FamilySearch Employee Responding to Search Page Feedback
Thank you all for the extensive feedback we have been getting on the results page. We know this is a beloved page at FamilySearch, and we are working very hard to make a good experience for all of our users. We are reading your feedback, and trying to further improve upon what we have created. I want to address a few of the changes we've made, and why we've made them, as well as share some insight as to the extensive testing that has gone into these new pages.
First, we went to a lot of lengths to make sure all of the features you enjoyed on the old page are still there on the new page, but many of them have changed. Here's a quick overview of where you can find some of those features:
- Selecting one (or more) collections as a filter: Previously while on the search results page, there was a tab that said "Collections" from there you could check which collections you wanted to search in and apply the filter. This feature has been moved to the section labeled "Filter Results", there is a small button called "Collections". When selected a side panel will pop out with all the same features as the previous version. We have added new features to help you in your research here as well. Now you can search for a specific collection and select it quickly by using the search bar at the top of the side panel. This change was made to make the collections filter work right alongside all of our other filters. Now all of our filters are together in one place.
- Search for records in a specific place: Previously on our search page, you could enter a country and state/province to restrict your results to only show records from those places. On the new search page, this is still available under the "More Options" button. When the panel comes out the location search option is in the same place as the old version, except it's not open by default, so you can find the button that says "Location" under more options and the text fields of Country and State/Province will allow you to enter that same information. Similarly, the "Type" button right next to "Location", will allow you to choose what kind of records you'd like to see, for example, Birth Records. This change was made because our data shows that this search was used less often than other features, and often brought back too few results for our users.
- Exact Searching: Previously on our search page, there was a little check box next to most search fields on our form. They were unlabeled but were used to search exactly on that field. On the new page you can access this feature by clicking "More Options", and at the bottom of the side panel, enabling the toggle labeled "Show Exact Search". When enabled, you will see the checkboxes next to each field. We know this is an extra step from how the old version works, but we made this change intentionally because the exact searching checkboxes greatly reduce the number of results our user gets, and commonly creates a bad experience. You can often miss out on relevant records if this feature isn't used prudently. It is a helpful feature if you are familiar with how it works, but it can be detrimental if you do not. So to prevent our non-expert level users from having a bad experience, we added the extra step.
A few other features have moved as well, but if you have any trouble doing something in the new page that was in the old one, reply to this thread, and I'll try to let you know how it works in the new page. We want our expert users to also have all the power they need in doing complex searches, and we introduced a number of new features we think you'll love.
- Filter by Race (find it under the "Filter Results" buttons)
- Filter by Sex (find it under the "Filter Results" buttons)
- Finding a collection to filter by typing the collection title's name (Select the "Collections" button under "Filter Results", there's a search box at the top of the side panel to type the collection title)
- User Preference (Under more options, click the "Preferences" tab)
• Data Sheet Layout - This is an entirely new way to view your search results. Each piece of information is shown in its own column in the table of results, you can also customize the datasheet layout and select which columns you are most interested in seeing.
• Display Information - You can choose how much information you would like to see about each search result in the table. Default is similar to what we've always had, but you can select "All Information" and you will see additional information on the record like Sex, Race, Residences, and Age. Or choose Minimal where you will see less information per row, but you will be able to see more results on the page at a given moment because the rows are condensed.
• Translation Options - Choose between whether you would like to see what was on the original record, in the original language the record was written in, or see the record information as FamilySearch has interpreted and translated it to your preferred language.
There are also several other new features that will help you find the record you are looking for more efficiently.
I hear a lot of feedback asking to go back to the old search page, and I want to be straightforward in why that is unlikely at this point. We have done extensive testing of this new page from a lot of different types of users, as well as gathering feedback to best understand the needs of our users. Some users are experts, others it will be their first time doing family history work, and we want to make sure each of you has a good experience. The new page has shown that it provides a better experience in these tests. While the page was in Beta we have also been measuring how successful users are at going from the first page to the results page, to attaching a record to the tree. Our data tells us that our users are doing better and are being more successful on this new page despite having to deal with the learning curve. As listed above we have built-in new features and kept all of our old features with this new page. It has also represented many many hours of our expert development team creating these new pages. For these reasons, it is unlikely that we will simply go back to the way that it was, BUT with that said, we will be looking to improve this new page further and listening to feedback from our users as we do so.
In regards to the simple search that just has the 4 fields at the top, vs the "More Options" search, again we have found that our newer users are less intimidated by all the options of our old page, and prefer the simpler search. Those 4 fields (First Name, Last Name, Place, and Year) have been found to be the least likely fields to bring back a "No Results" page, while still providing some level of detail to narrow down your results. Again all the additional options you have come to love on the old page will be found under the "More Options" button.
I know it's a big change, but it's an important one that we currently believe is in the right direction that allows our expert users to still have all the tools they need to be effective (and adding some new ones) while making the page simpler and less intimidating as we invite new users to learn more about their family.
One last request, I'm happy to respond to comments (As my time allows, this isn't my primary responsibility), but please be Specific, Constructive, and Kind on any feedback you have. Happy Searching
Answers
-
Perhaps you could add something to a person's Account Settings that would allow someone to default to the Advanced view of the search. One of the things that bothers me is to be presented with the Basic search options all the time, which is nothing more than then First Name, Last Name, Place, and Year. I always need to go to the "More Options" view. If I could set that in my Settings, so it always comes up that would save a lot of time and clicks.
5 -
I am just as unsatisfied and frustrated with the new search features as all of the commenters who have posted on various areas throughout the community forum. I have been using FS exclusively for verifying family relationships because of the various filters and drill down options and the ease of quickly modifying those search parameters. The only improvement needed was an option to exclude record sets (such as military records).
When trying to use the new "More" options - they don't work. The algorithms are not there! I cannot research a specific location. I can add it as a search feature and even click the exclusive box - but now I get records from all over the place and not the specific area I am searching. By not being able to focus searches. because we might loose that one record located somewhere else, why search? At this point in time, the researchers have already eliminated the need to do a country, national or regional search. Research goes the other way. Start from an area that is known and then look elsewhere.
Adding date ranges (such as estimated birth, death, or marriage years) is gone. That needs to be added back. I cannot show you one person I have worked on (and that would be 10s of thousands) that had all of their records indicate the same date. And again, when I use the exclusive box, I still get all date ranges. There is no filtering going on.
Adding multiple last names for women who have married more than once is gone. Now we have to double and triple our search efforts (think about that for the women who had 5-6 husbands).
Record hint popups on the family name page seem to have disappeared (or drastically been reduced) along with the above search features. Again - the algorithms seem to be missing. And just when they were finally getting really good. Almost all record hints were spot on.
The layout is annoying, to say the least. My focus needs to be on the records and not on a screen filling search panel. Hitting the "X" to get it out of view is not user friendly, as then I have to go hit the "More" button to pull it back up to change the search perimeters and the cycle goes on and on. I am a left to right reader and by placing the box on the right side, you bring my thought process to a halt. Like hitting a brick wall. Surely they taught your website designers that basic reality when creating a website page?
Having the record open in the same box that I am searching records - again you are wasting my time. When I have reviewed the record and realize it is the wrong record. I close it. And there goes my search. The records need to open in a new window so I don't have to keep repeating the search fields queries. This is particularly annoying when I am into page 30 of so of the search.
The name being searched for needs to be frozen at the top of the screen (like it used to be). Too often I get towards the bottom of the page and think I have found a record that might match, only to have to scroll back up to the top to view the name and information being researched and then back down on the list to hopefully find the record I was looking at.
This version needs to go back to beta testing. It is user unfriendly and doesn't work properly. It takes too much time to just input the data (that used to populate automatically from the name record) instead of getting results that can be verified. As a general search page for the beginner - it might be useful - but if that is your goal, you need to split the software and create an advanced version (like the commenter above suggests) that the rest of us can actually use. Maybe even add a feature that allows the names and family trees to be "tamper proof" or "relationships verified".
I have posted the bulk of this comment elsewhere and sadly only found your response now. This version has me slowed down to the point that searching micro-fiche is faster. It feels like I have lost a few decades of advanced technology. My only conclusion from your response is that apparently building family trees is not as important as what the leaders tell us.
PLEASE BRING BACK THE OLD VERSION UNTIL YOU GET THE BUGS WORKED OUT!
5 -
The only thing you needed to improve upon on the old search page is to be able to search by exact birthdate (year, month, and day). I think this new search format is awful.
3 -
Casey,
Please can you count all the negative feedback from all the discussions referring to the new GUI, and put a sad face icon on the menu bar showing the real-time count.
:o(
3 -
@Eric Weddington's idea of having the "more options" open by default on the landing page is a simple-seeming solution on its surface. The problem is that what it actually does is point out just how ill-thought-out the whole thing is: opening "more options" on the search obscures the "Search by Place" section. In other words, they've made it so that the landing page cannot be configured to show all of the options. Something is always going to be hidden.
FS's developers have apparently not been made aware of a very basic fact of human nature:
If it cannot be seen, it does not exist.
Hiding options does not make a webpage more streamlined or less intimidating. It makes the webpage effectively disfunctional. Even people who know that the functionality should be there will believe it to have been taken away before it occurs to them to dig down through however many layers of "psych!" clicks. That's simply how human brains work.
FS, please rethink this whole search interface, and get rid of all the extra clicks that you're requiring. They are NOT AN IMPROVEMENT.
4 -
Posted from Feedback:
On the search side, there are no locations and not enough information. I search danish records and (example) with 111 Jorgen Christensen variations in Svendborg, it is not fun or fruitful. I also use my Iphone plus, my preferred because copy paste is so easy. I do extensive documentation, unlike most everyone else in danish records. Being a first generation Dane gives me research advantages. do a lot of volunteer work which requires extra context added. I am, at this moment, using a Mac book pro, which this review is done on now). For both It is painful to scroll though with so much white space, no locations, and the split screen does not work on the Iphone plus. It is also extremely difficult to search a record like a death record that generally doesn't load easily with algorithms. There is simply not enough information. Too much white space kicks a headache. I am giving this update a 2. Normally I am shouting praises and telling everyone who does danish records to only use Familysearch.com because it is the best.
2 -
It's a strange indicator of something when the people posting criticism have more stars than the people who are defending it.
:o)
1 -
FYI
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
'No', NOT a strange indicator ...
Some of those 'Defending' the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch') are from the Team at 'FamilySearch' who, 'Designed'; and, 'Developed', such - which is only to be expected.
Whereas, that is what the "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ] HAVE to do, regardless.
[ Of Course, there is NO indication of the number of "Stars", against "Moderators" ... ]
The lack of "Stars", that a User/Patron has, is ONLY an indication, that the User/Patron, is NOT a prolific Participant, in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
The lack of "Stars", that a User/Patron has, is NOT necessarily an indication of, knowledge; experience; and/or, ability.
Many from the various Teams in 'FamilySearch'; and, also, MANY of the "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ], are NEW to this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
Some have ONLY recently "Joined" this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum [ especially, with regard to the recent 'demise' of the OLD 'FamilySearch' "Support" Case Management System ]; and, some may have "joined" some time ago; but, not been a regular Participant in this "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
So ...
That Said ...
Those from the Team at 'FamilySearch', who, 'Designed'; and, 'Developed', the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'); and, those "Moderators" [ ie. 'FamilySearch' "Support" (Personnel) ], can do nothing else, than 'Promote' (or, as you suggest, 'Defend'), the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch').
And, unfortunately, that is despite, ALL the of NEGATIVE 'Feedback', from the 10% (or, so) of Users/Patrons, who were EXPOSED (ie. had the access 'foisted' upon them), to the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), in the "Production" (ie. "Live") Environment; BEFORE, such was RELEASED to ALL Users/Patrons.
And, yet, 'FamilySearch' STILL went ahead with the release.
That, in itself, says a lot, for the INPUT (ie. 'Feedback') of us 'lowly' Users/Patrons - ie. such means NAUGHT ...
Again ...
As I already suggested ...
'No', NOT a strange indicator ...
Just my thoughts.
Brett
2 -
I've barely used this site since the changes. It is not enjoyable at all. It would be really nice if you could just give us the option of using the original interface. Let those who like this mess have at it and let the rest of us use what worked perfectly as it was. Thanks.
3 -
The new records search interface may meet the design aesthetic targets of the UX team but it's impractical for use. I recognize that many people have worked very hard on this, and I don't wish to demoralize them, but I do hope they will consider some of the challenges currently posed by users and make further improvements accordingly.
- The amount of empty or wasted space at the top and sides of the screen makes it impossible to view more than two or three search results at a time, given a standard zoom level.
- Issue 1 is compounded as more search filters are applied, since they stack in a narrow vertical frame at the center of the screen, rather than utilizing the full horizontal space. With more than two filters, it collapses the the view of the search results to an extent that only 1 result can be seen at a time.
- Location is an essential part to evaluating the potential relevancy of a record but it's omitted from the standard fixed table view of records results, even when display "all information" is selected in preferences.
- Issue 3 can be overcome by using the data sheet view, but there is no way to adjust the column widths and no automatic hiding of columns that are empty in every result. This means you have to do considerable horizontal scrolling, in addition to vertical scrolling necessitated by issues 1 & 2.
- Issue 4 can be overcome to some degree by customizing the data sheet. But the more checkboxes that are un/checked to optimize the view for one search, the more un/checking needed to re-optimize the view for the next search.
- The vertical scroll bar for the page and the vertical scroll bar for the search parameters frame are next to one another, creating a frustrating dueling scroll bar situation. The latter is also intersected by the "Feedback" button, further complicating its use.
- I often view the list of list of collections which have returned results to determine if records from my target collections are included. When they are not, I revise my search parameters and try again. However, when the search results are refreshed, the list of collections does not refresh at the same time. Instead, I must close out of the list of collections, then come back into it again in order to see which collections have returned results for my revised search.
- About 10-20% of my searches currently result in a message telling me that something went wrong and prompting me to click to refresh my results.
Taken together, it makes viewing search results like trying to reading an epic novel on a e-reader that can only display one word at a time, and instead of automatically carriaging to the beginning of the next line when finishing the previous, manual clicking/scrolling over to the beginning is required. Translation: it gets very frustrating! All the needless scrolling and clicking that is required to do even the simplest search also increases avid users' risk of carpal tunnel, tendonitis, and/or other repetitive motion related injuries.
Anecdotally, my collaboration with other users is down considerably. I follow around 1,000 profiles of ancestors, ancestors of close friends, and unrelated persons whose profiles I've previously contributed to (particularly when it involved disambiguating details of profiles with similar characteristics). Anyway, before the modifications were rolled out, I could expect to see changes made to an average of about 20 of those profiles each week, usually someone attaching an additional marriage record or updating a vital detail. In recent weeks, that engagement has dropped off precipitously and the types of changes being made are considerably different as well. On a typical week, I send messages to 2-5 other contributors to ask more about information they've provided, etc. While not everyone replies, usually it's around 50%. In the last 3 weeks, I've only received one reply.
2 -
The site is almost unusable, fancy graphics and complex structure do not help the researcher and seem to have been added simply just to modernize the look and not to assist in accessing to the data.
The changes were a waste of time.
3 -
Would a FamilySearch employee officially confirm that Casey Robinson is no longer employed by the organisation? Rather pointless in responding to him if he has now "jumped ship", following the less-than-well received changes to "Record Search", for which he appears to have been primarily responsible.
0 -
@Puzzlefixer Ah, I see - sorry to have offended. I did not find 'Alston Penfold' Searching by Collection> SSDI with your parameters - but missed that taking out Michigan has him show right up. (sorry to have not followed your directions -1). The database does find him:
You likely would not get a response from FamilySearch engineering on this long Community post (maybe you will - just wait and see ...)
Interestingly you will find Alston Penfold if you - take out Michigan - and input United States also:
It just demonstrates how 'insensitive' the Birth Place is for the record collection SSDI - apparently more attached to the country (United States in title of collection) than birth State. This means the database is not 'setup' to consider well the places (note how the search Result doesn't even include Michigan in 'All information' that it searched for Birth - it can't really search a field that it is not looking at). For example the 'Walter A Penfield' doesn't seem to have a connection to Michigan - but is appearing because of the similarity of name 'A Penfield' (which though similar is not whom you were searching). As far as why searching on the name (exact though not selected) is not returned in favor of this similar name - I note that Alston's SSDI is already attached in Family Tree but Walter's is not - possibly Search favors returning unattached records ahead of already attached records (after all isn't that the point - getting the records attached)?
So I download the spreadsheet in More Options: Preferences to see how the Search is scoring the results:
Original parameters:
Yep, only Walter appears.
With just Michigan removed from original parameters:
So with just the Name and Birth date Alston is ranked a higher result than Walter.
Parameters modified to add United States:
Alston is scored higher but so is Walter.
Parameters added Death: Colorado 2007:
Note how the SSDI is returning a higher score for Alston.
The US SSDI collection thinks the researcher will search with a death place/date apparently. @Paul W so if you are wondering about the randomness of Results when Search Historical Records - it applies the search parameters to ALL the collections differently - thus the randomness.
0 -
@Puzzlefixer, Casey Robinson is no longer employed by FS.
0 -
Now after having gotten used to the new form I must still say I hate it that the whole form is not visible at once and I must scroll down to access the exact search toggle. And there are two vertical scrollbars on the right which is just stupid and wrong and difficult.
You need to make either a user setting or a single click action that explodes all the options in a condensed form. It is just perverse that the most frequent users of the site are served this bad. I blows my mind.
1 -
I am no longer able to use your search features because the scroll bar is inoperatable. I find myself now unable to search for my ancestors at all. I'm wondering why you disabled the scroll bar?
0 -
tclarke1
I am sorry that you have had a problem with the scroll bar not functioning.
I have just tried it and it is working for me.
There are several things to try if something like this occurs,
- Try refreshing the page
- Delete temp files and cookies.
- Cheek that your browser is up to date
- Try a different browser.
Give feedback if none of these resolve the issue.
I hope that this helps
1 -
Bring back the OLD.
This "new" system is just A W F U L please go back!!!!
0 -
Darryl
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
In relation to, the "Changes" of, the NEW "Search Records"; and, the resulting "Results" page/screen ...
You are certainly not alone ...
We are ALL 'Struggling' ...
And, just in case you, were not aware ...
Here are some FOUR (x4) posts, in date (and, post) order of being posted, from someone, stating, to be part of the 'FamilySearch' Team that, 'Designed'; and, 'Developed", the the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", which appears, in some of the posts, to give some "Instruction", on HOW to use the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records".
"Ideas" (ie. 'Feedback) Section
15 July 2021
[ 1 ] Discussion 90536
'Category' = Records (Searching And Viewing)
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
Hello FamilySearch Community! Try out the new update to Record Search.
29 September 2021
[ 2 ] Discussion 103619
'Category' = General User Interface
Home > Ideas > General User Interface
FamilySearch's Updates to the Search Page
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/103619/familysearchs-updates-to-the-search-page
[ 3 ] Discussion 103620
[ In fact ... THIS actual post ... ]
'Category' = Records (Searching And Viewing)
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
FamilySearch Employee Responding to Search Page Feedback
[ 4 ] Discussion 103621
'Category' = Records (Searching And Viewing)
Home > Ideas > Records (Searching And Viewing)
FamilySearch Employee Responding to Search Page Feedback
I hope, that some of the information in these posts, may offer some help/assistance.
And ...
There are OTHER posts throughout this Forum, where the instigator of the above posts has responded with, advice; direction; instruction; help/assistance, on the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch').
Now ...
That Said ...
You may like to ADD, your thoughts/comments, in those particular posts; so that, your thoughts/comments, like those of MANY other UNHAPPY Users/Patrons, ARE 'seen', by the Team, in 'FamilySearch', that 'Designed'; and, 'Developed" the NEW look "Search".
As you can 'see' from those posts ...
DESPITE, all the NEGATIVE 'Feedback', with regard to the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", from those that matter, the 'lowly' User/Patrons, where the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", was 'foisted' upon them; BEFORE, being "Fully" released to ALL User/Patrons - 'FamilySearch' RELEASED the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", to ALL Users/Patrons.
As I already suggested ...
You are not alone ...
We are ALL 'Struggling'; and, NEED "Help", with the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records", which is NOT very 'User Friendly'.
MOST Users/Patrons want the NEW "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records" to be "Reverted" BACK to the PREVIOUS "Results" page/screen, for "Search Records".
But ...
That Said ...
SADLY, I doubt that will happen ...
And ...
Finally ...
'FamilySearch' has made, MINOR "Changes", to the NEW "Search Records"; and, the resulting "Results" page/screen, hopefully such will keep occurring ...
I know, that this may NOT help/assist; but, I hope, that this gives you, some additional, insight; and, perspective.
Brett
0 -
I don't really see any benefit to the new search page. I have been doing research for family and friends for over 15 years and have found the old search page just about perfect - and better than Ancestry. I tried to find more records for an ancestor but I do not even get results when I match the information in some of the attached sources. I have tried numerous variations in spelling and kept it broad but it just does not give any help at all. It's not worth using it anymore -
1
