Ok, this is good to hear, I left some long complaints earlier this year as all of these formatting changes have been happening, and I tried to spell out clearly all the issues I had with the new design. I am in my 20s and I've already seen so many websites change their design layout over and over again for seemingly no other reason but to seem new and cool, which I'm not convinced actually increases visitors to sites at all (maybe you guys know something I don't, but I can't think of a single time I've heard anything good about a major website's change to layout. It seems like an insular community thing where the investors that provide monetary support want to hear the buzzwords that the website is 'modern' and then the website designers make up a new design that fits the aesthetic and then after a year or so people start thinking things need to change for the sake of change and the cycle continues). Also, I think a lot of people enjoy a website like this with historical records, to not look super 'trendy' or whatever. I'm not using this site because it looks neat, I'm using it because it's a database of data. A different website with the same information that had less unnecessary changes to it would get my support instead of this, but unfortunately no other site has such good access to free resources. I really want to like this website, but I don't recommend it to people anymore, or at least not with the caveat of how bad it is to navigate. And the old format was really really good, the gray and white was clear to read, I personally like websites with corners rather than rounded corners better, it just looks more natural, but I truly have such a hard time using this website as it looks now and it's so so frustrating. Not that there weren't a few changes that needed to be made, but myself or any other user on this site could've spelled those out quite clearly. It certainly wouldn't have needed to culminate in a complete overhaul of the format. I understand some part of it might've been because it's easier to make a new design than fix an old one, but I think everyone would've been happy to wait that extra time. I really would love if there was simply an option to get to use the old format before these recent changes. Honestly at this point I might even pay you for it is how annoying this new format is. And know that there are probably plenty of people who were dissatisfied with the changes but simply didn't say anything. This is probably the first time I've really given my feedback like this to a website, because I really care about this being a good experience for me and other people. I spend a lot of time on this site and I want to continue doing so.
Also, I feel like I've noticed the search function just not working as well? Like I feel like it doesn't give me as many far off options like it used to, like if I type in a name it sticks closer to the exact spelling, which is really not helpful when I'm looking up Slavic last names, because those are like always misspelled and I assume the search AI or whatever it is wouldn't know logical spelling errors with Slavic names as well as English names, and it would take a long time for me to go through and guess every possible bad spelling of a last name because it's not as easy as replacing a single letter or something. But I'm not sure that that's not just a problem caused by the change of formatting and maybe I'm looking at different complexities of names than earlier. But thought I'd mention it in case other people have noticed the issue.
Anyways I hope the old formatting comes back :)
The Learning Center page (https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/learning-center) would greatly benefit by adding a simple link to the "Classes in the Learning Center" (https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Classes_in_the_Learning_Center). Currently I have to search for something or hope that the few items shown is what I am looking for. There is no link to the list of archived classes that can be viewed online. Sometimes I don't know what exactly to search for. Being able to browse the class list is very helpful.0
Baptism and Burial records are linked to the wrong images. For example; Burial record for Katherine Lawrence, wife of Nicholas, dated 23 April 1716 has a Parish image connected to it but, when I click on the link it takes me to a page with 1684 records. This is not the only example I have.0
I don't know what has happened to this site — it used to be really good now it is so hopeless as to be no use at all. Will check back from time to time but will no longer be one of my top resources.
Family Search, at THIS moment, I'm am inclined to postulate that you clearly make it difficult for us, lowly, "users" to communicate with you, because my search was long and convoluted until I found success with "Leave a Comment."
Here's my beef: you sent to me a message asserting I had made an error (a "duplication" error?) with two people. One was a John Carre (1825- ); the other was his Grandson, John Asa Carre, (1892-1952). I humbly and respectfully suggest that, before you act on such "discoveries," that you slow down, search for data, then actually compare the two sets of data (such as important facts): birth dates.
George Del Monte0