Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
m said: Page loading problems are not minor problems to the user.0
-
W David Samuelsen said: Brett, they did roll back once on another version that was rife with bad stuff. They can roll back now and fix the bugs and problems then come back better.0
-
m said: Exactly what Jeff said.
Toggling between 3 pages (if you are looking at 1 person). Toggling between 6 pages (if you are looking at 2 people).
(No one wants to do this.)0 -
Jeff Wiseman said: Yea and I frequently have 3 or 4 people open as I work on sections of families. I'm seeing 12 tabs to keep sorted and depending on the order they were opened in, they get scrambled.0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: That would be ideal, but it won't happen. But yes, they shot themselves in the foot, and I know they are working on the bugs now as we speak, as I am seeing the improvements...slowly.0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: nothing is minor to the user.0
-
Allie Taylor said: I have no comments at the moment. I want to stop all these emails. How do I do that?0
-
Chas Howell said: Allie, go down to the very bottom of this thread and click on your Icon. Then "Edit Profile" then click "Email & Notifications" then Uncheck the appropriate boxes.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Or go to the top of the thread and click on "Unfollow"0
-
Chas Howell said: Right Jeff, so Allie use Jeff's way if you only want to stop certain threads. My way would stop all the threads you are following.0
-
Roger Moritz said: SOURCES back on Front Page, Huge workflow slowdown with this change.
Also, being unable to edit multiple lines such as birth, bap, death, burial etc. and only receiving a pop up box is a major downgrade.
The only real changes need to be cosmetic, but don't move things around and lock them there. Also, the place font is now too small, looks like the description line, hard to read.
Definitely slowed me down.0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: It slowed all of us down in a major way. In the past 3 months, I have submitted over 3,000 names, and in that time, I have attached sources, cleaned up errors and so forth.
Now...I just do 5 a day and I'm done...it takes so long to get the sources, duplicates, cleaning up error all up to par.0 -
Chas Howell said: Wow, 3000 names, that is about 9000 hours you'll need to spend in the temple to catch-up.0
-
Allie Taylor said: Thank you. I appreciate it!0
-
B.F. Randall said: On the bright side, you now have a lot more time to do temple work.0
-
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Hate the tiny print - check!
Hate the sources being moved to a different page - check!
Hate that it just got A LOT more difficult to fix bad merges (I have to have a fistfull of windows open now--huge P. I. T. A.) - check!
Hate that the merge individuals page no longer shows their summary at the top of the merge page - check!
Hate that I can't add the other parent to children now - check!
Seriously, is there any chance of restoring the ability to add the second parent to children? Since the downgrade (I can't honestly call it an "UPgrade", sorry), the only way I can add the additional parent is with the "delete/replace parents" function. I have to replace the currently listed parent with the missing parent (search by ID), and then add them as parents as a couple. Awkward!!!0 -
joe martel said: Margaret, can you give more detail or a screen shot about "can't add the other parent to children"? Please start your reply with "Joe: ..." Thanks0
-
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Joe, what I described above (use the replace parents function to add the second parent) is the workaround I found for the problem. Let me see if I can find someone to fix so I can get you a screenshot.
The error message when I try to add the second parent to a child is something like, "this relationship already exists." I think it's trying to automatically add both the additional parent and their spouse as parents. Naturally, that's a problem, because one parent-child relationship DOES already exist.0 -
joe martel said: Was this the setup:
Parent 1&2 have child 3
Parent 1 (single parent) has child 3
You try to add the Parent 2 to the single parent setup and you'll get the error. This would be correct. So you should remove the child from the single parent relationship.0 -
Peggy Arnot said: Terrible, terrible interface and even worse decision to spring it on users with no warning.
Worst part of the new interface? The NEW details page style does not force newbie genealogists to see notes and sources, so it assists the budding genealogist in ignoring warnings not to make (common but wrong) changes. In other words, the NEW interface will enable more errors.
Adding new buttons would have been fine, but removing the information that was previously displayed was not fine. Buttons are only useful when they don't interfere with function.
As a healthcare information administrator, I have heard the argument that change is hard, and all we need to do is get used to this awful interface. I've even used the argument when appropriate. It is NOT appropriate for this change.
Please, please, will someone listen to us! At least bring back the display of notes, discussions, and sources on the details page...for the sake of accurate information.0 -
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: No. Parent 1 has child 3. Child 3 has only one parent. I found Parent 2. I added Parent 2 as a spouse for Parent 1. Child 3 still has only one parent. When I clicked on the + symbol by the child, and + by add missing parent, I "searched by ID number" and added the mother. This change was blocked by the error message that "This relationship already exists".0
-
Peggy Arnot said: Sorry, Howard. I can't agree with your confidence. Reducing function by placing information more clicks away doesn't work. This problem has nothing to do with needing "constructive criticism" nor people getting used to change. Someone in charge needs to accept that this problem was simply due to poor interface design.0
-
Scott Hill said: And put back the customization of the order of the major subject areas. I'm tired of going to the bottom of the page to see the family connections.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Joe, something may have happened here. This experience is not exactly like Margaret's but may be of use to you in looking at her issue:
Right after the update I was working on cleaning up a family. Using an expanded version of what you did.
- Parent 1&2 have child 3&4
- single Parent 1 has child 5, 6, and 7
- I want to move child 5 into the Parents 1&2 family.
- I Selected the edit pencil icon on child 5 and did a "Replace Parents" and used the ID of Parent 1 to search for replacements.
- The pick list containing both the single Parent 1 and the married Parents 1&2 relationships was produced.
- I then Selected the Parents 1&2 relationship to replace the existing single Parent 1 relationship
The result (as expected) was that child 5 was moved to the Parent 1&2 relationship and then showed up alongside child 3&4.
The UNEXPECTED result was that at the same time, child 6&7 ALSO moved to the Parent 1&2 relationship, and the previous single Parent 1 relationship had disappeared!
I did not intend this as I was only looking at one child at a time. But all three were moved when I attempted to move just one.
Since there were all sorts of issues at that time, I just assumed that it was another glitch, but this current issue really sounded familiar. I haven't tried this since.0 -
Margaret Wicker Taylor said: Yikes! What if you only wanted to move one kid?!0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: I did! That is what was weird, but with everything else happening, I thought it best to just get off the system at that time :-)0
-
Peggy Arnot said: Agreed. The "edit" comment is the same size as the other type and in a color that calls attention to it instead of the main information. Distracting. Poor design.0
-
BT Brantley said: Sad, sad, sad. Why change something that was working so well? People who were just learning FamilySearch now have to start all over and the rest of us will just ....just what? Be sad, sad, sad.0
-
Scott Hill said: Printing "Family" and "Family with Sources" isn't functional.0
-
Scott Hill said: Opps, printing "Pedigree" isn't working either.0
This discussion has been closed.
Clear
No Groups Found