TEW Posted 18 March , 2019 Share Posted 18 March , 2019 (edited) Noticed last week it was not easy to find men via Ancestry's MIC search. Just replicated it repeatedly and it's just not finding MICs by Regt. Number. I can find this man by full name and Unit but not by number? TEW Edited 18 March , 2019 by TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmsk212 Posted 18 March , 2019 Share Posted 18 March , 2019 They have done the same thing with B pre-fix silver war badges. The records are there but you can no longer find them searching with the number only. They say these are glitches but they haven't sorted it out for almost a month. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 18 March , 2019 Share Posted 18 March , 2019 I've noticed the main issues for service numbers on the MIC's have been around for a good while - it seems to be something to do with the multiple numbers and their inability to cope with them (although they have got worse of late). Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 18 March , 2019 Share Posted 18 March , 2019 Yes, same here. Trying to search for ASC men, with the myriad of prefixes by number is woefully inadequate. Of course we are talking Ancestry here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEW Posted 18 March , 2019 Author Share Posted 18 March , 2019 Oh dear, diaries have been another bone of contention, piece number as keyword no longer works. Units not listed correctly via dropdown boxes are a pain. My workaround at present is to find page 1 of any diary, copy the full url, edit the piece number within url and then paste edited address back in. Surely a search on ancestry is just using a block of code? Don't get how a block of code can decide to alter itself so it no longer works as intended. TEW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark1959 Posted 18 March , 2019 Share Posted 18 March , 2019 1 hour ago, TEW said: Don't get how a block of code can decide to alter itself so it no longer works as intended. Ex-IT software man so I can appreciate the indexing difficulties. Computers are simple souls given the same set of criteria and the same code you will get the same result. Having struggled over the last few months with ancestry searches this seems more than a simple indexing issue. Ancestry increasingly loses its appreciation of where you are - active session control. So this morning I did a search on one chap "Souch" then another on "Inverarity" clicked on the SWB return for the latter and got the "Souch" results returned! Basic principle I used - if you introduced something new and it causes issues you revert back to a situation which you know basically worked.Then try to work out, off-line, what went wrong with the new bit. This is the linchpin of their business to get it wrong and then not to address it in an intelligent way reflects poorly on the company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now