Ancestry & FMP search comparisons

For reasons more of historical research than the pursuit of an ancestor I have spent the best part of a week in an active database research. I found the research interesting because at long last it has woken me to the intrinsic differences between using Ancestry and FMP. My previous opinion has always sided with Ancestry and I have at last realised it was because I almost always searched from within the confines of an Ancestry Tree. This time a Tree played no part so each search had to rely entirely on the information fed to it (the same for each) and the extent and validity of each data base and individual methods of searching.

I emphasise as if it needed saying that it is not a scientific study but purely my subjective opinion after searching through BMD & Census records; by name; dates and areas.

First conclusions and later I explain each in more detail:

I rate FMP before Ancestry when assessing BMD records. I cannot give percentages so let me just say FMP more often than not came up trumps whereas Ancestry struggled at times.

When it came to Census searches, Ancestry was the more reliable probably because of its ‘fuzzy logic’ way of searching. FMP was just too ‘fussy’ for its own good.

BMD Searches in FMP are more user friendly especially when narrowing down the Collections. It is however idiosyncratic and –as with Census searches explained later - it positively dislikes too much information. Give it two counties for instance, even with ‘,’ separators and it will more likely than not give a NUL return. Leave out the county and up comes 50 or so hits and somewhere within those hits you are likely to find what you seek. It also dislikes middle names, and even middle initials. I searched for a John James, nothing, John J nothing, then John (plenty of hits and including a couple of John J’s). As for giving it a wrong time scale that is a ‘no-no’; but leave out the date or broaden it to a 5 or 10 year span, and you will get answers a plenty. It will take you a time to scroll through its search results, but you will get there in the end.


Ancestry seems to struggle with the simplest of BMD searches even if you elect to narrow the search. It does not seem to mind about being given too much information (I would not recommend doing this but if it happens Ancestry is quite forgiving in this respect). But what comes up may not necessarily be anything to do with what you seek. In the end for BMD searches I chose FMP over Ancestry each time and only if FMP gave a NUL return (even after minimising the search data) did I turn to Ancestry. For some obscure reason on these occasions Ancestry seemed to have no trouble in locating the person sought.

In the interest of fairness if searching in Ancestry from within your own Tree (Public or Private) Ancestry is a different animal entirely. Whatever category you seek- BMD or Census- it uses the information it already has to instinctively find what you seek. I love this intuitive part of its makeup and always have and why I have tended to favour it over FMP. Plus of course you can save it to your Tree immediately; a bonus.

CENSUS searches in FMP in the main are not as rewarding as with Ancestry. Here I relate like with like; just a plain and simple search of a specific Census (and not within an Ancestry Tree). Ancestry searches are more convoluted and require more mouse clicking but when you find the Census year you want with the input given, more often than not it will deliver what you seek. (Its only downside is quite often Ancestry omits the Schedule number so you have to view the original top right corner for that).

FMP given its penchant for intelligent input only delivers when its rules are mastered and applied. Otherwise you will have to go back to square one and try again. I like the simplicity of being able to search through the Census years with one input which is easier than Ancestry. It is just a shame it seems so unsympathetic to the input given it for the search which Ancestry takes in its stride; well most of the time anyway in which case I just try its rival! (FMP does provide the Schedule number within its references)

Once again I have to stress that Ancestry Census searches from within a Tree are positively sublime. It latches on to the information in your Tree –Head, spouse, household members – and finds the family you want each time; providing of course they are in the Census year you are searching. Again you can post the information straight to your ancestors’ page. Shame about the Schedule number however.

Final Words: I re-emphasise that my conclusions (leaving out the italicised script) relate to just carrying out a Search from within each data base. I also emphasise that where one data base fails, then I simply turn to the other. On the occasions (quite often at times) when neither delivers, that is time to take stock and think outside the box as Peter often mentions in his Newsletters.

 

Yes I often ask it, "so why didn't you come up with that before?"However sometimes FMP comes up with no results because I may have
'edited the search' looking for a different person, rather than begun a 'new search'....and left e.g. a key word on the form.

I always look at the original in any case.

It's a game of two halves

Interesting study and observations Bob

 

A very interesting set of comparisons, Bob.
And thank you for those search tips.

A great way to put it. When it comes to Census searches I've found it seems to be a choice between scrolling through hundreds (or more) of results with Ancestry or finding the right things to put in the boxes on FMP to get any result at all.

 

One sends you to sleep, the other keeps you on your toes

 

Yes well said Patsy that gets to the point of the differences nicely.

 

Yes I can relate to that also Emjay as I have tended over time to just edit a search in Ancestry with reasonable success; especially if searching within a Tree as it instinctively knows, I have gone from the (say) the Head to another household member. However with FMP it requires - nay demands - a new search and the only chance you have second time round is to remember what to leave out.

What really riles me after getting no response from a search where I have used (say) two counties with a ',' separator, is one of its 'helpful suggestions' includes advice to be sure to use comma separators between two or more counties. I usually retort "and a fat lot of notice you took when I did". Despite the advice you stand far better chance using each county in turn and when both fail, no county at all

 

Sadly no, and do I learn, sadly no.

 

I've just received a message from FMP about their new search system (it's in beta stage).
So I went to try it.
It's a great improvement!
All I did was put in the first name and surname of a person and his birth year and got a whole heap of info that I had not seen before.

 

Yes, I actually got the option that I really have missed with FMP, mother's maiden name on the form when searching births

 

I'm sure I have only been able to enter it as a 'keyword' on the form since the changes, not as 'mother's maiden name'

 

Peter is right if you used the specific 'Birth' Search rather than the generic Births, Deaths & Marriages. Once the BMD search opens, go to Collections above and chose Births & Baptisms; this then allows the option to enter a mothers maiden name. It is also best to narrow the field with Marriages and Deaths as well.(I refer to the original search and not the new which I have yet to try)

 

He usually is!

 

I seldom have much 'luck' in finding records on FMP no matter how much info I do or don't put in. Familysearch often comes up trumps, I'm preferring that to Ancestry.

 

I can understand the points you are making, especially with FMP but perhaps their new Beta searching may make a difference; I have yet to try it myself. As for Family Search versus Ancestry they are really two different animals. Family Search comes into its own for pre 1837 searching and is passing fair where ancestors appear in certain Census years. BMD searching is too hit and miss and to be honest I use FS only for pre 1837 and when Ancestry or FMP both fail. I have already commented on the pros and cons of Ancestry and FMP but in the main these are the most reliable, with Free BMD taking up the rear. But that's just my opinion

 

Not just online trees. I have just fallen foul to a mistranscription in FMP. Fortunately, I asked for help here on this forum when the Children Status information on the 1911 census form did not tally with information from earlier censuses. Tim was more open minded and looked on Ancestry and found the correct census entry there. Thank you Tim.

I had found an alternative entry via FMP which just happened to have the mother and child with the necessary names and dates of birth. My immediate assumption was that I had found the correct record. However, they were different people. It is very easy to 'make allowances' for any slight discrepancies in census information and hence go off on the wrong track. I thought that I had been so careful. PLEASE BE WARNED.

 

I started with Ancestry many years ago, so would always start with a search there. I was persuaded to try FMP when they were first to have the 1911 census, but was never happy with the searches, despite Peter's very good tips. Both subscriptions have now lapsed as I have been too busy at work to do any research, but I am now missing it - wanted to do the latest challenge, but needed at least one subscription! I have had a 50% offer from FMP expiring today, but really want Ancestry instead. Wish me luck as I try to use the offer from FMP to persuade Ancestry to match it (worked in the past, might work again)