Forum breadcrumbs - You are here:ForumGeneral: Supportplace name results of search
You need to log in to create posts and topics.

place name results of search

Was merging Edmonton and came across Wood Green, Edmonton.  They are next to each other but Wood Green is 'its own person'.  So searched for Wood Green - every Green came up (starting with Abbey Green) .  Have found before that it is too predictive sometimes.

It's worse than that. It's not predictive, it's far too hungry.

The search is currently working on an 'or' basis. So when you search for Wood Green, it's bringing back every result with either Wood or Green in it.
Because the results are limited to 1000 places (it is very slow if more allowed) it makes things even worse.

I am working on this as we speak and hope to have a solution within 24 hours that will see searches for two or words defaulting to 'and' meaning that both wood and green need to in the place name for it to be returned.
Ideally, I will be able to give the option of using 'or' in cases where that is preferred but I can't make any promises.

Hi Diane,

If you go and try the improved place search, I think you will like what I have done.

This will soon work in the main site search too


As a specific answer to Diane's (possibly?) more specific question, I think the original problem comes from the fact that Edmonton is a place in Greater London (previously Middlesex to add further to the confusion) but it is also a Registration District that used to cover a much wider area that includes Edmonton, Tottenham, Wood Green and even Cheshunt, which is strictly in Hertfordshire. If you look on the familysearch wiki, you'll be able to see the full list.

I would imagine a lot of people have found a certificate in the Edmonton registration district but when they get it, it says Wood Green, so they describe the place as Wood Green, Edmonton!

I must confess that I'm pretty sure I've made similar mistakes in logging places inside London. I often get confused as what a place's name really is!!


Thanks Greg,

will have a try later today.


Yes, Elaine, that is why I did not merge Wood Green to Edmonton but was intending to merge the many Wood Greens (those that are the same place anyway) .  Must admit too that if I come across a Wood Green on it's own I'm tempted to merge with the London ones as we seem to be the only people arrogant enough to think there is only one Wood Green 'proper' and that is English!


Even though I've been researching for a long time, the Registration District name as opposed to the actual place name still catches me out!
I've also found on Ancestry, there's a lot of later Edmonton (ie the place!) electoral rolls and some GRO births assigned to Edmonton, Essex! How Essex was ever 'tagged' to Edmonton is beyond me! 🙂

That's not an easy one (I have also noticed it).  It is so unlikely that anywhere in Essex would be part of the registration district of Edmonton as the river Lee is in between.

Great Greg.  NOW!!  Can you arrange it so that, where a place goes over two pages, it is possible to merge from the 2nd page to a place on the 1st page.  My Enfields are too long!