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.
In regards to performance or speed, we have also done extensive testing on the time it takes to load the page, and have concluded that load times should be reduced by ~30% in comparison to the old page.
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
-
Again all the additional options you have come to love on the old page will be found under the "More Options" button.
Previously, if a single collection was selected, many collections allowed searching and filtering by additional indexed fields I can no longer find in this new interface. For example, many U.S. censuses allowed you to specify only records where the principal had a specific marital status, or by the principal's relation to the head-of-household. The 1940 U.S. census had additional options for a specific state, county, and city. The Find A Grave Index had a field for Affiliate Record Identifier (helpful when the details in the index no longer match updated details on the Find A Grave memorial).
Could you demonstrate for me, step-by-step, how to search a U.S. census collection for married women who are related to the head of household as a daughter? This is something I could accomplish in seconds using the old search interface that I haven't figured out how to do with the new interface yet.
Edit: I just want to add that these unexpected changes have absolutely ruined my productivity for today. I expect that will improve over the coming days and weeks as I become accustomed to the new interface. But I'm skeptical I'll ever be able to get as much done as I have in the past.
I've struggled all day trying to see any aspect of this new interface as an improvement from my perspective as a frequent user, and I've come up with nothing. Although I tried to kindly ask a specific, constructive question, I really don't have a single good thing to say about this new experience. I've been alternating between frustration, exasperation, and anger trying to get anything done today. I think your team should be proud of their work from a technical perspective, but they should probably also be aware of the collective rise in blood pressure it has caused among users.
42 -
My Mama taught me if you had nothing good to say, to say nothing.
Nothing.
27 -
Just change it back. I was able to use it before with no lengthy instructions. Now I’m so frustrated i don’t even want to use it. I am extremely angry at the mess it is now.
52 -
"all of the features you enjoyed on the old page are still there" That seems to be true from the text that follows. However, it is MUCH harder to find how to get to those features. I tried to access SSDI records but the new page didn't cooperate with the method I tried. The old method was a lot more intuitive than the new.
If I knew the birth and death date of an individual, that input was straight forward. Your explanation leads me to believe it is still possible to use both dates but the gyrations to get there blow my mind. I like an intuitive approach much better than guessing at the very few spelled out options on the new page.
I too have been a frequent user spending a large number of hours using the old interface. I found it infinitely easier to navigate than just your explanation of the new interface promises. With all the changes a user has to make to access past functions, I can't see how the new interface can be faster or any other improvement.
I have done some programming. I learned exactly what the saying "familiarity breeds contempt" means. To the programmer, changes always seem obvious, intuitive, and an improvement. The programmer is too close to the function to be aware of how users not as familiar will receive the changes.
Perhaps you could offer both the new and old interface and let users "vote" on which they like better simply on the basis of usage?
43 -
Any real usability testing on this new enhancement by a qualified user researcher? Didn't think so.
32 -
When I am searching for a birth/christening, I fill in all the relevant fields, but get census returns at the top of the search results, and the births/christenings are at the bottom! Please alter this reversal.
9 -
It sems that the "Search" click button is always at the bottom of the pag. If you have to scroll that far down to run a search, it is counter productive, Ancestry did the same thing a while ago, and eventually made a Search button nearer the top.
As a thirty plus year staffer at an FHC I am not really looking forward to helping patrons navigate this new way.
12 -
I am very pleased with the new look and layout. It is very clear and seems much more readable to me. It is intuitive to use and loads quickly.
I do wonder if people are seeing the same display that I am. For instance, one person would like the search button at the top. My search button IS at the top on my PC and two different tablets.
1 -
I work on Smiths in the USA. Broader searches are not helpful for me. Could you make a personal preference to default to a more detailed search page? The four options on the standard search are useless for me. Try searching for John Smith, New York, 1900 and you will see what I mean. In fact, every beta test should include searches for John Smith to see if the change is useful.
I rely heavily on the profile results of my searches to merge duplicate profiles (merge by ID) and add sources to appropriate profiles. Where are the notifications of possible duplicates and potential sources in the new format? Where are the collaboration notes? Where are the family relationships now? They used to be so visible; parents, siblings, spouses and children, but now I can’t find them.
Ultimately, I request a personal preference to use the old format for the search pages and the individual result profile pages. The new format is just not useful for your users that need details to narrow search results. ☹️
22 -
Firstly, some praise.
What y'all do is really good, typically. I appreciate the service immensely. As a computer dork I recognize the brilliance and effort behind this interface.
I'm sure I'll learn to live with the new search interface, although years of getting proficient with the old one pretty much went right out the window, and I'm just blindly clicking around now trying to find my filter options. Over time I'm sure I'll regain the speed I just lost today.
The one thing I would request, above all, is to change the "Attach to Family Tree" button when a source is selected to do so in a new tab. I hate that I have to do back-arrow to get back to my results page, which then just triggers a whole new search, and dumps me right back at the top of the results instead of where I was, working down the list of results. This is not, in any way, faster or better. I'm not sure if this is an oversight or a deliberate choice, but I believe my thoughts on the topic are adequately conveyed.
Thanks again for all you do,
Brad
15 -
@KinCityKitty: Hats off to you for taking on the #1 most common surname in the United States. I know the feeling of too many search results. Some of my project surnames are common enough that I definitely want less not more.
I would love a preference setting to make my default Exact/Not Exact. Great idea!
1 -
Who thought it was a good idea to see less hits on a screen page and wear users (and mouse wheels) out constantly scrolling and clicking through pages to find and filter stuff? It was convenient when everything was all right there on the left side panel of the search results. Honestly, the new changes don't speed things up at all and the pages look like a child designed them for 8 year olds. Give us advanced users better option and view layouts to enhance our productivity, not something we have to spend more time trying to filter and click through with less results seen per page. Sorry, but these new changes are not productive for advanced users.
32 -
I am not a fan of having such a big change thrust upon me--today my productivity has slowed to a crawl. This is not at all helpful. Why flip the page? Why not try and keep something familiar to the page--search parameters WERE on the left--now they're on the right, why? I don't like the filter options either. Took me 5 minutes to find the filter by collection button because nothing is where it used to be. Then, couldn't locate the "apply filter" button till I called in to talk to a person--that was tremendously frustrating. I am not a novice at this either. I can understand wanting to have a cleaner page but why do you have to move everything. I feel like a blind person whose friend decided to rearrange the furniture to make my life easier. Not helpful.
26 -
This reminds me of the WordPerfect "upgrade" years ago (was it to WordPerfect 8?). WordPerfect was the best word processor available, way better than MS Word. Then, for some reason, they completely changed the interface. Everything was still there, but it was much more cumbersome to use. They moved features around and really turned off their loyal users. Their market share tanked because they ruined a great product. They sold the company and in a couple years everyone stopped using WordPerfect and made the painful transition to MS Word. (There are still things I can't do in Word that I easily did in WordPerfect.)
The moral of this history is don't mess with success. Your loyal users won't like it. Keep your great old interface that we know and love. Please. Thank you!
30 -
I strongly dislike the new interface. I haven't found a single thing about it that I like better than before. Although it does seem to support all the pre-existing features, it does a terrific job of impeding their use. As I've gotten more used to it, there is one new feature I despise above all others. To change the Location filter (say, to look in a different US State), I have to remove the filter, then Search, then click More Options again, then add the new filter and Search again. If I simply change the filter and Search (which used to work just dandy), the system ignores the change.
One simple thing you could have added that would be quite helpful, is a 'Back to Top' button, always available at the bottom of the frame.
Please 'improve' this back to how it was.
Thanks!
27 -
Thanks Herb,
This is something I discussed with the team today, and we should have a fix out soon so this should work better. In the meantime, if you make sure you enter a country before selecting the state, it should still filter your results.
1 -
The search page now is fatally crippled. This will never work. It seems like you were trying to dumb it down, but you have only obscured the functionality. Go back to the old and continue working on improvements, not just change for its own sake.
33 -
Casey, you're not listening to the overwhelming flood of reaction to the changes. The primary objective of the user interface is to provide users with easy access to the database to search, retreive, add, modify, delete and attach data. What you have failed to recognise is the most important key word in that last sentence is USERS. Without users your system is pointless. Upsetting the users will not help you or your employers or the companies who rely on all the data mined from the user's sessions.
I was a designer of data systems, and I was especially good at creating user interfaces that were easy to use and instinctive. I am totally perplexed by the choices that have been made with regard to the presentation in this new implementation. It it not ergonomic, it is wasteful, it is a significant step backward from what was already in place. From the user's perspective, there appears to be no valid reason for it.
Since I am now unable to use the search facility with any degree of success, I now post comments instead.
45 -
@Fredelas from reddit, knock on wood, but the collection-specific search pages (such as https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/2000219) appear not to have changed (yet). Those still have the "relationship to head of household"-type unique search fields.
0 -
This page will likely be updated in the next couple of months as well. While the general look and feel of those pages will be updated, the UI will stay much closer to the current layout, with the more advanced search form being the one open by default on collection-specific pages. There aren't (nor has there been) any plans to remove functionality, and the new version of this page will retain all unique search fields to the collection.
0 -
I can't tell you how much I dislike the new interface! As an experienced user, a search task that used to take a minute, now takes more time than it should. If you have a common name, it's even worse! I don't have all day to spend scrolling thru page after page of search results. The old page with "Collections" was far more user friendly and by being able to see results in a "category-type" format, it allowed me to go directly to a specific set of records.....i.e., results for the 1850 Illinois census with a name of John Smith. Why change something that was easy to use and was working? Not everything that is "new and improved, really is new and improved." I feel that the new interface is a step backwards, especially for long time users! I can't find one positive thing to say! In fact, I'm rather speechless. For the immediate future, the only records I will actively seek will come from the card catalog. This is an absolute mess! I
36 -
I am on this site frequently. The new format is not good. I appreciate your in depth explanation but its just too complicated and visually unappealing. If you wanted to add features you should have just added them without changing the whole format.
Also it does not allow you to change the marriage relationship or the parent child relationship.
Respectfully asking to change it back and just add these features that you want.
Thank you
Robin Calligan
23 -
So the only solution to search collection-specific fields now is to start directly from the collection page itself. Once I do that, there's no indication of those fields in the search results. And if I want to change any of them, I have to start completely over from the collection page?
This seems like a significant reduction in functionality to me.
Your assertion that, "Again all the additional options you have come to love on the old page will be found under the "More Options" button" seems like a significant misstatement of the facts.
18 -
The overwhelming response in all of the comments here are 'change it back'. I concur. This is not progress, it is a giant step backwards. All intuitiveness and functionally are gone.
If you truly value your customers thoughts and feedback, you will restore the search page to what it was.
Will I recommend your site to others, no.
28 -
I agree with many of the comments that have already been said. One specific thing that I see missing in search results is the "event place" listed on the results. Even if I go to preferences and select "all information" it still does not display. It appears that I have to go up to "residence" on the filter bar and it will tell me how many hits by state then narrow from there. This is not an effective way to look through results. "event place" is a very common piece of information that leads you to the correct source. To bury this piece of information in many layers of filters has just complicated my searches. Unfortunately I have jumped to ancestry.com to do most of my searching today -- get the exact "event place" for the document I am looking for -- then come back to familysearch and can now plug in the exact location for a more exact search. This is duplicating my search -- but in the end was quicker then trying to narrow down my search through the filters. Having to filter the state -- try one county -- no not there- -- back out and try another county -- not there etc. Please just add the "event place" back to the search results.
19 -
What on earth have you done to Family Search???? It seems to have been hijacked by an incompetent 3 year old! No ability to do an exact search resulting in hundreds of unwanted results, and using your nominated filters is a monumental waste of time because they DO NOT FILTER. Honestly whoever is responsible for this debacle should hang their head in shame
26 -
I am a volunteer not an IT functionary. I have a number of saved bookmark links that used to work to get to the old search page until Monday. Now the server alters the URL to redirect and use the new page. I can't help thinking that it would be really really easy to just to take out the code that redirects to the new page, and then it would make a whole lot of people really really happy.
9 -
I'm going to try and make positive suggestions, although in my professional experience, I am all too familiar with UI development "experts" trying to redesign an interface, and over-complicating it to the point where it's awkward and unusable, regardless of how pretty it may look to a developer or business analyst. That seems to be what happened here.
First of all, I could actually live with the Datasheet view with a few modifications:
- Allow the user to adjust the size of the columns, and hide/unhide specific columns. The specific collections I look at the most do not include a number of the fields, and as a result I have several blank columns, which push the Image and Information icons so far to the right that I have to scroll to see them. If I could hide or resize columns (or change the position), that problem goes away.
- In addition to the column adjustments, add an option to adjust the font size. I may be 60 with bifocals but I do not need a font the size of an elementary school book. I'd prefer to be able to select a smaller font to see more data on a page.
- Having the search criteria at the top could be usable if you could display the extended criteria and not just the basic info. I frequently need to refine what I am searching on, and having to bring up the search info and scroll through it (again, font size) is clumsy. If that extended search could be at the top so as not to block view of the data sheet, that would make more sense.
Those changes would at least bring my blood pressure back down to a healthy point and put some enjoyment back into my research. I can appreciate the scope and amount of effort that is put into FamilySearch and I really don't want to be excessively negative, but this change really does not appear to have been very well thought out from the perspective of the majority of the frequent users (which seems obvious from the comments).
23 -
There's is so much white space in the search side. Especially when you add the exact match boxes. A line on either side. Can it be condensed? Having to scroll to see exactly what my current search is adds a lot of time.
The same is true of the results. Also in my current search burial and death details are repeated. English birth registration's don't show the location even with it set to show all details.
16 -
The search results filter I have wanted for years is : attached/not attached/either.
Please, if the search results must be formatted so loosely that the user can see only a few records at a time, at least give us more ability to filter them. Sometimes I want to see only records already attached to Family Tree; sometimes I want to see only records not already attached.
I am limiting this comment to this one single feature request, hoping other contributors who want it too will "Like" it.
13
