I like the idea of qualifying why a hint was accepted or dismissed. Being able to provide that feedback - hopefully - will provide better selection for hints in the future. It can get disruptive when that panel appears ... possibly disrupting my train of thought to answer the question while I'm thinking about what the information means. Your "don't care" idea is a good one too. Too many surveys or polls include bias since all possible answers aren't included. In this case, the choices appear to assume the record has positive reasons when "not enough info to decide" happens quite a lot for some types of records. I like the idea of providing feedback when a record doesn't have enough information to decide if it is or isn't about the person. Some transcriptions, for example, just include a name or maybe a name and a place. But, the transcription doesn't let me see the original document where the information came from so I can look at the context or other entries that might help decide if it's the right person. How many so-called records have you seen that doesn't give you any context to make a decision at all? Why are those records even in the system?
Another great video! While I have been using this feature since it came out, your video has inspired me to go back to certain individuals who have been widely confused with others of the same name and put into trees where they did not belong and add reasons for rejecting (or in some cases, accepting) certain record hints. Two prime candidates are Benjamin B Hunt and Britton B Hunt, probably cousins, both born about 1801; both living, at least for a time, in Wilson County, TN; both showing up in all too many records only as "B B Hunt". Not unnaturally, the two men have been confused for a very long time. My first focus for explanatory comments in records, however, has been on several different John Yorks who lived in different places but who each had his own wife, his own children, his own RECORDS that prove beyond any doubt that they are not the same person. That has not stopped many people, including some of my own cousins, descendants of my John York, from scrambling these men like eggs. Wish me luck in unscrambling them across the internet! ;-)
I'm feeling a little down this week, and your comment just lifted my spirits and made my month. As a professional data nerd, there is nothing better than human feedback on messy data. Some other pro data nerd at ancestry will sincerely appreciate your input.
@@five-minutegenealogy1119 Thanks! Most people don't even care, and some are downright hateful when I point out simple facts, but occasionally I get great feedback for my efforts, so I understand just what your are talking about.
I had also intended to comment on your city directories reference. On that, I have to disagree, as I have found quite a bit of helpful information, not only by following up on these hints, but by seeking out the directory entries for siblings and even cousins of my ancestors. This has led to finding their parents in places I never expected, which has opened up multiple, if not actual brick walls, at least bottlenecks. So now I am a huge fan of city directories.
Whatever Ancestry is trying to do with this, it’s just downright annoying to get this big panel in the middle of the hints. I think it slows me down and I got tired of answering them pretty quickly.
On my subscription, the panel of questions only appears if I expand it. The initial release, it was expanded by default. You've got a point about quite a few of their features: one should be able to choose which are on, which are off, and where.
Yes, I should disable it, but I have left it on for curiosity after initially turning it off. Now that I know more about it, I think I shall turn it off once again.
I like the idea of qualifying why a hint was accepted or dismissed. Being able to provide that feedback - hopefully - will provide better selection for hints in the future. It can get disruptive when that panel appears ... possibly disrupting my train of thought to answer the question while I'm thinking about what the information means. Your "don't care" idea is a good one too. Too many surveys or polls include bias since all possible answers aren't included. In this case, the choices appear to assume the record has positive reasons when "not enough info to decide" happens quite a lot for some types of records.
I like the idea of providing feedback when a record doesn't have enough information to decide if it is or isn't about the person. Some transcriptions, for example, just include a name or maybe a name and a place. But, the transcription doesn't let me see the original document where the information came from so I can look at the context or other entries that might help decide if it's the right person. How many so-called records have you seen that doesn't give you any context to make a decision at all? Why are those records even in the system?
Another great video! While I have been using this feature since it came out, your video has inspired me to go back to certain individuals who have been widely confused with others of the same name and put into trees where they did not belong and add reasons for rejecting (or in some cases, accepting) certain record hints. Two prime candidates are Benjamin B Hunt and Britton B Hunt, probably cousins, both born about 1801; both living, at least for a time, in Wilson County, TN; both showing up in all too many records only as "B B Hunt". Not unnaturally, the two men have been confused for a very long time. My first focus for explanatory comments in records, however, has been on several different John Yorks who lived in different places but who each had his own wife, his own children, his own RECORDS that prove beyond any doubt that they are not the same person. That has not stopped many people, including some of my own cousins, descendants of my John York, from scrambling these men like eggs. Wish me luck in unscrambling them across the internet! ;-)
I'm feeling a little down this week, and your comment just lifted my spirits and made my month. As a professional data nerd, there is nothing better than human feedback on messy data. Some other pro data nerd at ancestry will sincerely appreciate your input.
@@five-minutegenealogy1119 Thanks! Most people don't even care, and some are downright hateful when I point out simple facts, but occasionally I get great feedback for my efforts, so I understand just what your are talking about.
I had also intended to comment on your city directories reference. On that, I have to disagree, as I have found quite a bit of helpful information, not only by following up on these hints, but by seeking out the directory entries for siblings and even cousins of my ancestors. This has led to finding their parents in places I never expected, which has opened up multiple, if not actual brick walls, at least bottlenecks. So now I am a huge fan of city directories.
Whatever Ancestry is trying to do with this, it’s just downright annoying to get this big panel in the middle of the hints. I think it slows me down and I got tired of answering them pretty quickly.
On my subscription, the panel of questions only appears if I expand it. The initial release, it was expanded by default.
You've got a point about quite a few of their features: one should be able to choose which are on, which are off, and where.
Yes, I should disable it, but I have left it on for curiosity after initially turning it off. Now that I know more about it, I think I shall turn it off once again.
You can turn yours off? Oh lord I wish I could it’s so unhelpful
I hate that thing!