From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   A cousin who has recently done a DNA test was trying to link her tree to   
   it, only to be told she herself isn't in her tree (she uses Family Tree   
   Maker, so mostly relies on its automatic synching, rather than editing   
   her online tree manually).   
      
   That isn't the howler, though. She asked for help (not by 'phone); the   
   reply said something like "you seem to have a lot of people in your tree   
   with the name 'living'."   
      
   (-:   
      
   [I've suggested she uses the 'phone: it's a freephone number.]   
      
   My own bugs - which I have laboriously gone through with someone on the   
   'phone line, who confirmed she saw them too. (This was _after_ I'd   
   emailed them detailed and annotated screenshots, but it didn't seem to   
   be getting anywhere. I can share them if anyone else wants!)   
      
   1. if you search (from the search form on ancestry.co.uk; I don't   
   normally use that one, I go into something more specific, but this is   
   the easiest way to show this bug) for Mary Fenwick, born 1876 ±1, and   
   limit your search to Family Trees, you'll get IIRR about 53 hits; about   
   the 33rd (so a bit more than half way down the second page) is my tree,   
   "JPG&PMG". She will be shown under it *in the search result listing* as   
   born (in 1876), and living in 1881, in "Northumberland, Ontario,   
   Canada". If you then click on the tree name to see the record, you'll   
   see (correctly) that she was born, and living in 1881, in , Northumberland, England.   
      
   This apparently just silly bug is moderately serious, as (my cousin   
   tells me) some people are copying the Ontario bit into their own trees.   
   (More fool them, of course, but it does propagate the error.)   
      
   If you repeat the search - Mary, Fenwick, Family Trees only, born 1876,   
   but leaving out the ±1:   
      
   2. It says there are 16 hits. But if you count them, there are 20!   
      
   3. They don't include my tree - even though it does indeed show 1876.   
      
      
   Another couple while I'm at it: is anyone else finding   
      
   a. however careful you are to make sure the "match all terms exactly"   
   and "Exact" under individual points (such as forename and surname), that   
   the search result sliders have slipped, usually all the way to the left,   
   resulting in hundreds of thousands of hits, and you have to slide them   
   to the right and click Update?   
   b. If you raise the hits per page number (at the bottom of each search   
   results page) from the default 20 to 50, that the change is (sometimes)   
   remembered for that search, but reverts to 20 if you blink?   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Veni Vidi Vacuum [I came, I saw, It sucked] - mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk, 1998   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)