Blog
15 Aug 2011Improving the way we organise historical records
Hello – my name is Ian Tester, and I’m findmypast’s product manager. I wanted to let you know about a fundamental change we’re about to make to the way findmypast.co.uk is organised, which should make it a lot easier for you to find and search the millions of new records we’re adding to the site every month.
Findmypast has grown an awful lot since we last designed the way the records are organised. We’ve added millions of records that don’t fit into the main categories of births, marriages and deaths/census/military/migration/living relatives and, at the moment, they are often either being wedged into a section where they don’t really fit, or being put into specialist records.
This doesn’t make it easy for you to discover and use some of the fantastic historical records that are regularly being provided by our record partners. You’ve probably also noticed that we’ve significantly upped the rate at which we put new records online – and the number of records we are adding each year is increasing all the time.
Ian Tester, findmypast
So the site is already beginning to burst at the seams and there are lots of very exciting new collections on the way that deserve new sections to accommodate them. We’ve spent several months working with our members to find a set of categories that will allow us to make room for the new records and make better sense of the records that are already online. Many thanks to the hundreds of you who have taken the time to complete surveys and participate in research sessions to help get us to this point!
The result of all this hard work is that in the next month, you’ll begin to see some changes to the site. The first one is that the main record categories across the blue navigation bar at the top of the site will all come under a single new category: “Search records”. Within this category, you’ll be able to choose from a range of sub-categories of records, just as you can now. The new sub-categories are very similar to the current ones in many cases, but you’ll notice a few new ones as well.
- Life events (births, marriages and deaths) – this will be very similar to the current BMD section and will continue to contain our millions of parish records
- Census, land & surveys – as well as our best-in-class England & Wales censuses (including our complete 1911 census), this will include fabulous new records, including historical electoral rolls
- Armed forces & conflict – our comprehensive military collections will live here
- Education & work – with fantastic school and merchant marine records on the way, we need a new sub-category. You’ll also find some gems currently buried in the specialist section
- Institutions & organisations – covering workhouses, hospitals and more, you’ll also find some fabulous new court records in future, as well as records that are sprinkled across other sections at the moment
- Travel & migration – is very similar to our current migration section, but has some lovely new international records on the way
- Living relatives & directories – this will give us room to expand the directories that we hold, way beyond the current living relatives directories
These new sections are designed to be as futureproof as possible, so you’ll also notice a few more new sub-categories appear over time as new records come online. A fringe benefit of creating more space on the blue navigation bar at the top of the site is that we’re making room for some very exciting new tools, including what we hope will be one of the best “saved records” tools available.
Obviously it’s hard to imagine these changes before they go live, but let us know if you have any thoughts on this approach.
We’re very excited to be making such a large-scale improvement, especially as it has taken lots of time to test and refine the new sub-categories so that they make sense to our members. Keep your eyes peeled for other improvements in the coming months – there’s a pile of exciting new features in the pipeline, as well an awful lot of exciting new records…
This sounds much better organized and will save a lot of time trawling through to find the bit you need, I look forward to the ‘new site’.
I agree, have enjoyed using the old site, but there is always room for improvement.
Sounds like an exciting development!!
Looking forward to it!
Over the years I have used most of the well known sites for searching historical records. In my opinion Find my past is one of, if not the best. If it ain’t broken don’t fix is my motto!
This sounds great
I would like to see more divorce records on line especially 1900s to the 1980s or when records began
Terry
You can search for divorce on the National Archives website
You cannot see the papers without going but this is useful
Census searches have always worked well though I am never quite sure about how good it is at finding Birth Place, Place of Residence without the “Include variants” box. I presume wildcards are recognised and it will match to any part of the location name.
The big weakness is the search of parish records. A common name will bring a large number of matches even when restricted to one county. I would like to be able to search on one town or even one church – one of the most powerful features of the IGI on the LDS site was being able to search on single church by using Batch Numbers.
One annoyance is that FindMyPast now has a separate Irish site and of course ScotlandsPeople is separate even though the same company. Most of us have Irish connections and many will have Scottish ones but do not want to take out completely separate subscriptions. I know PayPerView can be used of course but one beauty of a FMP subscription is not having to worry about cost before opening a record.
I like the Ancestry system of being able to add records direct to a tree not so much for my main tree which is in a program on my computer but as a scratchpad when exploring some new names which can often be quickly found using their Hints.
MB
@Martin: we have a few things in the pipeline over the coming year that I think you will like! Unfortunately with ScotlandsPeople, although we operate the site, we do so on behalf of GROS who own the records (on behalf of the Scottish government), so unfortunately can’t use their records in our other sites at the present time…
I can understand the contractual problems with ScotlandsPeople though they might gain from getting more people to search their records also if they were integrated partially.
MB
I’ve been with FMP virtually since they began and the site has gradually improved in many ways to become more comprehensive and easy to negotiate. I’m seriously considering unsubscribing from the other family history site I use as FMP now seems to cover most of what I require and is more accurate.
I look forward to these improvements and no doubt lots more in the future.
Many thanks for your post re changes to FMP soon!
May I ask if you can incorporate all column headings can be clicked upon to re-order the results? When I search, i get results but cannot always use any one of the column headings to re-order – some are available while others are not – can you do this in future please?
Thank you!
Quite radical but innovative.
I suspect that some of the more traditional researchers,of which I am sure there are many, may not want the change.
I am note sure if “living relatives & directories” go together.
How many street directories are actually produced now.
Very few if any.
Looking forward to the new records – in particular the Welsh ones!
Is it possible for you to make it possible to search by first name only? It would make it much easier to find family where there are transcriptions errors and you can’t even guess what the surname has been transcribed as instead of what it should be!
Thanks
I’m with Sue. A search by first name would be extremely helpful.
Seconded, I have often found people by doing a first name search on Ancestry. Either because of mistranscription of an ambiguously surname or the dreaded “Dittoes” where the enumerator has just put “Ditto” down the entire household.
In difficult cases I have searched by place of birth and age, place of birth and residence i.e. lots of permutations that did not include the surname.
MB
I never fail to be disappointed with the search facility in FMP so I stick to the other large provider for my annual subscription.
But this post promises intriguing developments. Here’s hoping for improved search especially with the Welsh registers on the way.
Actually, I find FMP’s search facility a lot better than the other large provider. I’m in Jersey, and FMP deals with local surnames (many of them split like Le Cornu or De La Haye) far better.
Are the knowledge base pages also being updated? At the moment they are very difficult to use especially with regard to finding out what data is available within the parish record section.
Thanks for the great news, I 2 wwould like the first name option. Also important is to be able to sort a found set on various fields within that found set – eg: firstname lastname location date fathersname mothersname
Looking foward to integration so those of us with Aust, NZ, IE and UK need only look at one site….
Thanks again
Michelle aka patientgenie
@all: thanks for your suggestions and feedback – you’ll be glad to know that we are looking at most of these in some form at the moment, especially around the power-searching and sortable results. We’re also just starting a project to revamp the Help & Advice / knowledge base section – it too has been subject to some bloat over the recent years and is due a spruce-up. We have a couple of hundred members already helping to suggest new ways to organise this.
Pingback: Findmypast to improve historical records organisation | Family Tree Guide
I like the new site but can you reinstate the ability to go quickly from searching one census to another. This used to be possible by clicking choosing the required date from the census page. Now we have to go via census & land, then a drop down to choose censuses and the choose the date. It just makes it a more cumbersome process – or am I missing something?
I agree with Pat (dated Aug.26) It is really a nuisance to go to one census, then after you have found the information, having to click back to census at the top, then click on the next census you need/
There mus be a simpler way to do it.
hello,when i logged on to the site i was quite surprised to see the changes,which i was unaware of.at first i thought that it was a scam site set up by someone in order to get hold of e-mail addresses,but i started to look further,and i now think that the changes will be very good for the site.i will be looking forward to any other improvements tht will be made in the near future.anything that will help us research our ancestors will be very much appreciated.
hello,when i logged on to the site i was quite surprised to see the changes,which i was unaware of.at first i thought that it was a scam site set up by someone in order to get hold of e-mail addresses,but i started to look further,and i now think that the changes will be very good for the site.i will be looking forward to any other improvements that will be made in the near future.anything that will help us research our ancestors will be very much appreciated.
Dont like the new setup.
As someone who struggles to see the small print, having to locate the small printed links instead of the nice big blue labels is causing me grief. then once you have opened it, you have to scrool down to get to it. PLEASE go back to the old layout
The census search is a backward step. Need to go back to the start page to search different censuses.
Corrections to Census records
When I was frequently checking census records, I found many mis-transcriptions, and probably infuriated your moderators with notifications.
Someone who has an interest in an address, or name will spot something that is wrong – sometimes something that is wrong only when viewed across a couple of censuses – that would avoid others not finding records that they are looking for.
In any record keeping system, the indexing is the key.
Can you use ‘shadow indexing’ where if you are told that something is inherently wrong – e.g. where a family lives at the same place across three censuses, but the surname LOOKS different in the middle one, despite the individuals being consistent – an ADDITIONAL INDEX record can be added pointing to the original source, as well as keeping the index record based on what is clearly wrong.
If you had the ability to ADD index records, I would no longer get a response like
“The online transcription is designed to be an exact match of the original census form. If they have entered shortened names, or have registered perhaps an incorrect age, we will not change these as the site endeavours to reflect the data captured on the original census form. This means that whatever details are shown on the original will be those shown online. ”
and people who were searching for what the USER knows to be right would not fail to find the original record because you want to preserve ONLY what looks as though it might have been right to your transcribers.
The power of a database is in the indexing. If you can’t add additional index records back to the same original detail, your structure will still be wrong.
Like Derek Biddle I am sometimes frustrated by the response when I send corrections. His point is well argued.
Why is it that some Census transcriptions are so lacking in detail? For example the 1871 Census seldom includes much of what is clearly visible in the original record.
I agree with Derek regading the ADDITIONAL INDEX. That really is a great idea.
I accept that FMP has made the decision to transcribe the census records as they appear in the originals. However, this really restricts FMP members from helping each other by providing valid corrections to mistakes made by enumerators when the census records were originally completed.
I have an obsession with a 1-1 relationship between a name in the census and an index for that name. The other major site allows multiple indexes per single name which sometimes is confusing.
By following up on Derek’s suggestion, FMP can keep the 1-1 index intact (correcting this index where valid corrections are provided) but have a separate “alternate” member suggested entry in a subsidiary index so that members can be directed to suggested alternatives from other members.
I am doing a one name study so ultimately should be able to find a 1-1 relationship between a GRO birth index and a census record, unless of course the birth wasn’t registered or the person was not enumerated on a particular census. I would also be able to cross reference pre 1837 parish birth records with census entries from 1841 onwards.
I agree that an “Alternative” name etc be available, so often have I eventually found a miss-spelling of, for instance a surname, but the “Variants” does not pick it up. In some cases it is only one or two letters that are different ie Kelsby instead of Helsby does not appear.
It would be very helpful to be able to find “suggested” entries.
Keep up the good work.
Yes, no more pompous mails about showing the Census transcription exactly as written, and no mention that the name could possibly be something different which is a great help on Ancestry.
I live in Guernsey and I have problems with your indexes for census as we have French names and the people who have indexed the the records have no idea about the spellings of our names or have had problems reading the hand writing, so this makes it very difficult for us to find our ancestors. I have offered to do this for you but have not had a response.
How is it that some people obviously received this newsletter on 15 August i.e. before the changes were made whereas others including me did not receive it until yesterday giving them no opportunity to comment before the changes were implemented?
Although at first I found the new format cumbersome, I soon got used to it and whilst I don’t think it’s an improvement from a user’s point of view if it enables more data to be made available it’s all to the good.
overall the site very good what i find is annoying is the transcriber use
” /?-_! when unsure sure you can delete the signs when in front street names, district and names could one get the variants filter to ignore them
thanks jim s
How about a move to include BTs prior to 1841 census with closer links to LDS ? .Checking census records is easy . What is irritating is trying to go beyond these established records .
Hi. I was rather surprised to see the new layout without warning. I have Ancestry also and when they altered their layout they warned us. Also whilst being done we could go back to the old familiar layout for a while.
I have both FMP and ANCESTRY and have grown to prefer FMP, mostly because it was quick and easy and ANCESTRY just bugs me sometimes.
I was a lawyer so pure logic is my thing.
However now no choice so will carry on and see how it goes.
BUT the Jury is out.
Why we were not all told about the proposed changes in advance? It would have been helpful
What’s all the fuss? When I started (with a quill pen, of course), I had to go to London and struggle with the mighty tomes, nowhere to put coats etc, and fighting for space on the desks. Your website is easily the best and easiest to use and contains so many useful records. Only one real grouse, that my sub. does not include the Scottish records, as I also find pay-as-you-go limiting and frustrating.
I much preferred the old format … access to and movement between census records is still too long-winded.
My main complaint concerns printer-friendly versions of census returns … the layout is awkward and the typeface too large, making the address details take up too much space, pushing the personal details too far down the page. This means large households can take up two sheets of paper instead of one, so making comparisons awkward, increasing paper consumption and wasting filing space.
Can we go back to the original type size, please?
I agree with the Print friendly option.
I also find the typeface too big and have found as you menctioned that where i have large families they now take two sheets instead of one,which i also find annoying to read when name are spread over two sheets or one double sided,a lot easier when all family one one sheet.
My option is also that it make the print offs look very amateur.look like something a 5 year old would do in word and print off,not very professional looking like the one typeface and print offs
Please go back to the original style typeface and printoffs.
I wholeheartedly agree that the new print-off is completely unnecessary, and like others am fed up with having to waste paper and time. No need to have changed it all, except perhaps printing the year and word Census larger – it is almost apologising for being there.
Am I missing something on search? I either have to search the entire set of records and scroll down an increasingly longer list of essentially Nil or obviously mismatched hits against each dataset or I search on a particular dataset.
It would be nice to see a halfway house, where you could either select and search on a main category.
At the moment the ancestry search facility appears still to be far superior at drilling down through the datasets.
I agree with Pat,Bev and John.The census search is now very frustrating.
Trying to get anywhere apart from the Home Page is just not working. I have tried several different ways but to no avail. Bring back the old site
Ancestry have transcribed the Scottish census records although they do not have access to the originals. Do you have any plans to do the same? Currently this is the main reason why I remain with Ancestry and have not moved to your site.
Cannot seem to get anywhere from the home page, bring back the old site
Agree with above comments about Scottish records, heavy transcription would be a real boon.
And I have the same problem as others with the printer “friendly” page it now comes out in a serif typeface (Times?) at font size 12, whereas before it used be non-serif (Arial?) at font size 10. In order to retain continuity I now have to copy and paste into Word and then change font and size there – which is a pain.
Can we have the old way back please?
I would like to see a box to hold records which you are not sure about until you can confirm you want them.
I also support better transfer between sections or even between them. It would be nice to be able to put the details in and then check all records using the same information instead of having to re enter it each time.
David
I find it necessary to use Ancestry and TheGenealogist as well as FMP and Scotlandspeople. Each has good and bad points. Scotlandspeople needs far more flexibility of search options, but its wildcard facility is the best by miles. Ancestry’s hints are really useful (unlike Genes Reunited’s so-called matches that are far too loose).
I have far more success with TheGenealogist’s address search than Findmypast’s, which doesn’t cope well with farm names and isolated houses. For a precise search with several known terms FMP is the best, but not if the search terms vary slightly.
Ancestry’s fuzzy searching picks up when people have not entered both the county and town for birthplace in censuses, or when they used a farm name instead of the RD or parish. Rural ancestors are rarely consistent about ‘Where born’ in censuses. They may name a farm, parish, town and Registration District in different censuses, but Ancestry finds them anyway. FMP doesn’t. I have to leave most search fields blank to get results from FMP, and then work through an unnecessarily long list of results. It only finds if the enumerator used exactly the same terms as me. I’d like to be able to specify which fields should have priority in searches.
I too began when you had to go to London (270 miles for me) for each certificate and wait, then make another trip so I do appreciate online records, but they could be so much better.
Like others, as a long-standing subscriber I was miffed to find the site had changed before I was notified. I use all the four sites mentioned by Rosi above, but mainly Ancestry (worldwide subscription) followed by FMP (full subscription). I dislike all changes, because as fast as I work out the quirks of a particular site the site changes on me and I have to work out everything all over again. IMO you should focus on adding new datasets rather than changing what everyone has become used to. IMO Ancestry kills FMP nearly every time, mainly because of its ability to search multiple datasets at one go. For example, all of the censuses 1841-1901. Furthermore Ancestry shows both place of birth and place of residence, whereas FMP persists with this ‘Registration District’ nonsense. One point I do like on FMP is the ability to browse the original GRO BDM indexes page-by-page, but I dislike the way you have hidden this away; it took me some time to find it again. IMO this needs to be reinstated as an option immediately you go to the ‘Life Events’ page. I dislike the way you you have condensed all the seaches into one ‘Search Records’ tab, because this is just one more unnecessary ‘click.’
Finally I make a further complaint about your ‘Unhelp Desk.’ On a small number of occasions I have been unable to download a particular image in a set – for example a particular page of a Passenger List. On contacting the Help Desk I was told that they could download it, therefore I had a problem with my computer, and they refused to send me the page in question by e-mail. This is very poor service indeed. I am the customer, with a paid-up full subscription. If I say that I cannot download a particular image, when I can download all the others in the set, then I deserve better treatment than what I have experienced. Being in Australia e-mail contact is all I can make, so, FMP, please lift your game in this respect.
This sounds very exciting and look forward to trying it out and to see how it developes.
Perhaps I have missed this but will be wonderful when you have been able to add Parish records for all Warwickshire and Shropshire…
Your census records are definitely the most accurate!!
Thanks!!
I agree – what is it with Warwickshire records? Is someone sitting on them for some reason? Why are they not more widely available? Birmingham in the 1800s and 1900s is a place growing by the moment as people are arriving from all over and the little villages are becoming amassed within the Birmingam area, yet these are so difficult to find online. THis is a glaring gap in the record base, please please can we have these records soon?
Looking forward to using the new layout and new records!
It has been uplifting to find so many comments exactly reflecting my own frustrations using FMP and to know I’m not the only one! When using the Search all Records facility on Friday morning it worked fine, but in the evening there was an obvious glitch when it kept inserting the Date of Birth automatically into the Date of Death box too, resulting in zero hits. Haven’t looked since to see if has been fixed. I also have a sub. to the Genealogist purely because of incomplete or poor transcriptions on FMP. As up until now I much preferred the printed versions and save original record, from FMP I’ve ended up using the correct data from the Genealogist then going back to FMP and doing very convoluted address/other people above or below my family searches to arrive at the family I wanted all along. Then I tell FMP of the amendment needed and they refuse it! However, most importantly, can I echo Colin, Carole and Paul and say – Please go back to the original style typeface and printoffs. The new style is awful and will blight my folders – I even tried just printing off the census page as it comes but that doesn’t look right either.
Like others I didn’t hear about the changes until after they occurred. I went onto the site and thought it was ready to crash, strange unreadable text at top of page, etc. Also like others I now find the census searches very clumsy. Please rethink this aspect of thr new site. As for the rest I will wait and see!
The changes released to date make searching much easier wth the drop down lists.
The change to the printing is not so welcome. Previously I could usually get the residents at an address on one side of A4, now it takes much more. If there is a way to reduce the font size and hence the paper required I would love to know.
When I access the Homepage I get a great big ‘Bad Request’ being displayed at top of page. When I navigate further I get
Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie: OAID=30c57de54dd58c195a4b584a5b523e06; OXPT=WxAAAB4SBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgUAACEAIAAAAQAAAAAQUBIAAPgFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6BwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwgEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP0EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACLBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMcHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACJBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVwUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFYFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABVBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEwFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABKBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEYFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABEBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQwUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEIFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADwFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0BQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANIHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC2BwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAzAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4EAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6AIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9AwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAggUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADWBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5wIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFwGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACpBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAywgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADEFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtCQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5gQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD8BQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWwgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALQGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADPBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABRBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALgUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADcFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAvBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANgUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEsFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABHBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALQUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADUIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACOBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA%2BwcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAyBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2QUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFIFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABNBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4gIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAdIwAA; OXLIA=102135.lp7qh1-8888+f601cb7e3db10b297bfb924e9eb451d1_105613.lq3llg-8886+cd8223d943f6ae99710835dd8d5e73d9_105342.lp7qhz-8886+045f3aa61805aa246e453eb9d9d039b2_102341.lp7qlm-8886+9d9ebc1f13bc40d552bb5f5f87280d4a_103579.lp7qln-8888+610788e00bca98f215bcca9427c2877b_102342.lp7qlz-8886+561e70e0507273ac2deec216c89d2580_101697.lp7qm9-8886+d4465e247296225d991386a23a63959d_101348.lp7qsc-8886+916a11ee71173d2e34f436786eee0d6f_101087.lp7qsk-8873+95ab061c2d2f5c9cb4a2f10b31e46758_101488.lp7qtc-8871+5f4bd6ad26e45842c91c529db5f1e0b9_104586.lp7qto-8888+840b50684f21728a805e5098bd3b71db_103900.lp7qvt-8871+31db05b700899448d7fc371bfe84f1af_102165.lp7qvy-8888+aa6ded46cc59b83662221cb80fa0f648_105642.lp7qwa-8886+81918357bf6b8bf317373fb2041baf4b_105123.lp7qxv-8873+edaaf6fab046604917a796537857b965_102161.lp7qy6-8886+182042c9261c756082fc9867a4cddcf5_101351.lp7sxb-8873+9029f01631641dd8366942c60b69ea8b_102930.lp7sxb-8897+bc830c97d41868878ef71f10cb5c8974_104142.lp7sxg-8873+ce49ae1f02cade73f31186ae8dfc36dc_104145.lp7sxg-8870+85665888acdcd7b56124d375a61effc5_106041.lpvjqd-8874+e58fbf7d087b1f0437d9d6cc0ca349e8_107030.lpvjqd-8875+fb2744ab5031b2827bda35691e0dea2b_106058.lq3ln8-8886+f5f0be88e0999a615dbb83ee5f2bad3d_102927.lq3lm2-8888+b5ca09ac2c345bbdc4f118d7c14ecf5f_106175.lq3lm2-8886+ebdd0f4a40b808e4bb1e2e0892b5c43a_106053.lq3lo7-8886+30beb9b76dc5589d8f0595c6a07c993b_106062.lq3lms-8888+bf4d0b1c909cd5ef80b548a5bebd267c_105993.lq3lnh-8886+bac55c46a3b773f2091efdd807ada9a8_107512.lqcljo-8886+f9e1e23ce30c058d9215f5c8a339e79d_106207.lq3lnu-8888+5507349032e151a460e3b0b98722d4c8_107655.lq3lnv-8871+ac34cba0038861f39cb6850b3d010e15_106601.lqclj3-8886+cc11cf8ff55a0e247fe596b52128a63a_105581.lq3lqm-8886+66d88ce208dc965afdd13910fe20f1a2_102222.lq3lqn-8888+a6de31062889820477c004b9b3397a74_105579.lqcliy-8888+d0211f73c126dc1d30e841a758100a4f_105618.lqclj3-8888+3d6239a5f1a4f4c18bc1599a664a9f2a_105996.lqclkm-8888+fda86d7e5ac58d2dca194af69fcfa57d_108041.lqclq8-8886+3c683c3b12ce0fe8ff529730a4e14c86_104146.lqclqs-8871+4ba78b1fd635792d36f89441a396e9bd; OACCAP=16653.2_8210.1_16799.1_16754.1_16251.1_15933.1_16649.1_16317.1_16742.1_16719.2_16679.2_16198.1_16617.3_16609.1_16589.1_16683.1_16124.1_15734.1_13940.1_16160.1_16423.1_15902.1_16304.1_16433.1_16593.1_16684.2_16194.1_16596.1_16489.1_16497.1_13643.1_16522.1_16492.1_16869.1_16928.1_16764.1_16919.1_16923.1_16899.1_16986.1_16759.1_16757.1_17078.1_17155.1_16587.1_16676.1_16793.1_17053.1_16306.1_17088.1_15797.1_15796.1_16400.1_16646.1_17204.1_17531.1_17532.1_17588.1_17321.1_17398.1_17299.1_17344.1_17689.1_17319.1_17487.1_17148.1_17372.1_16585.1_17865.1_17375.1_17283.1_17345.1_17718.1_17937.1_17373.1_17490.1_17948.1_17852.1_18344.1_18148.1_19503.1_20119.1_20201.1_19897.1_20324.1_20200.1_20153.1_20151.1_20120.1_20162.1_19820.1_20118.1_20232.1_20195.1_20159.1_20164.1_20229.1_20163.1_20364.1_20124.1_20155.1_20199.1_19877.1_20292.1_20073.1_20208.1_20093.1_20112.1_20100.1_20180.1_20283.1_20074.1_20099.1_19328.1_19821.1_19785.1_20217.3_20389.1_20248.1_20328.1_20363.1_20403.1_19875.1_20242.1_19768.1_20458.1_20376.1_20459.1_20156.1_20480.1_19662.1_20559.1_20569.3_20417.1_19312.2_20406.1_20085.1_20077.1_20281.1_20702.1_20643.1_20414.1_20846.1_20923.1_20911.1_20910.1_20773.1_20780.3_19310.4_20909.1_20997.1_20945.1_20980.1_20967.1_20946.1_20965.1_20771.1_20961.1_20993.1_20806.1_20753.2_20850.1_20924.1_209
I have tried deleting my Cookies to no avail
I do not like change to printing, instead of most of family listing being printed on one side which makes storing and referencing easy in now uses larger font which is ugly and goes over to two sides. this is not at all helpful and is in no way an enhancement. Please change it back or offer the choice. This is bad and ugly. Not up to your usual standards
August 10, 2011 You had beettr believe I watched Bachelor Pad! It was so awesomely bad too That stir fry is such an ideal recipe for me- I love anything with shrimp and it’s great that it’s so healthy and simple!
I like the changes you are making with the site, however there are still some census missing that can be found on ther sites, e.g cenusus for 1911. ALso could you explain the wild card senario more plainly, whenever I try the wild card it always comes back saying at least two characters required, even when I have more than two in the box.
many thanks
alex
The font size is terrible. The printing on the screen is small to begin with, then BOOM – the ‘printer friendly version’ is so big – it’s hard on the eyes!! I agree with Anthony Eden above … please change it back!
I use findmypast’s Address Search frequently, and like it very much. However, I still come across silly “brick walls” caused by the inability to do the type of search I need.
Basically, my problem is that I sometimes need to perform a search by name and by place, together. Irrespective of software indexing issues, from a user’s point of view, separating these aspects of a search seems artificial.
Can someone please consider joining the functionality of the Person and Address search? In fact, if they are also placed on extra tabs in a single search page then you can remove the separate ‘Person Search’ and ‘Address Search’ options that use up so much space in the leading page of the census searches (i.e. the one that shows a separate pair of search modes for every single census year).
Tony
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your feedback – it’s always good to hear suggestions from our users! I’ll pass it on to our technical team.
Many thanks,
Jess (findmypast.co.uk editor)
Not aware of the idnniect with Marks. But out of the left-wing candidates he did by far the best. YOu say he did little campaigning so what do you put that down to?
orzDE1 zmmcnjlcmfml