Need Greater Urgency to Handle Reported Site Errors

Ray Picard

Users wanting help to “use” FamilySearch seem to have many options. That is good. Anyone wanting to report an error (whether a typo, a bad link, or incorrect page content as was my case) has no higher-priority way to have the problem fixed.

I used the "Feedback" link to report a Catalog page that had already been used (maybe many times?) as the location for a Person entry source on the FamilySearch tree. The "Feedback" response took over 3-weeks and said (in effect) "We cannot help with your problem. You sent it to the wrong place." WOW!!! Very Poor customer support. I should not have to know to report an error to Family History Library instead of using "Feedback". This should all be handled invisibly for the user and much, much quicker.

Getting website errors fixed should have an urgency shared by all (users as well as FamilySearch). I would suggest that every webpage have a prominent link to “Report an Error” as a separate link next to the “Feedback” link that many webpages already have. An alternative would be to have just the “Feedback” link, but have the first step for users is to select a “category” from a list with “Report an Error” as the top choice.

If certain errors need special routing either automate the decision, have staff to do a manual triage, or have the user select a "category" for the error that will forward it properly. These categories, if needed, should be simple for a user to understand and not require any knowledge of the LDS/FamilySearch/FamilyHistoryLibrary responsibilities.

Site errors, in the best case, just frustrate users; in the worst case errors, like the one I encountered, the error can get replicated within many Person entries and may never be corrected.

Please provide better support for "Reporting Errors".

Julia Szent-Györgyi

I think the problem boils down to lack of manpower: an error reporting process requires someone at the other end. (The other choice is a bot as a first-tier boilerplate generator, which predictably makes for even unhappier customers.) This is why FS tries to funnel most feedback to this Community. Some errors and their fixes are so common that the regulars here can answer them in their sleep.

The broad outline of FS's setup actually makes sense: the community can determine whether there actually is an error, or whether the user is just Doing It Wrong. Only when there actually is an error does a mod need to step in and escalate to the appropriate department. (The theory breaks a bit on the details: there's a lack of transparency and clear communication about what has or hasn't been "sent up".)

For example, people regularly report catalog errors because of multi-part films. The catalog will say, quite clearly, that Boondocksville parish registers are item 8, but since the link goes to image 1, the user will angrily report that he got sent to Hicksville town hall minutes instead, and the catalog is All Wrong and needs to be fixed. If such a report gets posted on this forum, then a fellow user can explain about item numbers and filming bookmarks, and by the time the conversation concludes, the original poster will likely have a link to the exact image he wanted, and a bunch of other users will have learned something about multi-item films. If the report got sent to "staff" instead, then the answer would likely be a general explanation, without the specific links, and only the original question-asker would learn anything from it.