.
On 11/12/2023 09:57, Colin Bignell wrote:
I think when is a question that cannot be answered by DNA. It needs
traditional research.
But often there is no paper trail so DNA is the only way.
One of my GG Grandmothers is probably Irish from her name. Her father
died before the 1841 Census and had a very common forename and a very
common Irish surname. The chances of finding any record of him are
minimal but some Irish ancestry has been linked to a particular area or village through DNA.
Another GG Grandmother is also almost certainly Irish and I think I know where from but probably need a DNA match to someone to confirm.
I wouldn't expect that level of precision from a commercial DNA test. It would need a very large number of samples from people with a long
background of living in the area, which the commercial companies usually don't have.
Ancestry can tell me that my DNA shows links to East of England, but not
that they are to North Norfolk, let alone which towns or villages my ancestors came from.
The problem is that DNA gets passed in chunks, not a nice even division
of 50% of everything each of your parents had in their DNA. This means
that even siblings might have different ethnicity estimates, depending
upon which chunks they got.
On 11/12/2023 16:02, Colin Bignell wrote:
I wouldn't expect that level of precision from a commercial DNA test.
It would need a very large number of samples from people with a long
background of living in the area, which the commercial companies
usually don't have.
Ancestry can tell me that my DNA shows links to East of England, but
not that they are to North Norfolk, let alone which towns or villages
my ancestors came from.
The problem is that DNA gets passed in chunks, not a nice even
division of 50% of everything each of your parents had in their DNA.
This means that even siblings might have different ethnicity
estimates, depending upon which chunks they got.
Might have hoped with the amount of interest in Irish ancestry from
Americans that might have built up a lot of data.
One of the TV DNA programmes did manage to identify a village in Ireland
and family of someone but I think they did some DNA testing of people in
the area.
There oddities as was found when a well known Scottish 'historian' from
the Scottish Borders who in a TV series based around DNA was surprised
to find his ancestry was East Anglia (if I remember correctly).
On 11/12/2023 16:02, Colin Bignell wrote:
I wouldn't expect that level of precision from a commercial DNA
test. It would need a very large number of samples from people with
a long background of living in the area, which the commercial
companies usually don't have.
Ancestry can tell me that my DNA shows links to East of England,
but not that they are to North Norfolk, let alone which towns or
villages my ancestors came from.
The problem is that DNA gets passed in chunks, not a nice even
division of 50% of everything each of your parents had in their
DNA. This means that even siblings might have different ethnicity
estimates, depending upon which chunks they got.
Might have hoped with the amount of interest in Irish ancestry from
Americans that might have built up a lot of data.
One of the TV DNA programmes did manage to identify a village in
Ireland and family of someone but I think they did some DNA testing
of people in the area.
There was a major diaspora from Norfolk to Northumberland and Durham
when mining really got going (sort of late 19th century) - I think the
mining companies may even have run special trains. Not sure it went as
far as Borders, though. I know some of my family (Neave and other names)
got caught up in it.
In message <ul6ptj$34m73$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:56:51,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
[]
There oddities as was found when a well known Scottish 'historian'There was a major diaspora from Norfolk to Northumberland and Durham
from the Scottish Borders who in a TV series based around DNA was
surprised to find his ancestry was East Anglia (if I remember correctly).
when mining really got going (sort of late 19th century) - I think the
mining companies may even have run special trains. Not sure it went as
far as Borders, though. I know some of my family (Neave and other names)
got caught up in it.
On 08/12/2023 15:42, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <ukuv4r$1nkf0$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 8 Dec 2023 06:36:58,
knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> writes
[]
After the England/Wales 1921 census are there any major databases to add which would attract researchers? I doubt many "millennials" will be interested (and their parents/grandparents will possibly already have
done significant research?) It is mainly filling gaps so they will have
to invent "gimmicks" to keep the money flowing in.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 83:38:49 |
| Calls: | 6,696 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,229 |
| Messages: | 5,347,955 |