Hi can some one please tell me what records are actually available through MH as asking MH is a waste of time they just refer me to the subscription site, having been with ancestry for about 5 years and Genes Reunited prior to that I am looking for a site that will offer me access to WORLD records that include BDM, CENSUS, GRAVE RECORDS etc but just being told I would have smart matches does not tell me if it would smart match records from around the world or if I would have to pay for these records on top of the annual fee of joining MH any help or advice would be helpful thanks
I am interested in your plight- but ponder why you would switch from Ancestry and or Genes -- you must keep those active --
Many users leave heritage and migrate to Ancestry-- and You are going the other way---
Your comment on heritage (management) as a waste of time-- odd that you shou;d come to taht conclusion so quickly-- it took most of us aover a year to figure that out-- congratualtions.
and be wary of SMART matches-- thay are wrongly named and are filled with incomplete and duplicted records-- the TRUE smart match has been overshadowed by the hundreds and hundres of duplicated trees on heritage-- it seems that the guru's think that by having an organization with fift million users haveing 30 million trees- is a bonus-- if you look at smart matches you often (too often) get a match witha user who has six, eight perhaps TEN trees and you get sya 4o matches multiples by his ten trees-- thinking ytou have got 400 mtaches when in reality you have 40 and some of them are dubious.
I have just subscribed to MH Research and my very first subject highlighted an important lack in the system.
The lady's name is Jane Clyde Weir Medlow (Russell) so, guess what, eighty record matches, probably all from the United States, some for Jane Russell the film star; and I think for another lady of the same name.
I want the option to tell the system to please ignore information from the United States (or wherever).
I want to filter the information by country or by dates or whatever, preferably more than one criterion at a time.
I know my Jane was never in any other country, only Scotland and Australia.
If there already exists a filtering mechanism please tell me about it. I do NOT want the system to follow an automatic matching procedure, it's not working. I want to TELL it what to show.
It would take me nearly an hour to reject matches for this lady; probably none are about her. Let's say I have a couple of hundred similar matches, that is two weeks of full-time work, with more coming all the time.
n order to find records from a specific country, I would like to recommend you to refine your search by country / state / city by entering a location on the field(s) named: Place. You can also scroll down to the map and click on the specific country. This will rearrange the results placing the most relevant to the location first.
In order to read more about how to better use SuperSearch, please visit our FAQ article below:
Okay, it seems that my previous comment was about the research heading of Newspapers and taking that into account I stand by what I said.
I have just spent some time with the next name, John Powell, and a promising UK census entry. Which could almost have been him except that his wife was born in County Cork, Ireland, and so was he.
The wife of the man in my tree was born in Wycheproof, Victoria, Australia, so I will reject the research match. But I would have liked the opportunity to put a note on the 'match' explaining that, so that no-one else makes the mistake that I nearly did. Which anyone could have done, not knowing the birthplace of the wife.
So, please, a place for comments, as we have in the SmartMatch system.....
P.S. It is just possible that it is the same man and his first wife died and the Wycheproof lady is his second wife... G
P.P.S. I would like to be able to 'reject all' record matches in a particular tree for a particular name.
I have rejected every match individually for my main tree and just want to click 'reject all' for the other tree. G.
Is there any way to (temporarily) block sources of record matches ?
I find a lot of matches to Geni World Tree and Wikitree, and, to be blunt, do not trust either - I have found incorrect data in both (not MH's fault of course - the fault lies with whoever uploaded the wrong information in the first place). For example years of birth or death (that I have confirmed by looking at government BDM websites or have personal knowledge of) don't match those on those sites. I have found little information on those sites not already in my tree.
What I'd like is a list of all sources, with checkboxes about whether to include them in the record match display - that is, I'd like to "ignore" matches to the two sources named, and just look at others, for the time being.
My question is also about blocking and it is a really major issue. Matching my heritage records to wikitree records for which i am the source is useless. i want to block listing people for which i am the "OWNER" or contributor.
Using record matches is great, but I'm getting annoyed when I find matches for a whole family listed. For example, in my tree, there's several families of parents and around 12 children - 14 to a family. Record matches finds matches for all 14 people with, for example, a relative's tree on Geniworld tree.
I accept the first match and wait while the page loads matched information for all 14 people (took about a minute). I go through and copy the bits of information I want for all 14 people.
Now I still have the other 13 matched people to look at - but there is no option to just accept the match without then havuing to wait the minute for the page to download - really annoying to have to waste that much time and download space for no additional benefit. And don't say that there might be other information - there wasn't and isn't.
It would be really great to have, as well as the reject and accept/extract information options, a third one for "accept but don't go to the extract page". This would also get around the problem with wasting time when there are duplicate or triplicate records, which is frequent with the English birth/death/marriage records.
Depends what you're looking for - I've found heaps of birth and marriage records from the UK (where many of my ancestors are from), and lots of census records for families which have identified further children, occupations, and addresses that I did not know about. These census records seem to date every 10 years from 1841 to 1911, although I get some matches from much earlier church records. I get a few incorrect matches from the USA census and newspapers, and I get the occasional death or marriage record from Australia where many in my tree originate. I have ancestors from Prussia, which seems to be a black hole of records before WW2/WW1 and so far no luck matching them, but still have hundreds to check. The BDM records from the UK have supplied me with exact dates of birth and/or christening (and better locations) for hundreds of ancestors for whom I only had the year of birth calculated from headstone information (i.e. "1856-1902", or "Died 2 Oct 1920, aged 57").
Every now and then an interesting record pops up - I recently got a match to an immigration passenger list with details about a family, date of sailing, date of arrival into Moreton Bay, name of boat, etc.
Altogether it's a fantastic resource if you have ancestors from UK or USA, it's OK if they're from Australia, but don't know about Europe or the rest of the world - it might just be that no-one in my tree gets matches (only have a few people from other countries, and as mentioned, German records disappeared in the wars).
Prehaps instead of coping all the Records from Find a Grave and making them searchible in a "myheritage" publisher collection. You could provide an opportunity to link to the web Record, like you do in the profile on the info tab web links.
Allow the user to name it and add it as a source. You could do this with Find a Grave, and things like the DAR Genealogical Research Databases which also states " The databases contain DAR proprietary information which should under no circumstances be redistributed to others; assembled or collected for purposes other than DAR membership or for citation in genealogical scholarship; or reproduced, published or posted in any form whatsoever."
Under both situations you can't redistribute it, but you could allow a namible links section to assemble this information about a person in their profile.
You could also allow these links in the Bio Section.
Unfortunately the reason that the 'Find a Grave' collection has been removed from our website
is due to the fact that Ancestry.com have recently acquired the company 'Find a Grave'.
As a result of this we have been legally forced to remove the collection from our data base even though the collection is free and created by the genealogy community for the genealogy community.
Therefore we have replaced 'Find a Grave' with a different data base supplied by 'Billion Graves'.
'Billion Graves' has an extremely rich data base of over 7 million records full of photos of grave sites along with transcriptions and can provide the user with an added wealth of information to enrich their family tree and is continually growing on a daily basis.
'Billion Graves' works in the same way as 'Find a Grave' in that its users voluntarily capture these images and upload them for the genealogical community to enjoy.
This collection can be accessed via the MyHeritage SuperSearch and is of course Free.
We apologize for the inconvenience caused to you by the removal and we hope that you find Billion Graves a worthy replacement.
Thank you for your understanding regarding this matter.
I also am very disappointed that this will not be easily accessible. If I'm understanding correctly (I haven't checked my tree yet), Information has been removed from our trees that we have already confirmed from FindAGrave? If that's true, then that really stinks and does not make sense. They shouldn't be able to go retro like that for a service that was being used before they bought it.
I guess I will have to work harder to get my FindAGrave information directly from the site but I'm not happy about it at all. Like others have mentioned, I had over 700 matches to still look at and confirm. I had 5 on BillionGraves. Huge disparity and I don't find information like the notes I'd find on FindAGrave.