Thanks for the response and commitment to look into this which will hopefully lead to a commitment to fix the problem. Oh and thanks for the sort of vague explanation of specific :)
Let’s use a better example, one using an ancestor of mine. And first let me say that ‘Old Search’ starts out quite well, it’s when you start to drill down that the errors start.
Old Search main screen. Enter James Ingham England Lancashire in the 4 available data fields and select exact from the drop down – enter.
This gives the wonderful Old Search overview of where records are for that individual and an indication of the number in each database. The collection we’re going to look at is the England & Wales Birth Index:1916-2005, you’ll see from the list there are 144 entries and they are all James Ingham from Lancashire, some may have James as a middle name but that is totally acceptable.
Now we think that we know roughly when James was born sometime between 1915 and 1925, so we choose to refine the search, and another point, why do we have to type the name in again?? So we do retype the name and leave Exact in the drop down and leave the ‘exact matches only’ checked – wow 2 Exact Checks Type 1920 in the birth year, 5 in the +/- box and choose Lancashire from the drop down and leave all other fields blank – hit search.
Now we only have 27 entries – oops the first 6 are not Ingham neither are the last 7, there are only 14 actual James Ingham records in that 10 year period. Ingham is not a really common name, and I don’t even want to start on another ancestor – Taylor. But just for grins I did James Taylor on the same search – 576 entries I didn’t see a James Taylor until page 5 (50 per page) – entry number 244.
Old Search starts out really well and finds all James Ingham; it’s when you try to refine the search where it quickly deteriorates.