06 March 2014

Some Thoughts on the Demise of Old Search at Ancestry.com

If you've no interest in Ancestry.com, just bypass this post.

I posted this to my personal Facebook page, but thought I'd post it here as well. Warning: there is a swear word in this post. 



This will sound odd coming from me, but that's ok. Keeping people guessing is a good thing.

I'm not happy with "new search" either. I liked "old search."

That said, I'm not going moan about the changes any more. While I think from a standpoint of standard research methodolgy, the vague nature of some search terms is problematic...I'm just going to work around it. Hell, it may even be fodder for blog posts. 

I've got too many problem people to write up, too many articles to write, too many records to transcribe, and too many 18th and 17th century laws to figure out to devote any more time to what search Ancestry.com has decided in their non-infinite wisdom to use. Yeah, I used that word. No one has infinite wisdom. If they did, they'd fix the weather, cure cancer, and create world peace. They sure as hell wouldn't waste their infinite wisdom on Ancestry.com's search. At least I hope not.

One wise sage, in response to an issue of much greater concern than Ancestry.com search said to me in response to that matter, "what is, is." If the wise old sage can make that remark about that situation, I can make that remark about Ancestry.com. 

And as I mentioned in response to Bill West's post "genealogy existed before Ancestry.com and genealogy will exist after Ancestry.com. Sort of like groceries are still around even though A and P has come and gone."

And if you don't know what the A and P is....well, that just proves my point.

Moving on. Clark Sargent and Mary Dingman are dead, but they wait for no one.

Post a Comment