I never print off this stuff. Cut and paste. Actually on Ancestry, best records are
Minnesota followed by Kentucky and North Carolina. I don't do much Northeastern
research so I can't speak for that area.
Indiana's only strong suit is marriages. There are so few counties in the WPA birth
and death records and they are not that carefully done.
-----Original Message-----
From: Antoinette Waughtel Sorensen <waughtel33(a)gmail.com>
To: injeffer <injeffer(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 21, 2013 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [INJEFFER] Old search-still not sure I understand
Yes, I have noticed that, and I do alot of internet research. Indiana use
to have the best records on line. I have noticed recently that more and
more are not available to print off but one has to order to view them - I
have been able to print various records of marriage & death - some birth -
here in Washington state and this has really helped me. My Wilcox family
came to Washington when it was still Washington Territory, early 1880s.
But I always order the actual record, if or when, I find it if not able to
print it off.
Antoinette
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM, <bobwscott(a)aol.com> wrote:
Old Search and New Search is Ancestry. This discussion has primarily
been
about how to get to Old Search on Ancestry. Some how somebody mentioned the
LDS as a side comment.
LDS search on
FamilySearch.org is nowhere near as good as Old Search on
Ancestry but it's a heck of a lot better than New Search on Ancestry. It's
not as easy to use and I think it has a tendency to have strange returns on
queries.
Earlier, I said that the LDS transcriptions, at least when it comes to
Indiana marriages, are no where near as good as Ancestry's although they
have a lot more records in that area (but not in others.)
-----Original Message-----
From: Antoinette Waughtel Sorensen <waughtel33(a)gmail.com>
To: injeffer <injeffer(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 21, 2013 2:39 pm
Subject: Re: [INJEFFER] Old search-still not sure I understand
Are you people talking about Ancestry or Family Search?
Antoinette (Tacoma, Washington)
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM, <bugszie(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> I agree, they don't make it easy. I even called them, and they acted
like
> they did not know what I was talking about.
>
> The new search is a failure as far as I am concerned, and I think that
LDS
> is doing a poor job of listening to their researchers.
>
> They give you too much information in a disorganized manner. They should
> be listening to the people who do the majority of the searches.
>
> M
>
>
> Marlene D. Seaton
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bobwscott <bobwscott(a)aol.com>
> To: injeffer <injeffer(a)rootsweb.com>; kanichi <kanichi(a)theriver.com>
> Sent: Thu, Feb 21, 2013 12:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [INJEFFER] Old search-still not sure I understand
>
>
> It basically toggles. If you are in Old Search The link will say "Go to
New
> Search" I f you are in New Search it will say "Go to Old Search"
>
> You have to be in the "Search All Records Screen"
>
> Believe me, when it first would switch back on me I would spend minutes
> trying
> to find the link before i finally made myself memorize where it is. They
> don't
> make it easy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bugszie <bugszie(a)aol.com>
> To: kanichi <kanichi(a)theriver.com>; injeffer <injeffer(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, Feb 21, 2013 1:53 pm
> Subject: Re: [INJEFFER] Old search-still not sure I understand
>
>
>
> Sorry, that new search link is up in the upper right hand corner under
the
> tabs.
>
> Iit is highlighted and underlined.
>
>
>
> Marlene D. Seaton
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linda Jenkins-Wensel <kanichi(a)theriver.com>
> To: injeffer <injeffer(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thu, Feb 21, 2013 11:39 am
> Subject: [INJEFFER] Old search-still not sure I understand
>
>
>
> Could you explain how to get old search once again, can't seem to find
> it...looked at drop down at search and didn't find it, am I looking to
> soon?
> Sorry but just don't understand how to get there. Thanks for any
help.
> Linda
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com
>
>
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
body
> of
> the message
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com
>
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
body
> of
> the message
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the
body
> of
> the message
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to INJEFFER-request(a)rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message