Yeh - not only did the format change - but the search query is broke
not even restricting on the criteria that the user is typing in.
I hope this gets fixed soon.
This is a major flaw
Why dont things like this get caught in testing??
Why do I get the impression things are not even going through a normal QA mode before they hit production?
why is this sort of example so typical of our experience here in FS FT??
Could you please provide more details and maybe share some screenshots so that Staff and fellow customers can understand your problem and try to help you?0
[ By a Worldwide "Focus" Group of (Experienced) Users/Patrons ]
WHAT "Quality Assurance"?
I suggest this was part of the MAJOR ("Banner[ed]") release/update on last Sunday night/Monday morning [Mountain Time] (ie. Monday evening, my local time).
The MINOR "In-Line" everyday (un-bannered) releases/updates can be even WORSE.
'FamilySearch' NEEDS a GREATER Worldwide "Focus" Group of (Experienced) Users/Patrons = BIGGER base.
Hoping that many (Experienced) Users/Patrons will be "Testing" such like in the "Beta" ("Test") Environment; and, giving 'Feedback', just does not work.
Many of us DO NOT have the TIME to, EXPLORE; and, "Test", in the "Beta" ("Test") Environment.
But, if some of the more experienced Users/Patrons were asked (by 'FamilySearch') to be part of a GREATER Worldwide "Focus" Group of (Experienced) Users/Patrons, they would 'jump' at the chance, knowing how IMPORTANT such was - we would (try) to MAKE the TIME.
Just my thoughts.
The new Find search is biased by what the familySearch developers believe on how a search should work. They do not believe that users are smart enough to select the appropriate parameters for a search and instead enter other parameters. As an example I attempted to search for my great grandfather Thomas Cannell born in Onchan, Isle of Man in the year 1814. I know other parameters but felt that should be sufficient information to locate the record.
I entered the above information in the Find page with the beginning and end dates of 1814 and the other minimal information - The record comes up but only at the bottom of the first page. The first three records have birth dates of about 1811, about 1818 and about 1815 with locations of Kirk Braddan, I.O.M., Eng, Braddan, Isle of Man, and Liverpool, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom. Even when I mark the exact search box the same three records are at the top of the list while the desired record moves up three places from the last one on page one.
Clearly, the information placed in the search parameters is not being used as the user would expect and not even when a record matches the parameters it does not appear first in the list. Obviously, I do not know what criteria is actually being used but I believe all users expect that records which most closely match the entered parameters should appear at the top of the list. In the example, a record which matches all of the input parameters exactly only appears as something like the 20th in the list. I would expect the search to be much better than it currently appears.
I believe that Family Search developers are using other criteria to complete the search, not what the users have entered. Please let us as users understand why searches like this example do not provide the results we expect. I know that I can enter additional information such as spouse which will move the record up in the list but personally I would expect having name, the birth location and the year should be sufficient to put the record much closer to the top.1