Does anyone at familysearch care about fixing anything or just creating more problems for users?

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: PLEASE RESOLVE CASE ID 04153835 (along with others in that same case, like case 04170071) That has been unresolved for over 3 + years. You say you don't have the staff, but you have no problem wasting endless hours on doing changes to the program to supposedly make it better to which it only makes it worse. After August 2017 your updates caused this issue! Ron Tanner, or anyone from the high ups that reads this, THIS is only one of the BIGGEST issues that this system has a problem with! The case gives all the details, I'm to tired to sit here and explain it all over again. Some have been fixed by your workers, and it is ALL FIXABLE since I've seen you do it. These ancestors all need to come back to the system! PLEASE HELP! Missionaries and volunteers are not workers nor do they know what to do this is a TIER 3 issue! I'd do it myself if you just gave me the access. Cannot believe this case is still endless...HELLO?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Many problems are being reported, addressed and resolved all the time.

What happens is that if you request that a case not be closed until resolved, the case ends up in limbo and is basically ignored.

In those instances, I've found it effective to set up an "idea" with this Get Satisfaction forum (one thread per issue) and that allows us users to get involved. That helps bring issues to the attention of the engineers and eventually, someone from FamilySearch may comment as they have time.

Right now, the number of outstanding issues is pretty low and new issues have more to do with minor nits than anything major. The major issues are usually addressed within a working week or a bit more.

Requests, such as the ongoing request to no longer allow GEDCOM uploads to be used to impact the massive tree are ongoing and likely will never be met by FamilySearch. We can only hope that a standard compare, similar to the current merge process, will be used with the GEDCOM uploads. After all, the user who uploads a GEDCOM of their personal tree wants to integrate (merge) their information with that of the tree, so it would make a lot of sense to use a merge process with an uploaded GEDCOM tree.

But actual bugs are usually addressed quickly if enough information is provided that FS can use the replicate the problem. The more information that is provided for the problems, the faster the issue can be replicated and then passed to an engineering team that can fix the problem.

Individual case numbers are useless for this forum. It is better to fully document each issue in its own thread and include the operating system and browser for non-mobile apps, or the mobile app (iOS or Android) involved. Screen shots are always helpful, and if the problem is with search results, the URL of the search that appears with the results.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: Does anyone else ever read these besides Tom Huber? No offense. I'm looking for real help here by the people that supposedly run this program for better ideas. Waiting 3 years is more then ridiculous. Had to re-poen this case more then once, talked to several missionaries that don't know what there doing, and the tier 3 team that just likes to play solitaire. Ron Tanner or other FS leaders please read this.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Every discussion thread is read by at least one FS person, who may or may not reply, depending upon the amount of time they have available. There are some areas that need to be sent to the correct group, such as anything impacting standard places, including the new project for adding / defining standard places. Indexing is another area where problems associated with indexing are better handled in the Communities, reached by clicking on Help and selecting communities from the list.

The communities section is handled by older code and is noticeable slower, but it is better than when I first tried to get to a couple of FamilySearch communities. Hopefully, with future changes, it will be as responsive as the rest of the site for those with hi-speed internet connections.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: Pioneer42, I don't know what is in your case. If you have specific issues with the software you can create Feedback here on GetSatisfaction. Some engineers read these, but every post is seen by someone at FS. But there should be no expectation that your issue will be addressed, or acknowledged here.

You can escalate your case in the Support system, or post to Communities. Communities is the newer system, that may replace GetSatisfaction some day. It tends to be slower because it is still early in its development.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: 3 years! And yes they are finally realizing this picture, they finally started doing something about this. This is more then just a issue or my case. This is a major flaw in the system. I have been trying to get them to resolve this asap, or others will soon follow suit, and then people will wonder what happened to many of there IDS dropping off, or disappearing this is why! Not my IDs but ids that were setup back in 2012 on the crossover, and with all the sources etc...these cannot hang in limbo. They also had hundreds of merges put into some of them during the merge fix of yesteryears. Do you see now? Yes they do need a better board then getsatisfaction. But not sure how what they will do, I only come here occasionally when things have gone so awry, I cant stand it no more.

LegacyUser

joe martel said: I'm sorry I don't see it? If you provide some URL's, PID's or screen shots and the problem we might be able to help you.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I agree with Joe. Simply saying that something doesn't work is not going to yield any response.

I've found it effective to set up an "idea" with this Get Satisfaction forum (one thread per issue) and that allows us users to get involved. That helps bring issues to the attention of the engineers and eventually, someone from FamilySearch may comment as they have time.

Otherwise, all you are doing is making noise.

Give us the very issues and concerns (again, one issue per thread) that you have.

If you aren't specific, no one is going to help you.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: In the instance where you provided an example in another thread, URL addresses never wrap without some kind of separator involved, so the URL being extended outside the edit box is not a bug. It is part and parcel of how browsers work with URLs. It is also something that cannot be fixed by FamilySearch.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Pioneer42,

You might want to actually copy and paste the contents of your CASE number into a reply on this topic. It might be a fast way to get the information to FS reps here on the forum. I know that it shouldn't be necessary since it has been in the system that long, but it could improve visibility on the issue.

On a totally different note, in the "New Change Log" topic that was recently snoozed:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

I didn't have a chance to reply to you. I hope that you were not offended by my "Gee, I wonder where that name came from" comment, as it intended totally as humor and definitely not an insult (I guess you might have missed my smiley face). Many folks here are likely familiar with the old "pioneer42" password that was used in many places in the church for several years. I thought is was rather clever of you to use it for your moniker :-)

Anyway, if I offended you, please forgive me.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: They are already on it, and they have fixed several already since yesterday. I was hoping to use this to get there attention, since It has sat for so long, not good customer service, and it is a major flaw. Disappearing ID'S! No my name had nothing to do with the church password, even though that thought never crossed my mind when it was created. Not mad, just didn't understand, you know how words never come across as well as talking. Hard to sometimes write like your talking. Especially on complicated issues like the change log. My biggest problem with the change log is mostly the Sources that has been changed. It is a big factor. The merging thing is just an annoying third and fourth step I have to do now.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: Tom Huber That is incorrect statement you have said, I have the old old case that they did fix this issue. This is NOT a new issue it propped back up again about 2017, they fix it and then it comes back after a "software update"

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: Hence why do you think I keep saying the old program was better? So many new flaws in this program "update". Shoddy work.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: There is always a way, check this website, it shows how to go about it, its all about Word wrap or Word break
https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/p...

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: Either way, they did fix it and it came back hauntingly after a software update/ new program new idea etc...Its always about programming. Just that people throw stuff out to quick. Sort of like Hollywood and hence you have many problems with movies that needed much editing, but they just done care.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: When people say bug, from our visual standpoint it is a bug, it is messing something up no? Bugs get in way visually, cant get around them on a winshield, one must use wiper. LOL

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: A bug is a repeatable (sometimes very elusive) error in code. It is not about perception of something that appears to be a problem. Sometimes, the problem is with the user who believes there is a problem, but most of the time, that perception needs to be examined.

It is good thing that you did put in the case number, because it woke up support to the fact that your issue (whatever it was, and you never did say from what I scanned of your responses above) had not been addressed, but lost in limbo.

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: Oh my goodness Tom! Do you ever stop thinking like a engineer? A bug is a bug, a virus is sometimes called a bug too, a problem with any computer is always called a bug or an error by people. Haven't you ever heard of the blue screen of death? That doesn't even make sense right? But its cool. Even though 9/10 it is a hardware error with code. Hence what happens when you put Windows CE, ME and NT together you get cement. But windows vista was a good program right? Xp sucked even though it was used for 20 years almost. Windows 10 is the best hurrah! Except it only watches your every move like a police state. ITS LIKE CMON MAN!

LegacyUser

Pioneer42 said: new is not always better, and what was once old is new again.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Do I ever stop thinking like an engineer?

Been there, done that. I once headed up a QA staff at a computer manufacturer and tracked issues that arose during development, sometimes with new technology.

Bugs are very specific and while the public may not understand their nature, the engineers are interested in actual bugs, which sometimes can be very elusive. I often test and validate issues that are raised in this forum, just to add details that will help the engineers chase down the resolve the bug.

Perceived issues are not and should not be labeled as bugs. That's why a specific problem should be identified as much as possible, so that others (like myself) can test the same problem and validate its existence and help identify the "root cause" of the problem (if possible from a user's point of view).

In some instances, we can even propose a workable solution.

Or we can help the user(s) understand a new interface and often the reasons behind the change. We are now reaching a point in FamilySearch's development where a new user interface does not equate to bugs (though they can and do crop up). Sometime a problem, like an overly long URL from Ancestry, cannot be adequately displayed and another method must be used to direct people to the problem. In your case, the life sketch is purely text based and will not convert URLs to links. Therefore, another solution must be used, such as Bitly (I have no connection to the site or even use it). Can FS create the ability to convert the URL into links? Yes. But will they? I don't know.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Technically, the term "bug" originally was associated with a programming error. in other words the software implementation did not match the formal design of the product. I.e., the design was not implemented correctly.

But when a design that was created by an engineer doesn't match the original requirements of the system, THAT is referred to as a "design flaw". Originally "bug" was not actually associated with design flaws, and doing so tends to play down the seriousness of such flaws.

Design flaws can come from engineers not properly matching their designs to the requirements or needs of the customer. However, in many areas of industry, true requirements handling is not even used in their engineering processes. As a result the designers must do both their own requirements capture as well as the actual design (which is a conflict of interest and frequently results in severe flaws at both the design and requirements level. As a result, the use of the term "bug" has expanded to cover all three of the areas (requirements, design, and Implementation) involve in that product's development.

So if an engineer totally misunderstands the needs of the customer that are essential for the product to work correctly, and he creates a design based on those errors, even if the software implementation is CORRECTLY built from the design spec, the system is considered to have a "bug".

This is a use of the term that ihas always bothered me. When the second narrows bridge that was under construction in Vancouver BC (several years back) collapsed killing 70 men, all of the construction had been CORRECTLY built per the design specifications of the engineers. Unfortunately, the engineers had not incorporated certain essential requirements for weight loading on support pillars which ended up failing. So even though the Implementation of the design was correctly met, there was a DESIGN FLAW in the specs.

By today's definition of what a "bug" is, the failure of the second narrows bridge would be termed a "bug" rather than a DESIGN FLAW which it really is.

There are a lot of things here on the FS site which are classified as "bugs" when in fact they are design flaws coming from either not designing from the system requirements, or just plain not having formal requirements that are implementation free.

It's very common throughout the IT industry to call everything a "bug" because it nicely playes down the seriousness of much bigger design flaws.

LegacyUser

ATP said: "...to call everything a "bug" because it nicely plays down the seriousness of much bigger design flaws", aka as shifting responsibility!

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: That's why its use has always bothered me in some contexts.