The new green banner is lovely but It should default to find by ID. When you find by name, you get hundeds of responses. I am hardly ever able to find anyone that way. But Find by ID takes you to that exact page.
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
You are not alone ...
In regard to, the NEW "Find" facility/feature/function, in the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch' ...
"Find by ID", is NOT, on an EXTRA page/screen; but, it is on another 'Tab', on the SAME page/screen.
You simply choose, which of the 'Tabs', that you need either, (1)"Find by Name"; or, (2) "Find by ID".
Very quick and easy; but, certainly, an EXTRA step, if one wants to search by "Find by ID".
The "Default", FIRST "Option" appearing (ie. 'Left-Hand-Side'), should NOT, be "Find by ID".
The "Default" page/screen that appears, includes the ability to BOTH, (1)"Find by Name"; and, (2) "Find by ID".
The "Find by Name", NEEDS to (and, SHOULD always) be, the FIRST available "Option" appearing (ie. 'Left-Hand-Side'); especially, for NEW and "Inexperienced" Users/Patrons.
Whereas, hence, with the "Find by ID", SHOULD be the SECOND available "Option" appearing (ie. 'Right-Hand-Side'), for experienced Users/Patrons.
You personally, like many experienced Users/Patrons, may generally MAINLY use the "Find by ID"; but, such is NOT the case, for NEW and "Inexperienced" Users/Patrons.
That Said ...
I actually believe/think what you want/desire, is as follows:-
That the LAST "Option" used, by a User/Patron, in "Find" facility/feature/function, to be DEFAULT "Option". that appears, for the NEXT use, of the "Find".
In other words, the position of the, (1)"Find by Name"; and, (2) "Find by ID", swap/switch, "Sides", if a User/Patron has previously used the "Find" facility/feature/function.
As such, I believe, that is the sort of enhancement, that you want/desire.
This, has been discussed, in number of recent previous posts:
[ There has been such a 'hue and cry' about the matter, that I am sure, that 'FamilySearch', may be considering ... ]
Here are just some:
[ 1 ]
Suggest An Idea
HOME > SUGGEST AN IDEA
[ 2 ]
'Category' = General Questions
HOME > FAMILYSEARCH HELP > GENERAL QUESTIONS
Just my thoughts.
I know, that this certainly does not help/assist; but, I just wanted to let you know, that you are not alone.
We can but live in hope.
As I believe I commented on another thread making the same suggestion: I would seriously not appreciate such a default, because "find by ID" is basically completely pointless. If I already have the ID, then why on Earth would I be looking for it? I can just go ahead and use it, in the box at the top of the Recents menu, or directly in the browser's address bar.
Related ( LATER / SUBSQUENT ) 'Post' ...
Where, the scope/request of this matter, is more correct / better...
I think this sort of thing could be handled by creating display preference settings.
FamilySearch already allows you to select you messaging preferences in your user profile.
Similarly you could have preferences to allow you to customize how different pages display on your screen.
*Set to Find by Name or Find by Id
*Open a Simple search box or one that displays more options.
*Customize your home page with the content modules that are most important to you.
It is a good way to make everyone happy, if it can be set up.
Thank you for listening. The find page now defaults to what was used previously, either by name or by PID. Now just one more thing will put it back the way it was before and that is to put the focus on the input box as we come into the page. ie If I have the PID already copied all I have to do is ctrl+v rather than having to click in the box first. I know some will say I am being picky but when you do 100's of searches per day it all adds up. Thanks for all you are doing, this is an amazing site.
@McKinneyJohnL, are you aware that you can save at least one step by using the box at the top of the Recents menu?
"Find by ID" route: Find - click in box - ctrl-v - click Search - click somewhere on the background of the result (five steps if this was what you used previously; add one if not).
"Recents" route: Find (or any other Tree page) - Recents - ctrl-v - click Go (four steps).
(I really don't understand why people are so insistent on searching for something that they've already found.)
I do research for many different people so they will give me access to their account using the username and helper number and the PID of the individual they need help with. entering this number in recent does not always yield results. Even if I ignore the fact that a name does not come up and just hit go for a search it does always give results. I see this as a problem in the recent area also. If I expand the search past recent it should give a result but does not always. Your last point (I really don't understand why people are so insistent on searching for something that they've already found.) for me doesn't apply because I have not already found that person.
@McKinneyJohnL, I don't understand your last statement. If you haven't already found the person's ID, then why do you want to use Find by ID? What will you put into its search field?
I'm also unclear on what you mean by "entering this number in recent does not always yield results". If you input a valid ID into the box at the top of the Recents menu, then you will be taken to that ID's details page when you click Go or type enter/return. This is always true, no exceptions: valid ID = that ID's details page.
If the ID isn't valid, then Find by ID will not work, either, so again, I don't understand what it is that you're actually doing.
Ahhhh but what you are saying is not true. I have been given a valid ID and tried to input it in recents. The process is that if it is not found in the recents I can click go and it will then often find the person but NOT ALWAYS and then if I input the same ID in the find area it will find it. I do normally use the recents search because there are fewer steps if it is found. I guess my frustration stems from a software engineers view. If something is made available it should work efficiently. I will have no trouble if the find by ID is removed and the recents method ALWAYS works. There is no need for further discussion on this matter since I will not be swayed and neither will you. Thank you for your incites to this point.
Putting an ID into the box at the top of Recents doesn't actually do a search anywhere. It just generates a URL.
McKinneyJohn L you are right on. I too spend nearly all day on family search and it has finally saved one step for me. I almost never search by name because that generates thousands of unrelated people. I search by ID.
@s10297588641, those two searches are completely different species. They search completely different databases for completely and utterly different types of things. Your suggestion is like asking to combine the phone book with the library's card catalog. It makes no sense.
familysearch.org/search is for indexed historical records. In other words, it is a finding aid for historical records: a way to locate references to people in documents, without needing to sit there paging through the actual documents. (Of course, indexes being imperfect, one does eventually need to page through for the things the index missed or mangled, but usually the index search narrows down the scope.)
search/tree/name is for the Family Tree on FamilySearch, a collaborative, open-edit endeavor that has the lofty goal of one -- and only one -- profile per deceased person, correctly connected to all of his or her relatives. The profiles returned in such a search are a collection of conclusions that people have reached about a person, based among other things on historical records and/or their indexes.
If the researchers have done it right, then the sources for their conclusions are attached to the Tree profile. Usually, it's actually the index entry that's directly attached in FamilySearch's tree, as a shorthand for the document itself; this is because indexes are machine-parseable, while images are not (yet). FS keeps track of these connections between the two databases, which is a common cause for the kind of confusion that you demonstrate.