Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
m said: Keeping users requires presenting a product users want to use...otherwise users will use competitor products instead.
(And there will be more competitor products in the future, not less.)0 -
Chas Howell said: M, you bring up some valid issues but to your point about a “business model” and competitors. Please know that FS is not a business. It does not “compete” with anyone for number of users or web hits. https://www.familysearch.org/about0
-
m said: Familysearch would not care if Familytree lost most of it's user base?0
-
J. Britt Franklin said: All the effort going into correcting problems is appreciated. It seems to me that some of the issues might have been prevented had a more user-involved approach to pushing out these changes been taken in the first place.
On a separate note, "Notes" are not necessarily for collaboration. Discussions clearly are. It would be more logical to have Notes under their own tab or a tab labeled something like "Historical data."0 -
B.F. Randall said: J. Britt Franklin, I totally agree with this comment and suggest that you make this a stand-alone thread so it will get noticed. This thread is so big I don't think many people are diving into the sur-replies.0
-
m said: In other words, Familysearch would not care if Familytree was a failure in the long run?0
-
Don M Thomas said: It will be interesting to see in the next 6 months, and year, if more or less people use the "Family Tree."
One also has to be happy with what they are doing.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: m,
Scott's right though. Family Search will not "lose most of it's user base" and will not become "a failure in the long run". What you are forgetting is that it is really a theocracy and not a business. It does not exist to make a profit, and even if it lost 90% of it's participation, it would still be kept in existence as much as possible.
Why? Because of the real reasons it exists for as well as the fact that it has one thing that no other genealogical site in the world has (or will ever have), that all of the members of the church want...
Seamless integration with the Church's temple ordinances database :-)
Although its all fruit, you can't compare apples to oranges!
The worst that can happen would be for FS to become an extremely inefficient and awkward system to use. But I believe that the bulk of those working there really want it to be good, so the aforementioned is unlikely to happen. But there are a lot of disagreements on which way the paths to perfect should go :-)0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: I agree too. I typically use notes as the place that shows the logic whereby vitals have been derived from sources (especially when it is not obvious). Discussions are useful for fleshing out text that eventually might go into notes.0
-
m said: Interesting.
It would be sad if it became an extremely awkward and inefficient site for its users, though.
(People still need to push for improvements.)
It's a quality of life issue for users.0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: It's not going to lose it's customer base. In fact, this is free for all users. Just as Jeff said, it has one thing that no other ancestory tree maker has in the world and never will.
It will be fine. After spending some time with it for the past few days, I am finding that it is very helpful after they moved things around. I can get to my sources faster on one page than having to go back and forth to get the sources I need. That's just one of the many things I'm starting to like.
The only thing I don't like is the speed, but I think that'll improve in time.0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Well, if it DID become "extremely awkward and inefficient for users", You might find that many would go to other sites to do their research and data accumulation into trees there, and then migrate the data back here.
Oh dear. That would mean a large influx of GEDCOM files being merged into the system...0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: NOOOOOOO....THAT DUPLICATES THE WORK!
0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Duplicates? Do you know what the word "exponential" means :-)0
-
rotkapchen said: This has been resolved, but not access to delete the legacy transfer of notes.0
-
rotkapchen said: This still has not been corrected. I am unable to attach parents to children when there is at least one relationship between the parents. It is NOT checking to see if the relationship to the child is already in place (it is not). It requires me to add the child to the married couple and then delete them from the two individual parents. It's a huge waste of time.0
-
rotkapchen said: While other things with Discussions was restored, we still don't have former access to delete Legacy Disputes.0
-
m said: Exponential = Bad!0
-
m said: I forgot to mention that competitor websites automatically do place the Sources Section and the Warnings Section (Discussions on Familytree) on the Main Page of a Person:
1) WeRelate
2) Wikitree
3) Geni (warnings added to text of main page, sources can be too.)
And the reason Sources and Warnings are automatically placed on the Main Page of a Person on these competitor websites is because users want them to be very visible.0 -
Alex Sellers said: FamilySearch, as others have said, does not compete with anyone. FamilySearch's primary focus is the Church's Temple Ordinance System. Doing genealogy is attached to that. FamilySearch has no competitors in this regard.0
-
Don M Thomas said: Aren't we being a bit smug Alex Sellers? I mean we did, and possibly do, have quite a number of non-LDS users working in the Family Tree."
Still the same old SPOILED CHILD, and It will be other patrons Temple work, and the Red - Shared With Temple for me in the next 6 years, or until FamilySearch decides to change their interface again.0 -
Tom Huber said: Ron Tanner's comments, above all the repeated noise (and that is what it has become) need to be comprehended as to why the changes were made: The person page and other parts of Family Tree interfaces are undergoing changes because of a required technology upgrade. It is requiring a re-write of much of the code. The goal is to be faster and more efficient in bringing only the data needed down to the browser. With these updates we download 2.5 MB less data to provide the page. This is a significant increase in speed. Then we only bring down more data if needed for other tabs. If you don't click it, it will not bring the data down. (emphasis mine)
This need for increased download speed is especially important in areas which are not served by high-speed internet connections, as is the case in many emerging and existing third-world countries.0 -
Alex Sellers said: I honestly don't see where you got "smug" by my post. FamilySearch's primary purpose is to facilitate Temple Ordinances. I was simply stating that fact and the fact that no other website can compete for that purpose. Saying that the temple system and FamilySearch's primary userbase (members doing temple work) spoiled children because the site is literally built around said system is trying to create an argument that isn't there.0
-
Juli said: Finally found the half-remembered thing I wanted to respond to: Ron Tanner wrote, "It is very cumbersome to scroll down and then back up. The intent is to open the sources and then click back to the vitals then click back to sources."
Without a glued/frozen navigation bar, this does not work, or rather, it more than doubles the amount of scrolling involved, especially if you're trying to compare the youngest child in the family, all the way at the bottom of the Details pane, with his mention in a funeral notice, all the way at the bottom of the Sources pane.0 -
Alex Sellers said: I agree with Juli. A persistent, ahem, "wrapper_thingie" (as it is called in the "view source" tool in Chrome) would be amazing and would resolve many of my complaints.0
-
Tom Huber said: Immaterial. Drop the back and forth. It is only noise and does not make us look good to those who are not members.
As far as Don's comment goes, that attitude he speaks of is what caused a lot of early discrimination against the church. New members held it over their non-member neighbors to the point where some real fears were instilled in the minds of the neighbors.
We don't need that and any representation of "why" the existence of FamilySearch and all the work contributes is toward preserving the record of all of humanity.
Stick to the issues at hand and keep personalities out of any discussions, please!0 -
Alex Sellers said: My apologies. Certainly didn't want this to turn into a flame war0
-
joe martel said: For areas that have limited internet you can use the lite version of FS at
https://www.familysearch.org/tree/lite0 -
H. Alan Reid said: Thank you Ron Tanner for your response. This does explain why some of the changes were made. Speaking for myself, I have been really, REALLY frustrated with the loss of options that I am very used to. I know, like any other change, I'll eventually adjust. The slow response times to the main page have been an irritant in the past. But I really did love having the sources at the bottom of the page and I miss that.
I think the frustration I had, came in the way the change happened. For me, I was right in the middle of rebuilding a family unit from Sweden where parents from a previous century were connected with three children in error. I found the correct parents and was attempting to make corrections. That was a difficult process to attach and unattach family members and all of a sudden the format changed.
I felt as though the way it was done and some of the comments that have been made to the quick and often-emotional responses that followed, suggested that we, the users are not the customers but just the users who should be grateful for anything we have. I have to be honest, that rubbed me a little wrong. An announcement/warning that should have contained some of the information above would have been nice. I have always assumed that I was the customer of FS. I know that there is no cost involved, but I felt as though this tool exists for me to use and fill my responsibilities to/with my ancestors. This change seemed to say, "FS owns this program, FS will change it when we want to, and you are lucky that FS even lets you have access at all."
I will admit that my statement above is my own and it is (and has probably always been) wrong. But that is how I felt. Judging from some of the other responses, I doubt I am alone.
For changes in the future, maybe it would be helpful for all of us do decide two questions... Are customers lucky to have the service? or... Is the service lucky to have customers? Isn't "yes" the answer to both questions?0 -
rotkapchen said: Exactly the reason that posing the NPS (net promoter score) question in the surveys is oh-so-meaningless.0
This discussion has been closed.