From Ancestry Insider,
May 28, 2014
Amy Johnson Crow, an Ancestry.com spokesperson recently wrote about a new feature on Ancestry.com: the ability to link a record from an image-only collection to someone in your tree. They fly a bit under the radar, but both Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org have collections that haven’t been indexed. I’m on a bit of a crusade this year to get people utilizing these . . .
May 28, 2014
Amy Johnson Crow, an Ancestry.com spokesperson recently wrote about a new feature on Ancestry.com: the ability to link a record from an image-only collection to someone in your tree. They fly a bit under the radar, but both Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org have collections that haven’t been indexed. I’m on a bit of a crusade this year to get people utilizing these . . .
collections better. If you find a record of an ancestor in one of these Ancestry.com collections, it used to be impossible to attach the record to someone in your member tree.
To try this new feature, I attempted to attach a map of Marshall, Oneida, New York. Clicking the orange save button produced the message to the right.
I was disappointed that Ancestry.com didn’t have the capability that Crow suggested. I thought maybe it was just a limitation on books—some of which Ancestry.com handles a little differently.
I tried an image from the “Associated Press, The AP World, 1943–2001” collection. That too, could not be attached.
I decided to try the collection that Crow demonstrated, “North Carolina, Confederate Soldiers and Widows Pension Applications, 1885-1953.” Interestingly, the source information for this collection stated that it is from FamilySearch. I randomly browsed one of the options, “Rainey, William - Reed, William H.” It was a FamilySearch microfilm header. I clicked the orange Save button and it worked as advertised.
To try this new feature, I attempted to attach a map of Marshall, Oneida, New York. Clicking the orange save button produced the message to the right.
I was disappointed that Ancestry.com didn’t have the capability that Crow suggested. I thought maybe it was just a limitation on books—some of which Ancestry.com handles a little differently.
I tried an image from the “Associated Press, The AP World, 1943–2001” collection. That too, could not be attached.
I decided to try the collection that Crow demonstrated, “North Carolina, Confederate Soldiers and Widows Pension Applications, 1885-1953.” Interestingly, the source information for this collection stated that it is from FamilySearch. I randomly browsed one of the options, “Rainey, William - Reed, William H.” It was a FamilySearch microfilm header. I clicked the orange Save button and it worked as advertised.
