New and current search features in FamilySearch's search engine makes it one of the most powerful on the Worldwide Web. From my genealogical experiences in searching on the Web, few other search engines allow such easy search parameters and criteria to be set by users. Kudos to engineers and programmers for these enhancements!

Search Features

The FamilySearch search engine now offers the following nine important search features for users:

  1. Search given-names only, based on a very localized area or narrowed time-frame: This is crucial for effective searches in all patronymic countries, such as in Scandinavia, Iceland, and Wales, and sometimes in southern U.S Research.
  2. Search just the surname, with a localized town or parish: For marriage searches when the first given name isn’t exactly known and in patronymic research.
  3. Search on just a year of birth and a small place-name only (such as a town, parish, a chapel--for example: 1833 Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, England) without typing in ANY names!
  4. Search with one wildcard (*) in just the surname, using a place-name, such as: “Sm*th” and “St Gregory by St Paul, London.”
  5. Search by using two or more wildcards (*) in a surname. For example: Th*b* or, T*b*u* (for Thibadeau, Theobald, Thibault, etc.) Difficult-to-find variant-spelled surnames now are much less of a problem to locate in the system. Note: The search “results” or “hits” may not yet be alpha-arranged, nor ranked by country.
  6. Search for “Smyth” ONLY returns “Smyth” or “Smythe” results! No more Smyth mingled with Smith!
  7. Search using only the father's name or both father and mother’s name. Just click on "Advanced Search", and then click "Relationship"--"Parents.” Type just the father or name of both parents, with no given name[s] of child at all: For running "Parent" searches to find most/all children born to an ancestor.
  8. Search to determine any number of illegitimate children born to a person: Search on just the mother’s name--her given name and/or maiden surname--and then click “parent” under the Relationship box.
  9. Search when you don’t know or are unsure of the spelling of the prefix or a large portion of the beginning of a surname, no problem—just use the wildcard (*) in front of the surname and spell the last part of the surname as you know it. For example, as in the surname of Thibou, you could search on just *bou. Question-marks (“?”) may now be used as single-letter wildcards as well.

These search features in the FamilySearch search engine now prove to be a tremendous boon to users and researchers worldwide. Moreover, these new search standards establish FamilySearch as the trendsetter and perhaps a benchmark for other websites to follow—including those of archives, libraries, repositories, societies, and universities!

Now, if only the "results" listings resulting from these search features can be tweaked just a bit more by FamilySearch programming engineers in order to become more relevant and efficient by being better ranked, more alpha-arranged with better geographical arrangement, i.e. by country (then by state or province, then by county and/or town), more users will be thrilled, and will expect such "search" standards to become “the standard!"

Comments (74)

Post a Comment »

  1. Very very sad what has happened to what was once one of the absolute best genealogical resources anywhere. What on earth came over you folks? I used this site (Family Search) EXTENSIVELY a few years ago and came up with TONS of information. While I am not Mormon myself, some of my distant relatives were pioneer Mormons in the 1850s or so, so I have a tenuous link to the Church. I am really saddened by how this site was destroyed in an apparent attempt either to make it easier or to maybe make money from it. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE OLD SITE YOU HAD A FEW YEARS AGO. The current site is terrible and absolutely useless. I have seen virtually NO positive comments on it, and it has robbed the world of a really valuable resource. If you went back to the old site, I would be willing to pay for this, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, I beg you in the interest of genealogy, get rid of this horrible site youve created. It is absolutely USELESS.

    Joan Wood 17 December 2011
    4:58 am
  2. Information I found two days ago is simply not to be found today. Where has it gone? A very frustrating site.

    Doire 15 November 2011
    4:13 am
  3. I am afraid I too have trouble with the new site. I cannot use this new site to access the Family History Catalog. It requires my going back to the old site. Also, the death cetificates that I was able to print using the Pilot site, seem to be only available on the Fold 3 site. That is a subscription site, and while available free in Family History Centers, it would seem to me that we have taken a step backward in helping patrons find this information. I look forward to this new site being of more help, not less to those seeking their ancestors information.

    Joyce Ruberson 21 September 2011
    9:47 am
  4. Please go back to the old version. It took me three hours to find what I was looking for and the spelling was wrong. I could key in name and dates in old version and it would come right up. this is hard for older people. Please redo this mess.

    Barbara Pettit Garrett 19 August 2011
    1:03 pm
  5. To say this is just about the best and easiest Genealogical tool to use and search is a ridiculous statement. In my experience with the new site so far (and also with the improvements) I find it one of the worst and most frustrating tools I have ever had to use And dont do away with the IGI either It is far from perfect with all the rubbish that found its way there but the main thing to consider is the fact that there is a lot of stuff on IGI that cannot be found on the new site. And I get the impression that may be the brains of this outfit do not have a clue about that fact. I have already found numerous Baptism and Marriage records from IGI that simply cannot be found on the new site. In fact - if I decide to use the new site first and cant find something I immediately go back to IGI to locate what I want.

    Ian J Trewhella 11 August 2011
    3:10 am
  6. What happened? This site used to be so good and easy to use but now it is just awful. I never had a problem pulling up family information before but now I can find nothing. This site I would have to say is absolutely useless to anyone looking for information on their families, what ever information they used to share is no longer available.

    Maura 07 August 2011
    3:07 pm
  7. Like the old site PILOT site better. Where are the images of the death certificates? Even info on deaths seems difficult to find now. Anyway to return to the old Pilot search site???

    Pat 05 August 2011
    9:43 pm
  8. PLEASE put it back the way it was This is SO slow and it doesnt give near the same amount of information. Search results are way too broad. Dont like it

    Michel 01 August 2011
    9:35 pm
  9. I am so disappointed in the new site, and just want the old site back, but clicking on Go to previous site only brings up Web Maintenance sign. I dont get it why throw the baby out with the bath water?

    Rebecca Richardson 28 July 2011
    1:48 pm
  10. The old pilot program was absolutely WONDERFUL I cant say enuf good about it. I appreciate that you had to integrate it in with your other search area but, the differences are between the old pilot and your search area are anything but equal. the search area NEW SEARCH first name, last name (for one person only) which gives me nothing OLD SEARCH one name or TWO names which helped enormously as putting in the last name of each person gave me wonderful results. OLD search has parents. New pilot none event same on both old (more areas to choose from) and new -) place same on both old and new -) from year to year same on both old and new but on the old you can choose date periods) -) New search relationship (does that matter when you can only put in one name?) New search has option of collection, birth place, marriage place, residence place, residence year and gender. OLD search has tons of great options Place, date (by groups of years), collection, gender, last names by first letter, last names by first letter, record type (lots of choices), event type (lots of choices). OLD pilot program shows columns across the page showing events, spouse and children and parents which means I dont have to open up a TON of useless records. Maybe I dont know who the spouse is but I do know the parents? If I have my information in the new program, I cant change to family tree for instance, without having to enter all my information in again I have used your website for 20 plus years and have gotten a lot of wonderful information from it, but then with the new pilot program, I got spoiled and found information that i had never been able to find before. It was just perfect Why cant ALL the input and search abilities from the OLD pilot program be put into the new pilot program? The information is already put into your data base. I think everyone would be so elated if this was possible. Please think about this. Thank you.

    jneyr 22 July 2011
    4:57 pm
  11. I put in what I have and thats almost eveything. I got it to come through 1 time and got the Batch # and all the other #s from my Grandpa & Grandma. But then it just vanished and it now is gone. I put it back in and NO SUCH LUCK. It will not come back up. Can anyone explain why? Its sure Confusing to me

    Donna (Vannoy) Bergen 20 July 2011
    8:49 pm
  12. I have read all the comments, its what I do, I am a paid researcher. It would appear that a person or persons has come up with a way of improving the site...great, but how was it bench marked? It is a free to use site, and so it is fair that as the site is yours, and we are free to use it as a tool..perhaps we do grumble too much...but then that wonderful guy that gave the world the internet as a www for all to use listened to feed back, took it on board, tweaked it, and the world uses it, beyond the control of governments. perhaps the feed back could be shown to the tweakers, and then they may be invited to give good honest answers to the questions? otherwise this feed back space is a useless as the old box nailed to the wall of offices, and invited persons to put forward ideas to the management, but of course the box was open at the back, and the cards just floated down into a litter sack for instant disposal Yours is an honor church, dont let the side down.

    Stephen B P Frankling 20 July 2011
    12:05 pm
  13. Great job with a faster search. Congratulations. But Id like to keep access to the link bellow, that gave us the possibilityto get the original docs. I felt a big emotion when I discovered my grand father death registration. http// Please give us an alternative to get the Civil Registration in Brazil. Best Regards,

    Cesar Raibeert Valverde 13 July 2011
    6:14 am
  14. I am very impressed with the improvements and I now rely on Family in my research much more than I did in the past. I love the fact that there are records for parts of Virginia and North Carolina, where records are generally extremely difficult to find otherwise, and I am excited to see the 1905 New York census records. And I hae found many transcribed or scanned death certificates which list spouses and/or, parents.

    Susan Skilton 10 July 2011
    10:21 am
  15. I do not find that the newer version of search works as well as the older one. Records that I could previously locate are no longer easily available. Please, please, make the older search engine available as well, since some of us would prefer that one.

    L Banfield 05 July 2011
    4:59 pm
  16. i was using this site for aout 6 months, now i try to find info on family and i go crazy. it was simple to you and very helpfull, you changed the way you use it and im haing all kinds of trouble. ive tried reading your helpful hints to not much results. I know im just avarage or less in useful knowlege so if possible can we bring back the ald way thanks

    gene 26 June 2011
    4:50 pm
  17. Where are the images of the death certificates????

    lterrel 15 June 2011
    5:09 pm
  18. You were kind enough to give a presentation at the Lichfield Chapel in April on your recent visit to England. During your presentation you made reference to Births Deaths and Marriages for Warwickshire, Herefordshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire stating that the indexing for these four counties was largely completed - I believe you said Herefordshire was 98% completed. I have tried on a number of occasions to access the database that you referred to but can only find the 67,000,000 plus available for the U.K. Is there another database that you have access to? If you have time could you please give me the details. Kind regards David M Hayes

    David Hayes 14 June 2011
    5:32 am
  19. @Jo.... I wonder if you are trying to find data that was in Ancestral File, which was indeed a pedigree file. If so, that is not in the RECORDS section, but in TREES, which is between RECORDS and CATALOG in the line above the search box.

    Bobbie Snow 06 June 2011
    8:21 am
  20. I have to say that I agree with Bobbie as far as those who are having difficulty just not having learned the site (or read the instructions). I have been doing presentations on navigating this site for the last month and consequently have been researching it quite a bit. I have gone through the comments (especially the negative ones) and tried diligently to recreate the problems (those that actually outlined a specific problem rather than the unhelpful I hate this site kind of comment) and, quite frankly, have had problems recreating the problems. While there certainly are some legitimate concerns and I know that the familysearch team is working hard to address those things, most of the problems seem to fall under the heading of Why did you remodel my neighborhood market, now I dont know where the bread is. The second thing I would like to point out is that FamilySearch is NOT owned by and is has NOT merged with that site. While there seem to be some similarities between the two, come on -- were talking genealogical records sites here -- of course there are going to be some similarites. FamilySearch has PARTNERED on some projects with and with (which is owned by now) but FamilySearch is not owned by that corporation. They are owned by the LDS church.

    CJH 05 June 2011
    6:30 am
  21. To those of you who say the site is impossible to use -- it is just that you havent yet learned to search it effectively. With practice, trial and error and (as a very last resort) reading instructions posted on this blog you will be able to do so much more. I hope no one gives up on this very valuable resource.

    Bobbie Snow 01 June 2011
    12:34 pm
  22. The content of the new FamilySearch.Org does NOT replicate that of the old one. The old one included Ancestral File, the 1880 and 1881 census indexes, the IGI submitted and extracted records, Pedigree Resource File, U.s. Social Security Death Index and the Vital Records Index (Mexico and Scandanavia) In this version IGI extracted (but not submitted) records, U.S. Social Security Death Index and the census records have been moved over. Ancestral File is under the Family Trees section. I don;t think PRF has been moved over and I have not yet tried to figure out the VRI (Scandanavia and Mexico). AND the new site contains hundreds of thousands of added records, many, but not all indexed. So if you go to the old site, you will be searching only a fraction of the records available to you.

    Bobbie Snow 01 June 2011
    12:31 pm
  23. The old site is still available -- click the blue box on the right that says GO TO PREVIOUS SITE -- Its not in caps, but I am putting it in caps here because so many people seem to overlook it.

    Bobbie Snow 01 June 2011
    12:13 pm
  24. Anyone new to Family Search would not understand. Yes it is free. Once you begin to discover family you never knew existed, you become more fascinated, which is addictive (long hours). Learning is a life long experience. Where do you go next to find more information (federal archives, library, etc.). Now, the disastrous update....maybe 30 minutes & that is if I think about it. Unfortunately, I think LDS merged with again. A few months ago, merged with (typical monopoly).

    P 31 May 2011
    9:24 am
  25. The new LDS Family Search website teams ears are turned off to the numerous complaints since December 2010. I used to spend hours (usually daily) using the Record Pilot search. Now, with the ongoing disastrous update...less than 30 minutes & thats if I think about it. LDS must be obtaining their information from again ( merged with a few months ago). What a monopoly But, it does sound like an opener for more outside competition that can not be swayed. I am unemployed & I do not have anything better to do.

    P 31 May 2011
    9:11 am
  26. I cannot find anything anymore. Information that I have found in the past is not available. This site is impossible to use now. I am very sorry that I cant make sense of it, and I have tried many times. I called the help line, and while the service rep was very nice, and extremely professional she couldnt retrieve info that was previously available either. Please fix this terrible mess soon.

    David Philpot 30 May 2011
    12:13 pm
  27. I can't figure out this new site. I used to look at my pedigree. Now I can't find it. The search doesn't work for the simplest of names--like my deceased mother. Where do I go to figure out how to use this site? It is very frustrating. I'm sure it has some great features, but I can't figure out howto use the simple ones I used to use. It is not very user freindly.

    Jo Collins 29 May 2011
    9:21 pm
  28. The BETA version was SO VERY MUCH BETTER AND EASIER TO USE The new version is as good as useless. Please bring the other version back online. Jenny Cockshull

    Jenny Cocoskhull 28 May 2011
    9:46 am
  29. Your heading in the right direction. When you get to the point where one can search a certain set of parish records for a certain surname, youll be closer to where we were in the old IGI records.

    Venita 25 May 2011
    9:44 am
  30. The former site returned far, far more records than this. In searching for someone within "Denmark Baptisms," it only returned records from Aarhus, which makes it seem like they're adding records starting at the very beginning of the alphabet and haven't gotten very far. Unfortunately, the former site does not appear to be operative through web-archive means.

    Chris 23 May 2011
    10:44 am
  31. I think it is wonderful how many free and previously unseen documents are on this site.

    Mary 22 May 2011
    10:46 am
  32. Can anyone tell me what the improvements are on this site?? I was so happy with the pilot version, and then they went and changed everything …. I can’t view the images of the death certificates of death of my kin before 1976 like I use to do. Also on the pilot site all I had to do was get close to a spelling of a name and had options of exact to close and find great info. Now I have to be exact or get nothing. I know this site is free … but I’ve paid (who owns this site) $360 a year for too many years for them to just give us these crappy changes. I’m entitled to complain. Does anyone with read our complaints?

    Trudy Patina 22 May 2011
    12:29 am
  33. Why did you change the new search engine that you had in place before 27th April? I found it excellent. I actually found material that I never knew existed. You seem to have moved the filters that you were using pre 27th April to the initial advanced search boxes and the filters that appear alongside the results are useless. Clearly most people providing feedback are negative about the changes. At the same time there are some who appear to be happy with the changes. I would hope that you retain the old website.

    Bill Macafee 21 May 2011
    3:58 am
  34. WHERE is the Search feature? All I can find is the opening page of this site

    Sharon 20 May 2011
    2:54 pm
  35. I am finding this new site is not as friendly as it was in the past . I know we have to move forward but some of the old way was better. Please go back and see what can be done to merge the two . I am concerned as things I know was there , I can not find now. As a member of the church it makes one think did I not enter these correct and that is why it is not there. I have worked for over 30 years putting our families togther and would hate to think some go lost someplace.

    Nancy Bonifield 19 May 2011
    6:19 pm
  36. When you first put up your new enhanced experience it was brilliant. I have a website where I provide links to relevant family history internet websites and as well providing links to these sites i produce papers which act as akind of tutorial. I was impressed with you new changes, despite the fact that people were telling me the older site was better. I produced a paper about a month ago http// which provided examples of how I used the site. Now you have changed the search process again and it is now impossible to carry out the process outlined in this paper. Normally I never comment on websites but in this case I feel that I must ask the question why the recent change? The first change seemed perfect. Yes there are a few people who seem happy about this latest change but the majority of the comments so far are overwhelmingly negative. I will leave my tutorial paper on my website for the momemnt but I must say if things remain the same I will have to take it off.

    Bill Macafee 19 May 2011
    10:27 am
  37. After a few weeks on the new system, I like it and seem to find a lot more, but I have two requests. 1) I leave the event type blank and enter a beginning date (usually around the birth date). When I tab to the second date field, it fills it in with the first date. This is OK if Im looking for a single event, but if I want all events, I want to type a second date without first having to clear the field. 2) When I reset the form to enter a new person, it leaves the filters in place (which may be what I desire, but not always). Please clear the filters, too, or give us a second option to clear filters (preferred).

    Lyle Clugg 18 May 2011
    9:18 am
  38. I am disappointed with this new search. I have found that the actual documents that were available before have now been removed. Why? The actual documents were a far better & more complete source of information. I have used FamilySearch for many, many years. I had found information on it that wasnt available even on the paid sites. When using the old version of Penna Marriage records, for example, by being able to access the actual record list I was able to cross referrence & locate the spouses names. Now I cannot.The previous actual death certifcates are also gone. Can no longer locate Naturalization papers that were there before. Using pilot, I could really pinpoint the info that I was trying to locate, much more easily & more exactly than now. Adding additional records are great, but why eliminate the previously available actual documents? I thank you for all you have given me in the past...hoping this new version will eventually become as useful.

    AJGE 17 May 2011
    5:43 pm
  39. All of a sudden my information has disappeared. I have limited to no access to family information that was useful.

    Mike N 17 May 2011
    4:43 pm
  40. well my Family Tree has come to a halt from this site. I liked the other site better where i could entre a town or suburb eg Goulburn New South Wales and i could get all info of who was born and where died plus one click and would give parents plus children, Now i seem to always entering names and dates of people all the time.

    Glee-Marie Curran 15 May 2011
    10:35 am
  41. Can you see me doing the happy dance? I can now search for my uncle Jacinto...who happens to have a very thick accent. He has shown up on several records named Casinto (the J is pronounced as an H normally) With these searches I can find him by searching on ?a?into in California and filtering to birth place Chile Wahoo

    Anne 13 May 2011
    7:44 am
  42. It appears that complaining about the faults of the new system and the dislikes some of us have for it amount to little more than barking at the moon. It is free so I guess we should at least be happy about that. My searching has come to a halt.

    Raymond Torres 04 May 2011
    8:47 pm
  43. Do we have to go to the previous website to download PAF? I could not find it anywhere on the new site.

    Charlene Fjerstad 04 May 2011
    2:48 pm
  44. I was trying to help a patron download PAF and could not find it on the new website So-do we reallyl have to go to the Previous Website to download PAF?

    Charlene Fjerstad 04 May 2011
    2:45 pm
  45. When this site began it was much better, I immediately found a 1900 US census for the individual we were looking for. However, the next time I searhed with using the new change the previous census record was gone along with his children. Instead there was a listing showing him single but married. In reality the meetings over the phone and use of the website were a waste.

    Melvin 04 May 2011
    1:04 pm
  46. I used to find the other site so much better than this one. However it takes time to learn to use the new site I am sure. But I have had a lot of trouble finding relatives that I know were here.

    laura 04 May 2011
    12:17 pm
  47. Dont understand when I open my records from LDS that took me years to set up, now they are only read only. I cant make corrections to them. Why?

    Margaret Ignich 04 May 2011
    9:43 am
  48. I am trying to find my grandparents parents, which would be my greatgrandmother born around 1837 + or - in Ireland her name is Mary Toohen her husbands name is Paatrick OBrien they did immagrate to Fordham, New York in the Bronx US. where my grandfather Michael J. OBrien was born in 1860 and he also had a brother Patrick F. OBrien born in 1862 not sure if he was born in the United States or Ireland They both setteled in Northampton, MA Hampshire County and they both married in Northampton, MA. in November of 1894 one on the 7th and one on the 21`st which I was quite suprised to find out Can anyone out their be related???

    Pathricia Hogan 04 May 2011
    8:25 am
  49. People This site is FREE In a day of instant everything we cannot appreciate the monumental task of indexing and placing online (FOR FREE) all the billions of bits of information we have available at the click of a mouse. (FREE) With over 50 years of research experience behind me, I can say this site is the best thing to ever happen to genealogical research. Back in the day we had to write letters, wait weeks for a reply, send for un-indexed films, read through them laboriously for hours, all for no results (plus charges).

    Faith 02 May 2011
    1:05 pm
  50. I really wish we could still download and print the Ohio death certificates. It really helped in research due to the burial records and the informants name gave me daughters married names.

    Cherri Lusk 01 May 2011
    5:19 pm
  51. I think the new search engine is a great start and brings it more in to line with what the majority wanted if the comments over the last six plus months are anything to go by. I am looking forward to future changes that will make it even better. I am looking forward to the Copy option be reinstated here from the pilot site. Great progress!!

    Sandra 01 May 2011
    4:00 am
  52. Where is the information about my ancestors i have spent years entering and can no longer find.

    Annette Curran 29 April 2011
    9:58 am
  53. I wonder if it might be an option to go back to the old system for those of us who have had amazing success with it. Truly, the search engine was brilliant as it was--easy to find siblings, entries showed sufficient information to assess viability. The many filters won't help many researchers in the long run.--it will be a niche group. Currently, I cannot even duplicate research (found last week). I am certain that a team worked hard on the programming, but if a person really loved the system in place a couple days ago, can they continue to use it? Could the programmers maybe add an option that allows research to be conducted without all the filters that convolute the researching process for some of us? Change isn't usually a problem for me, it does seem prudent to stick with the wonderful system you had.

    Diana 28 April 2011
    2:16 pm
  54. This thing hangs so much I had to look twice to see if it was made by Microsoft. I read every one of the above comments, and I do use Firefox. Have tried every search criteria I can think of. Maybe it has the potential to give better results, but the results seem to get lost before they can be displayed.

    Vern 27 April 2011
    9:12 pm
  55. I would like to offer an idea that might help accelerate the indexing effort. A new feature of the Browse Records (when users are looking at specific film images) could be that users could record simple comment records as they browse through the films. For instance, as I look through records for Sandweiler, Luxembourg, on film XXXXXX, I might browse through hundreds of pages looking for relatives. If, while browsing the pages, I could notate that the record was for Date_______, Type ________ (A drop down or radio button birth, baptism, confirmation, wedding, divorce, death, other) Name___________ Other names mentioned______, ______, _______, _______, _______, _______. Make all fields optional, and use them as untrusted data that would be validated when that film is formally indexed. Once filled out, the fields would be available to and updateable by all users as they peruse the same pages on the same films. This would speed up the process of locating people on unindexed films, and Im betting you would see a lot of participation. Thanks for a great site

    Gary 27 April 2011
    8:23 pm
  56. I used to love this site and found it very easy to use. This afternoon it started to become very difficult, why do I have to save information? I don't feel I will be using it much anymore. It is very frustating.

    Bonnie 27 April 2011
    6:07 pm
  57. im trying to look for my grandmother she was born in puerto rico around 1890to1895 her name is felicita garcia her husband name is domingo quinones boths from yauco rubias. puerto rico

    jose rquinones 24 April 2011
    4:47 pm
  58. I have tried point 3 - Search on just a year of birth and a small place-name only (such as a town, parish, a chapel--for example 1833 Brierley Hill, Staffordshire, England) without typing in ANY names. I went to Advanced Search, Birth, 1845, Industry, McDonough County, Illinois. I got hundred results but but the 1845 births were in Scotland, New York, Tennessee, etc. How do you specify the location so only that location is included in the results?

    Glenn Kinkade 23 April 2011
    1:33 pm
  59. My relatives from France have a title to their names DeQue Burille. Does anyone know what this means? Thank you.

    Mary Jo 20 April 2011
    11:50 am
  60. To Juan, Sherry and Janie Santos Try asking your questions at to get some professional helps.

    Phillip Dunn 18 April 2011
    7:28 pm
  61. Very impresed with the new site. They have added the RI State census. WOW, this has been a big help. I just started doing my wife's family search and have gone further with her's in 1 week than I have in 30 years!!

    John Moore 17 April 2011
    5:20 pm
  62. I also notice that the site keeps freezing up, in particular, this weekend. What is up with that? It will give me Results and when I turn the page, it comes back with the message "results cannot be displayed". I have been loving the new searches and have had phenomenal success, but this past week has proven really difficult to use the site.

    Deloris Williams 17 April 2011
    4:45 pm
  63. Since the middle of March I still cannot get displays of Phila. Pa original documents of BIRTH and DEATH certificates, and you always get more info from the original than is written on the sub pages. I always get info back to tweak my computer, but it IS up to date and all that is needed to receive is there. I also get the cannot display, get hung up in the twirling icon to wait that never ends up displaying, and I get the NULL word from page to page even though my sign-in shows on other pages. Why?

    Betty I. 17 April 2011
    1:54 pm
  64. Try using Firefox and it doesnt freeze as much. Thats what a lot of us members of staff at the Family History Library are doing. All the best

    Nathan W. Murphy 16 April 2011
    12:42 pm
  65. All these records and the tools for searching them are only of value if the site actually works. Right now its not working. Do you have the server capacity to deal with the volume of people using (or trying to use) the site and/or the complexity of the searches they are now (theoretically) able to carry out? If not, maybe that is the issue that should be addressed. Id love to see the FamilySearch site grow and grow and add more search functionality - but only if I can actually use it

    Steve 16 April 2011
    12:16 pm
  66. Looking information about Antonia Monteverdi, born at Romesano (Italy) on april 13th., 1872, and died at Buenos Aires (Argentina) on september 11, 1957.

    Juan A. Manfredi (Argentina) 15 April 2011
    6:21 pm
  67. This new site freezes up all the time, WHY??

    Cheryl Schuenke 15 April 2011
    8:58 am
  68. I have been searching for my ancestors in Germany on your website for close to 15 years. Every now and then I would type in various spellings. Never was able to connect anyone. Last week I tried the new indexed website and I was immediately able to locate and connect my family members in Germany from 1770 to 1890. What an improvement Even though I am not a member of the LDS church I feel very welcomed in using your resources for my genealogy. The folks at the family history centers are friendly and helpful. Thank you.

    Don Copenhagen 15 April 2011
    6:48 am
  69. I was ill for a while and have moved too so the site has changed since I submitted my several generations family info that I once could see but it was on the "new family search" and now I can not see where once I could choose to pull up my family I can not..

    Eva Carline Regel Apel 14 April 2011
    7:06 pm
  70. I am trying to locate birth records for a Glena G Owens, who was born around 1890 to 1895. He was a Mullato, married to a Laura, and lived in Independence VA around 1915. Can anyone help me

    Wayne S 14 April 2011
    3:04 pm
  71. Trying to locate Benito Rodriguez year of birth is 1850 wife was Petra Sierra.

    Janie Santos 13 April 2011
    2:35 pm
  72. I keep getting the message "results cannot be displayed". What is going on?

    Sherry 13 April 2011
    6:43 am
  73. It hasnt really helped me but then again its really hard for me to find anything on my family. (

    Chelsa Davis 12 April 2011
    7:54 pm
  74. Some tweaking is required. If I search for Frederick Forsythe in 1871, 1872 and 1873, I will get 44, 38 and 36 rows of results. If I search for Frederick Forsythe in 1872 +/- 1 year, I get 1819 rows of results. Can somebody explain why this happens and which is the correct result? Regards Seoirse

    Seoirse MacGabhann 12 April 2011
    7:54 am

Leave a Comment