Welcome to the wonderful world of frustration, trial and error! Seriously, there are many tools you can use to verify information on your relatives. Some are Google, FindAGrave.com, obituaries, family records, and Latter Day Saints has an excellent data base. Some of these are free to use and some have small fees. You should also begin receiving Smart Matches on your site. However, be very careful about these as they are often inaccurate. Hope this helps a little and happy hunting!
Can someone advise me where I can find death/inquest of British subject lost/killed at sea. I have a relative who was a sea pilot based in Cardiff and he lost his life in the Bristol Channel in 1903. I'm not sure of the details and I would like to know where I can access these details.
Have you tried contacting the Admiralty? They should have records of all lost at sea. Good luck. By the way, my ancestors were from County Kent, UK. Two died at sea, but were already US citizens and one was born at sea on her way to the US.
What were you looking for in Aus? Did you mean to put 1988 or a year in the 1890's? It's a bit hard to access information in the 1980's as it is so recent. Re my query, the name was Thomas Catterson and he was a shipping pilot and drowned in the Bristol Channel in 1903. His Yacht was named "Cambria". His son also died in the tragedy. He was part of the Crew. Any help woud be most appreciated.
It would be nice when you select "researce this person"
That it not only it shows record matches;
But like Ancestry.com it shows via highlighting and grouping the records you have already matched to the profile, then lists further matched results for review.
The way it is now is cumbersome at best. To the point of not being able to work with it.
Ie, you have to go back and look at the profile..1) to see what you have already matched and there isn't a clean way to do that. So you back back out to the tree, then load the profile see that you have matched the 1900 Census, then you go back to research this person. Match the 1910 Census. And repeat the above.
Why not just show the already matched records when doing the search in the first place????!!!! It takes 4 times as long to complete a profile here as it does on Ancestry.com
Because if by chance you match a Census record twice, it sources it twice and that should not be??
I stopped by MH to do my periodic testing of their product.
Found that Record Matching had actually produced some useful results, for example an 1880 census for my grandmother. I had found this 40 years ago in physical search, and a couple years ago in other online searches, but it is good to see that MH is catching up.
So I copied the data into her record....only to find that the code had not ADDED new data but had REPLACED data from the 1906 Prairie census of Canada.
Unfortunately, that was the only record available so I couldn't try another one to see if I could replicate the error.
So, user beware. MH seems to allow you only ONE record per individual.
This is an egregious error that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
The extract page tries to match information from the record with information on the profile. In cases where information already exists on the profile and the user wants to add the information on the record as an addition to what already exists on the profile, it can easily be done by clicking on "Show more options" and checking the "Add as alternate" checkbox. This will extract the new information in addition to what already exists and will not override the information on the individual's profile.
I urge your developers to set "Add" as the default option so that the user does not have to take two more actions, neither particularly obvious, to add new information.
I would argue that new data is not "alternate".
The 1880 census is not an alternate to the 1870 census. It's entirely new information.
If I already have a date and place for a marriage from the wedding certificate, and I find a different date in a newspaper announcement, that is alternate information.
If the information in the newspaper is identical to that of the certificate, that is duplicate information but it is equally important because it is additional evidence to the accuracy of the information.
If it is duplicate info, it should not be added but only the source cited as additional support for the data. Don't double up the data. Ancestry does that and it's annoying because I have to move the source citation over to the original data and delete the duplicate (If I don't, it clutters up reports no end). Here's a chance for you to beat the competition!
I cannot think why you would have done it the way you did but I know you're working to improve so here are further suggestions.
Got a media release today that said, in part, We're excited to announce that in the coming days and weeks more than 2 billion additional records will become available to search on MyHeritage. This is the result of a new partnership with the leading genealogy organization, FamilySearch....
Our matching technologies will be unleashed on these new records and profiles so MyHeritage users will receive Smart Matches™ and Record Matches whenever any of them match their family trees.
Wow, two billion more records! Whooee!
My fear is that unless the new records are accompanied by improved search engines for SuperSearch, SmartMatch, and Record Detective, the result will be two billion more potentially irrelevant matches to clutter things up.
Hey, maybe they will include US state censuses and Canadian records, both sorely lacking at MH.
When I use the research function it brings up possible death certificate matches but NO additional informaion like parent name, spouse ect. Unless I order and pay for dozens of potential matches certificates I still don't know if they are my ancestors. Am I missing something?
When I use the research function it brings up possible death certificate matches but NO additional informaion like parent name, spouse ect.
By "research function" I'll assume you mean SuperSearch. You might have to be more specific. How did you get to "possible death certificate matches"?
When I try this, by drilling down All Collections > Birth, Marriage, Death > Death, Burial, Cemeteries, and Obituaries > (for example, California Death Index) I find date of birth, date of death, place of last residence; on accessing the record I also find name of father, name of mother. Oh, and I spotted one that says "Missouri Death Certificates" showing date and place of death. When I click it, It shows me the actual record. But then, I have a data subscription.
So I guess the answer to your second question is, Yes, unless you order and pay for data access, you won't get the additional information to determine if you have a match.
I am now starting to get UK census data record matches in my tree, which I can then add to my tree. Some of the names are in both the 1871 and 1841 data but if I try to add the second census data it seems to want to overwrite the original data rather than adding to it. I may have missed something here but can this be done from the records info rather than having to do it manually.
The record matches are matches with the details in the specific persons card in your family tree.There are not many cases where the persons card matches the results of both the 1871 and 1841UK censuses.If you want to add the 1871 census data to this persons card then your approach of
manually adding this information is correct as it can not be done from the records.
I'm having exactly this same issue with the US Census data. And since those are only 10 years apart, I have a great many people in my tree with numerous US Census record matches. This is a big issue, I hope MyHeritage is working hard to fix it. Manual entry is just much more difficult when you consider everything that the Record Matching automatically does.
As there is only 30 years between the census dates I suspect there may be quite a few instances of the same person appearing in both sets of data. Occording to the info on the Research site the plan is to make more of the UK census data available in the linked data area so this is likely to occur more often in the future. It would seem a sensible inhancement to the system to allow more than one year census data to be added as the citation source can be selected in FTB.
The new SuperSearch ability to attach a document/record to one or more individuals is a step in the right direction. The ability to extract information into a record has been iffy in my tests, but will be great once it's ironed out.
The issues I incountered may due in part to my inability to find much of value with Supersearch. In one test, I got a message saying "Extract Records is coming soon" and in another case the extract proceded, only to later give an error messaging saying it was unable to save the source information (though when I checked, it appeared to have saved). Both these issues were reported to Support.