OneGuyFromBarlick

Gloria wrote: ↑02 Mar 2025, 08:49

Whyperion wrote: ↑01 Mar 2025, 13:09 I think for my area / family there is a lot of mis transcribed (or missing) names and searches come up strange

I think that is the same for a lot of names, especially ones which are a bit different and not heard regularly.

It seems to be working ok for one of mums family's names
800 results which seem about right, 50 at a time. Pasted as HTML which wasnt too bad into open office. 16 pages. I chain numbered the entries, sorted by resisdence and date of birth , added a few empty rows and got most of the families into the reasonable expected names (having the 1939 register and elector lists helps) just have to do detail look at jobs, addresses , which is going to be tedious. I doubt I will get the other surnames though as the uncommon one gets muddled with a more common spelling.

That sounds overly complicated! Is there no way that you can filter the results?

Not easily (and to some extent all 800 names are related to mum)
One would have thought Ancestry would at least sort the index location then by age
It puts into one field "other (christian) names" on the same return, which is both useful. and annoying at the same time

Oh I have done it again, its now found 830 names ( goodness knows how I will work out the 30 extra ) Its only listing 800 is that the display limit for people without an account ? If so I would probably have to split male / female

. .
I received my DNA Results this week from Ancestry.
I’ll keep checking them every few months because we have Grandparents (GGG / GGGG / GGGGG) going back to 1779 , and probably even further back, all born in Cornwall.
Anyway there we are, I’m a 78% Yorkshire Lass.