Friday, June 28, 2013

Friday Fears – Ancestry’s “New Search”

It’s been an interesting few days on the APG mailing list.  Ancestry has announced that it will end access to its “old search”.  This means that all users will have to use “new search”.

Before I go any further, for those who don’t follow Ancestry, “new search” has been in place for years, so it’s not really all that new.

What’s been interesting is watching the outrage from professionals on the APG mailing list.  Many of those folks, it seems, have been using the “old search” as it gives them better results than the “new search.”  For the record, I’ve been using the new search for so long that I had forgotten that there was a different way to search.  This may be why I’m having so much trouble understanding the annoyance these professionals have been showing due to Ancestry’s business decision.

What Ancestry has done really isn’t any different than what any software company does.  They come up with a new product, and end support for the old version.  Microsoft does this with operating systems every few years.  Like Microsoft, Ancestry supported the old system for a number of years, but now, likely for business reasons that users are not privy too, must end support for that system.  As a developer myself, I can tell you first hand that it’s no fun trying to support different systems, especially when you know that one is unprofitable or, as Ancestry has stated in regards to “old search”, little used.

To a point, I understand the user’s frustration.  No one likes changing their habits.  However, my personal opinion is that Ancestry gave folks plenty of time to learn the new system before retiring the old.  The most common complaint that I’m seeing is that the new search returns too many results.  Understandable, but these complaints are coming from folks who routinely browse old records on microfiche, often with no help from any sort of search engine.  They should be used to sifting through large amounts of data.

A few weeks ago, on the Transitional Genealogist’s mailing list, there was a discussion about computer algorithms and how they could be used in the future to sift through large amounts of genealogical data.  The general opinion that I saw with that discussion basically boiled down to “a computer could never do what I do.  It will miss results.”  Ancestry’s new search sort of swings the pendulum in the opposite direction.  It doesn’t miss results, because it’s willing to show unrelated results (and often does).  It leaves it up to the user to filter the obvious misses out.

Okay.  So one group says that computers can’t refine data as well as a human.  Another group says that they want the computer to refine the data they look at.  Which group is right?

Both, I’d say.  This, I believe, is one of those impossible tasks of trying to please everyone.  There’s probably a middle ground, but Ancestry hasn’t found it yet.  Keep in mind that Ancestry is also a business.  Their product is crafted for a wide audience.  Maybe they are missing their target demographic, or maybe they know exactly what they are doing based on their own business analysis of years’ worth of “old search”/”new search” data.  Either way, Ancestry changed their method.  It works for some, but not others.  The others will either adapt, or leave Ancestry.  It’s a natural process.  Users can fear it (it is change after all), or try to embrace it.  My hope is that genealogists will adapt.  That is, hopefully, what we do.  If we didn’t, we’d always be looking for the same information in the same places, never learning anything new.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Friday Find – Unknown Siblings

First, I’ll apologize in advance for writing this without my research notes in front of me.  I have documentation, but I won’t be able to cite it here (Bad genealogist!  Go lie down by your reference manuals!).

While researching my great-grandfather, Edmund Batchelder, the other night, I found something that I didn’t expect.  My grandfather had three sisters, not just one.

While growing up, I had only ever heard of and met my great-aunt Helen.  She was the younger sibling of my grandfather, and the only girl.  When her mother passed away, she took on part of the role of raising her younger brother, my great-uncle Ken.  Aunt Helen and Uncle Ken had always been close, living on opposites of the mountain from each other, but visiting frequently.  Family and relations were always a topic of conversation at family reunions and other gatherings.  So why had I never heard of the other two sisters?

Both were stillborn.

While researching Edmund, I naturally looked at census records.  The 1900 and 1910 Federal Census records list the number of children born to mothers.  In Edmund’s case, I noticed that both his first and second wives had more children than I was aware of, and in each case, the unexpected child was not living at the time of the census.

Digging into birth records, I found the reason why.  I found the two girls, both children of Edmund, one born to each mother.  On each birth record, only the surname was listed.  For the child of the first mother, I found a death record, dated the same day as the birth.  The death record noted “stillborn”.  In the second case “stillborn” was noted right on the birth record.

I doubt that Aunt Helen, Uncle Ken and my grandfather ever knew that they had other sisters.

The point of this, and what I reminded myself, is to always pay attention to what the records are telling you, even if it doesn’t match the reality that you’ve come to expect.  In my case, I “knew” that the family had only one girl.  As it turns out, the family really only had one *surviving* girl.  The other two died before even being named.  It also told me something about my great-grandfather.  We were raised to believe that he was completely grief-stricken due to the death of his second wife, which is how my relatives described his behavior in later life.  In truth, losing his second wife was one more loss in a line of losses.  As strange as it sounds, knowing this makes me feel a little closer to a man I’ve never met.