Don, I think you're confusing things. It's pretty clear that what that other thread is referring to is the comments that people submit using the "Feedback" link at the side of some FS pages (such as the detail pages for index entries). You know, the process that starts with having to choose an emoji? And inexplicably always requires a response about how likely you are to recommend FS?
Apparently, the comments submitted using that Feedback side-button are read by missionaries, and if said missionaries find an idea in a comment that they deem worthy of consideration, they are instructed to post it here in the Ideas section of Community. I believe the intention is then for people to read the idea and upvote it if they think it's good, and then eventually an FS employee can look at the threads that have a lot of votes to see if there's something that could be implemented.
If the missionaries read a comment about something that they deem to be a problem rather than an idea, I'm sure they have different instructions about how to deal with it. I think they sometimes simply post the comment in Q and A, but they may have direct access to some of the background tech support people that the mods here sometimes mention.
In any case, I think you're getting all worked up over an inaccurate picture of how things are actually supposed to work. The Communities forum(s) are clearly intended to be an integral part of FS's support system, with contributions from unaffiliated users, volunteers, missionaries, mods, and employees. (The effectiveness of such a crowdsourced support system is a separate topic.)
Apples & Oranges.
Don, huh? I'm not making a comparison, so I don't know how "apples and oranges" applies.
You wrote "Today we find out it is just missionaries doing the Feedback." Um. No, it isn't. All sorts of people can and do submit feedback, using at least two different mechanisms. Most of it eventually ends up somewhere here in Community, at least for some portion of its existence, so I don't understand why you think it may as well be gotten rid of.
Or by "doing the Feedback" do you actually mean dealing with the feedback? In any support setup, someone or something has to do the first-level triage/sorting/parsing, and quite frankly, I'd much rather it be people on a service mission than a machine parser.
Why was the Family Search site changed? Now everything is all jumbled up not matter how much one limits the search on "Advanced Search". It makes no difference - one still gets EVERYTHING from EVERY STATE and EVERY YEAR.
How can you call this a search engine? It was great before you all "FIXED IT".
Now, doing a search on this is ridiculous!
I have been as critical as the next person when it comes to the changes made to the Search engine, but I have found it is possible to reduce your results, to be more in line with those you want to have produced.
Elsewhere, I have asked for users to provide specific examples, so that more experienced users can advise the methods to be used in finding specifically what is required. For example, if you just want to find details of individuals of a particular name who were resident in a particular state in the 1900 US census.
Such searches can still be undertaken, by checking "Exact" against some (if not all) of the completed fields and filtering on a particular Collection. Incidentally, in the past I found it a problem - i.e. with getting 000s of irrelevant results - if I did not search using specific criteria.
This is not to downplay the current difficulties - just to advise there are ways of getting the results you require, it just requires (in most cases) a different way of making your inputs. With some effort, you will find there can be little difference in what is returned now, from what appeared previously.
I'm just a volunteer, but I sympathise with so much said above.
I put an Idea up here https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/104666/new-search-tips-and-tricks#latest about a technique to make the search work better. The info on wildcards was first posted in a blog years ago, we just never need to use them very much before because the results were more focussed.
That's addressing only one of the major issues that a lot of people have been annoyed about.
The other is re-iterated in your answer above: "With some effort". Far too many people have found that the new search involves more work, not less. Their response is not unnatural, they want to know why it changed to something that produces too many unwanted results AND is more difficult to use. That's not perceived as an improvement.
For those posting earlier wanting to know why feedback isn't having an effect, Casey Robinson 001 and colleagues have limited time to spend looking at the Community Q&As and Ideas. So feedback is very slow to be heard.
Actual quote fromCasey Robinson 001 " Unfortunately, I do not have the time (again responding to feedback isn't my primary responsibility set at FamilySearch) to respond to every piece of feedback we get, but I have made time to read each one. We are continuing to search for bugs and identify ways to improve this new design based on the specific feedback I am reading and regularly bringing back to the team. "
I started out by being aggravated by not being able to search the way I was accustomed to doing. And my aggravation is not getting any better. Why would you want to change something that is working? Change for the sake of change is not really change. When I was able to go to the year I could find the person I was searching for in the census (if they were there) I found names I could match to my searches to make an educated guess as to whether I wanted to keep them - or not. This way, there is nothing for me to find. I hate the change you have made and unfortunately I don't know how to get around it. I would hope that when you read my Feedback you will find a way to leave in place for those of us who want to search the way we were accustomed to using.