MyHeritage Launches Record Detective II

MyHeritage has long had the best record matching of any of the online genealogy sites. Its accuracy has to be seen to be believed. The accuracy of the matched records runs around 99%. MyHeritage also sponsors this newsletter so obviously I can be accused of bias. However, I honestly believe I would write the same thing even if MyHeritage was not the sponsor. Now the company has taken an already good thing and improved it even further. The following announcement was written by the folks at MyHeritage:

myheritage record detective 2-smallerMyHeritage has just released Record Detective™ II, a powerful new technology that significantly builds on the original Record Detective™, adding over 2.2 billion new matches to historical records.

With the Record Detective™, records found in MyHeritage SuperSearch™ automatically point to additional records and family tree profiles relating to the same person. For example, if you’re viewing a birth certificate you found in SuperSearch™, Record Detective™ may point you to a census record containing information about the child’s grandmother, a marriage license for their parents, a family tree profile of a connected ancestor, and so on, giving you new leads for your research. However, the Record Detective™ was only able to find information when there was at least one family tree profile on MyHeritage matching the record.

The new Record Detective™ II adds direct record-to-record matches, even for records that have no matching family tree profiles on MyHeritage, and has yielded a staggering 2.2 billion additional highly-accurate matching documents.

Record Detective™ II provides new information and clues to take your family history research to newer heights.

For more information and examples, please read today’s blog post Introducing Record Detective II at the MyHeritage blog.

5 Comments

I don’t use My Heritage because to be frank as a UK professional genealogist I can’t afford to shell out for yet another subscription when I already have them to Ancestry, Findmypast, British Newspaper Archive and TheGenealogist. In some cases they have the same records but you may find the one you seek on one database but not the other because of the way the search engines work. Which is why I have a sub to BNA as well as to Findmypast which uses its newspaper database.

It is great that sophisticated algorithms can do your research for you now but please do “engage brain”. Don’t blindly accept the results but check check check. Is it likely? Does it make sense? Is it even possible? Analyse each result in the same way as if you were doing it the hard way years ago in an archive on microfilm when each fact was hard won and seen in context.

And yes I still work that way, my mantra is “trust nothing, check everything” but then my specialty is breaking down research brick walls some of which may have been added to by computer search engine algorithms.

Like

    biscuitsplease, why not just use the BNA database for searching and post the resultant OCR Text, or parts thereof, at the Findmypast Newspaper database? It almost always works for me.

    Like

    teledyne Yes I have tried that in the past but it has not always been successful. You say yourself it almost always works for you. I too prefer BNA for searching and if I’ve found a record there it is a waste of my client’s time and money to then switch to fmp to cut and paste it in so that I can find it there to view it. Also fmp’s terms of use not so very long ago were very restrictive as to the use of its records by professional genealogists.

    Of course I will then check fmp’s newspaper database to see if any more results pop up and sometimes they do. It is good that fmp now keeps note of what you have viewed and you can tag records so you can clarify what the OCR header says. If for instance it is a property sale used as proof of residence for a tenant at a particular time and place it is useful to state what you found there. But as I usually download and save the relevant section to a folder on my computer with my notes as to source and with a transcription of the entry as a word document I must admit I don’t use that facility very much. As I work on more than one project at a time and most of my work is done in archives not online I find this is much simpler.

    Like

I just signed up for MyHeritage last week and uploaded a gedcomm with over 2,000 people – no “hits” on any of the fancy searches they offer. No pointers to other trees. Oh, I did get 3 matches to a tree I put on it 5 years ago with myself and my parents. No way to see the list of their collections that I’ve found yet. No way to search by member name. What a waste of money so far.

Like

I received my first set of matches at 1am on the day of the announcement. All but one matched. Of course I checked everything out before accepting the match. I do appreciate the clue to other sources to check out.I admit I do not have that many people typed into my tree because I would rather be researching than typing in my 5 notebooks (6″ each) but felt the percentage was pretty high for the number of relatives on the tree. I certainly appreciate this new service.

Like

Leave a Reply

Name and email address are required. Your email address will not be published.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> 

%d bloggers like this: