Please provide an option to switch to the old user interface
the new design is just plain awful, and certainly discourages me from using this website.
Comments
-
This new format is really awful
8 -
I have to agree -- the new layout isn't intuitive and so graphic intensive to be confusing. I've also tried to connect from new new design to GenealogyBank.com and you can't.
9 -
Wonder how many complaints they have had and more to the point, will they take notice and revert?
I cannot use FS now.
8 -
I agree. This new format is just not user friendly. There are so many "options" that you cannot do now. For instance, search just the US Census and choose more than just one year. You can't do a general, then choose which record collections to review that were returned, It is not a researchers idea of an ideal search platform.
8 -
I agree!! I have eyesight problems as is, and this new interface makes it harder to see. And I can't narrow down my searches as easily as with the old interface.
4 -
Having been bugged by the new interface, now I find I am stuck with this awful thing. Please give us the choice of the old interface so I can get back to my research.
8 -
I would like to add my support the viewpoints expressed above. I too cannot use the new interface successfully, so I have resorted to posting comments instead.
5 -
FamilySearch, you have ruined your database. Who could have thought this was a good idea? Please re-instate the old version. I have to quit until this is fixed.
5 -
And how the heck do I copy records now with this horrid new interface. So intuitive, isn't it!
2 -
I can't even see ALL records at one time via collections like I could in the past.
Once I click to see a specific set of records, I CAN'T GO BACK to see all records. What in the heck? This is atrocious.
2 -
No more double-clicking to pull up a record. Now you have to move your mouse down to Apply Filter. Yes, creating a website that makes everything take longer is a great idea.
How do you do a new search? Oh, gotta click up at top, gotta go back to the home page, you have only that box that allows you to type in first name, last name, year, and place. So then CLICK AGAIN so you can do more options.
Click, move mouse, click move mouse, move mouse, click. So many steps.
2 -
The new system is TERRIBLE! What happened to my old reliably accurate system? I know sometimes it takes a while to get used to something new - but this is SO BAD - there is no accuracy in the search results. What is happening here?
Sherry Pollan
Update: I just read your explanation tonight of how you think you are making this easier. I've been using your system consistently almost daily for 7 or 8 years, I suspect. My main problem is that the results are not even similar to the name I have typed in - maybe a few - but then it goes off on a wild goose chase - also I can't get back to change things I want to tweak. This is looking like the search engine in Ancestry - but at least that one brings up a lot of names that COULD be the one I want. I'm sorry - there is nothing intuitive here. I would NEVER send a newbie to this site to try to use it. I, too, like someone else on here tonight, am going to have to take a break. This is ridiculous. not worth the effort at all.
6 -
The new interface is terrible. Way too many clicks and re-clicks to get a results screen with hundreds of records that have absolutely nothing to do with my original query.
Sometimes I get lucky and find a record that I need, and get a copy of the image from the library. I don't know how many times I can not find again the original citation for that image, even when I enter the correct DGS number into the search box and thereby, at least in the past, seem to be limiting the possible results to records from a very specific location and microfilm-- the record still RARELY gets retrieved. Over and over and over again, when limiting search to a specific microfilm number located on the image I have copied (is it even possible to search a smaller set of possible results!!!!?????) I get the "something went wrong" message! Then I have to start the search all over again. Then get the same message. Eventually I try a more general search to retrieve that same image I have the DGS number for, click .... click .... click ..... click ....
4 -
It seems very irresponsible to spring a new interface on users without warning. It would seem that testing of the new interface has missed the mark and not captured many of the problems that users are now reporting. It would be a very good idea to allow users the choice to use the old interface while many of these deficiencies are addressed.
7 -
This new interface is not user friendly. It is very difficult to use. Please let us return to the prior one.
4 -
It's also clear that whoever created this does not consider the fact that not everyone has the eyesight of a 30-year-old.
Nor do they consider the fact that one of the basic principles of good web design is that you don't have text going on and one across the page, as is now done with the (mostly useless) search results. Yeah, our eyes have a limited scanning range.
All the white space--what does that do for us? Instead of seeing 10+ results on a screen, we now see THREE. Three! Seriously? Do you folks realize that part of the art of research is scanning? Can't do that anymore. But your web designers are probably just that--web designers, with absolutely no experience researching genealogy.
If your goal was to make things harder and take MUCH longer to use, you have succeeded!
4 -
Have to agree with everyone else.....the website is now virtually useless. Even when marking everything in my search criteria as "exact", it ignores it all and gives me results that have no relation or bearing on what I'm searching for.....and hundreds of thousands of THOSE! One can only hope that whoever came up with this brilliant idea was fired.
1 -
Ronald Altman. Have you not noticed you the thread you responded to is 2 years old? We are all moving on. The world tree is ANYTHING but useless. I am working on it DAILY. Searches can indeed be improved, but when your search results is unsatisfactory you can use the catalog and images to search for records. I also use Ancestry in tandem.
0
