Hello FamilySearch Community! Try out the new update to Record Search.
Answers
-
I'm finding it difficult to set the search to just search census records or search for a death. I have switched browsers twice to use FamilySearch and now again everything seems too large for the page. Perhaps more guidance is needed for those of us searching records.
2 -
Yes, usability was included ! The new and improved pretty pictures do not improve the usability of the new search, the appearance is irrelevant, the search does not work in any type of useful fashion.
I have discovered one important feature, searching from an existing profile is no better than starting from the beginning, the information that is already included in the profile is not included in the search form.
I am often looking for additional sources for existing profiles, and having to enter all of the information that should be automatically included in the search parameters takes an enormous amount of time.
There are many other smaller less well known websites that have similar records, even those sites search using existing information. I can change part of the search parameters on every other family history site.
I belong to a very large family history group that has used Family Search extensively, primarily because the search process gave good results.
That is impossible with the New Search. It really is time for FS to admit that the new search process has been a significant failure. Reset back to Old Search and start over!
6 -
Thanks for the suggestion Gordon, though clearing cookies was one of the first things I tried, to no avail. I didn’t consider posting a screenshot as necessary as I wasn’t being hyperbolic in my comment, it quite literally did not work and only produced the warning triangle with the “something went wrong” message below (no matter how I tried to access a search), which is standard across the platform, so the engineers would be familiar with what that looked like.
Regardless, two days later and that particular issue seems to have resolved, so I guess it was addressed.
Though now being able to use the new version I find myself in emphatic agreement with the majority of comments here in considering the update a major step backwards.
Some of my concerns are:
- Firstly it is generally clunky and much slower to load and perform.
- Search results themselves seem far less specific, not even producing results for records I know exist? I guess this may occur if search algorithms have also been tweaked, not just the interface?
- A number of small, needless steps have been added to the process of performing a comprehensive search which really slows down the process and inhibits ease of function. This is particularly cumbersome if you’re performing a large number of searches or trying to undertake any kind of comprehensive research. Specifically:
1 - Having the “More Options” (advanced search) be a sliding pop-up bar across the right of the screen which a) blocks the already much inhibited view of results and b) takes a long time to reload every time you want to edit a search field.
2 - The “exact match” toggle at the bottom of the “More options” pop-up. This means scrolling to the bottom of the list of search fields to toggle it on to have those check boxes appear, then scrolling back to the particular search field you want to match and check that box, rather than just have that tick box option always available to select at the same time as you fill in your search fields. As Andrew has so eloquently explained above.
3 - Breaking the search field up between the fixed top menu, scrolling top menu and the slide out right menu, so searching becomes a tedious multi step process.
4 - having the collections filter in the pop-up instead of a secondary tab means you can no longer view and select every collection you want in one go, but instead requires expanding each category individually (bdm, militarily, census etc). Generating yet more steps.
- Visually there are also a number of issues (and yes, happy to provide screenshots below):
1 - Having the search fields so spaced out at the top of the page takes up so much room it means you can only view roughly one result at time - hugely inhibiting when scanning through literally hundreds of search results.
2 - The new format has the individual results themselves so stretched out across the page that they do not fit within the screen. This means, as well as scrolling down through results, you’re having to scroll left to right to read each hit. This is incredibly inhibiting to scanning through the results and taking in the information each hit contains.
3 - The “bubble key words” might look pretty, but they are literally just a repeat of the information already filled out in the search boxes and take up more valuable screen space. What was wrong with having each search field individually clearable as previously available and subsequently dedicating more valuable screen realestate to the results themselves.
All of these little changes just add extra pointless steps to make searching cumbersome and exasperating. It might not seem like a big deal to the casual browser, but when you are undertaking comprehensive research, performing multiple searches and sifting through hundreds of records, it all adds up to become very frustrating.
I get a horrible sinking feeling every time I need to perform a search now, instead of it being a quick, easy and straightforward task. Which, frankly, is leading to me not finding and attaching records to profiles that I would otherwise have done in a heartbeat.
I’m a long time contributor to this platform, with extensive research experience across a wide variety of platforms, but this new search interface is incredibly off-putting and counterproductive. It feels as if its been designed by someone who doesn’t actually use the platform at all and has no understanding of its required functionality.
I should mention I’m working on a tablet (the new version isn’t available on my computer yet), but I primarily work on the tablet and that has NEVER been an issue before now).
Examples of visual problems mentioned:
Three screens width to view details of a single result (screenshot triptych1):
And the new, claustrophobic results page, with pop-up open (Screenshot 2 above) and closed (Screenshot 3 below) and with collections added (screenshot 4). I’m aware the collections “bubbles” scroll out of view, as opposed to the fixed basic search menu, but that still only gives two results viewable at a time and even then, you have to close the “person from family tree” banner as illustrated in screenshot 3.
6 -
It's great to see some specific, illustrated, concerns posted. Those actually give the engineers something to work on.
@RaniM, I've been wondering about the purpose of the Data Sheet format that you mention in your point 2 and have assumed it must have been created by request for specialized purposes or for exporting. it's viewing width is not limited as almost all other pages are in FamilySearch and as you point out it is not very useful on an average monitor. All the same information can be seen in the Fixed Table format much easier. It would be interesting to hear why the Data Sheet was added.
Regarding all the grey space that Andrew mentions in his point 3, since almost all pages in FamilySearch have the same fixed maximum width for the page's main content due to efforts to make the display work on any size device screen, I'm not surprised to see it here.
There are a number of things that people have pointed out as bad changes that really are not any different than they have always been. For example, RaniM, states "having the collections filter in the pop-up instead of a secondary tab means you can no longer view and select every collection you want in one go, but instead requires expanding each category individually (bdm, militarily, census etc). Generating yet more steps." But we have always had to expand each category individually. It is true that each section now displays by itself, but the link to return to all categories stays at the top and it is takes the same amount of clicking to click it as it did to click the "Show Top Five" link to collapse a section rather than to need to scroll through the entire list to get to the next section. So I don't view that as a problem.
The box to add all of a particular category is a nice addition.
That tablet display is a problem. On my computer I get seven results initially depending on the number of filters, eleven as I scroll down the list:
@Monica Ross_1 stated " have discovered one important feature, searching from an existing profile is no better than starting from the beginning, the information that is already included in the profile is not included in the search form." I wonder what is going on there? The above two screen shots were from a search starting from a person's page and all the information in the right hand panel was filled in automatically. I didn't enter any of it so at least for me this is working as it should.
0 -
I am unable to search the index for the England & Wales 1939 registration one link takes me her e
https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/2836130
Another gives lots of information on how to use it and what you can get from it and a warning that images are
not available on this site but I have found no way to even get to the data. Also if you view ALL collections it no longer makes it to the list. Is it just me or has it gone?
0 -
A similar post was raised a couple of days ago. I don't know the position for LDS Church members, but when logging in using a public account there is no access to this index. You will need to attend a FamilySearch Family History Centre to view this material. Obviously, there have been - and still are - problems in finding a FHC open during the coronavirus pandemic, so you might (assuming you have one in close proximity to your home) have to be patient until it reopens.
One positive point was that - after I added many of these records to the Sources sections of my relatives, on my last visit to a FHC - I was able to view the detail once I got home.
As there are many badly indexed records in this collection, I would advise you to view the original records on Find My Past. Again, this might be difficult for you at present (if you are not a member of the LDS Church or do not have a subscription to the website), but I usually access FMP for free at my local library. I take a memory stick and download records of the original pages of the 1939 N.R., to download to my PC when I get home.
(BTW - this has nothing to do with the update being discussed in this thread - the problem in viewing the 1939 collection has been with us for quite some time.)
1 -
I am unable to search the index for the England & Wales 1939 registration one link takes me her e
This access was covered in a recent topic England and Wales 1939 Register
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/378155
Why cannot FamilySearch be upfront about the access situation and stop confusion for non church members?
2 -
Thank you for providing the link - we both must have been responding simultaneously to David's query. The Wiki article certainly needs to be amended to make if perfectly clear why "non-LDS" cannot view this collection.
We are used to not having access to record images, but it is rather more unusual not to have access to indexes. In theory, I have editing rights to Wiki articles - but I know I would be blocked from making a permanent amendment to it!
1 -
In my experience, there has always been a slight difference in the numbers of record sets between what nonLDS and LDS could see. Very slight, but still there. I may have a screenshot saved - will check later.
0 -
Thankyou all for the replies - I did try and see if it was discussed elsewhere but failed. I do find it difficult to find help and whilst I could see the purpose of this particular thread had no idea if my problem was related to the update or as it turns out to something else.
I understand and accept that some parts of the site are not available to non members but how difficult would it be to add somewhere on the two pages the register index is ONLY available to Church Members and perhaps it could be listed in the England and Wales census list, but annotated ( only available to church members)
@Paul W I will go and see what access the library has in the meantime I have looked at FMP and can see the exact address that my relative was registered at in 1939
Even a link somewhere on the 1939 registration collection pages to that area of FMP would be useful to non church members.
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-records/1939-register
0 -
I think the data sheet vs. fixed table is a really good example of a missed opportunity here. If the data sheet view is preferable to some, for purposes of printing or what have you, why not add the option to switch between the two view formats? But excluding the fixed table entirely is hugely problematic for all the reasons previously stated - particularly in the case of tablet use, where it renders the search function next to unusable.
At this point I would happily settle for seven results per screen, certainly what you’re seeing on your computer @Gordon Collett is FAR less claustrophobic than on on my iPad. I also notice that the computer version doesn’t seem to display irrelevant columns when they don’t apply to a particular search (ie the column for death dates, when searching marriages). On the tablet all columns are always displayed (see screen shot in my last comment).
I hadn’t yet noticed the select all of a particular category in collections, but I agree, its a nice addition. I have to say though, I do feel you are misrepresenting the practical application of of the collections filter in saying there’s no substantive difference in the update and I disagree.
In practice the collection filter is used in conjunction with with other search fields which significantly reduce the number of collections to filter below the 1000+ listed in your screenshot. In the Old Version, when utilised in this way and even with all categories expanded, I have rarely, if ever, had more than a single page of matching collections to chose from. Expanding the categories themselves was instantaneous with no loading lag. This meant, in practice, clicking across to the collections tab, marking selections and expanding categories as you scrolled down the page and then execute the search. It was streamlined, fast and uncomplicated.
In the new version, you have to click on the collections filter — wait for the pop up to load — click on the first category you want, wait for it to load — make your selections — click back to the main menu, wait for it to load — repeat X amount of times for which ever categories you want — and then execute the search.
Comparing the two in an actionable way like that, I’m sure you can agree there is a significant difference between technically the same and practically the same, the latter of which they’re very much not.
I haven’t had an issue with pre-fill carrying over from profile searches either. @Monica Ross_1 this may just have been a glitch, have you tried again since posting? I also do a lot of searching via profiles and agree the carry over info is a key tool, but I don’t think it’s been removed with the update.
1 -
See https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/102898/guest-complaint-about-change-to-searching#latest for additional comments.
0 -
I'm trying to be kind, but I'm really frustrated. The previous search was simple and elegant. This is ... not. I'm a power user. I have put in thousands of hours on FamilySearch, and I find myself really confused by both the search itself and the new interface choices.
I can't put in a search criteria and then tweak it, because parts of it will disappear.
My biggest issue, though, is: Where do I find a list of source choices? I used to be able to search only in, for instance, the 1880 US Census. That no longer appears to be an option.
I have a list of objections to the new interface, but I won't go into all of them now. As many others have said, you seem to have "fixed" what wasn't broken without asking your users what would help achieve our goals - and giving us results outside of our requested date ranges is decidedly unhelpful.
When your search becomes less useful than the crap that is Ancestry, I find myself truly bewildered for the reasoning behind your update. Are you trying to diminish the value of this incredible database for some business reason? If so, cut it out.
Sincerely, Tracie Burns,
5 -
0
-
I do not like the new format at all. It is visually confusing, and I cannot find what I need without clicking through multiple menus and entering data over and over again. Can you please return to what was a much simpler and cleaner user interface? This is TERRIBLE.
5 -
PLEASE, PLEASE go back to the last search form! I have been using Family Search for many years. If this new search page goes forward, I'm DONE. Somebody has no experience and should be fired!
1 -
I understand the update can be frustrating, but I would like to refer you back to my initial post asking for feedback to be specific, constructive, and kind.
Also, please view my latest post here discussing the recent changes. Thank you.
https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/103619/familysearchs-updates-to-the-search-page
0 -
It takes longer to search anything. I prefer the old version. This is a real mess to try to use. It's difficult to narrow down results, and I'm not willing to view 7,256 hits when I put in a name, birth place and birth date. I will wait for you to return to the old version before trying to use this again.
2 -
Why has the format changed? What an absolute shame, I was loving using Family Search but in just a half an hour I have become so frustrated that I am logging off now, I can't bear it. I just can't understand what was wrong with the existing format, it worked so easily.
3 -
The previous layout of the search page was better, because most everything was visible on the left side of the page and it was faster to enter a search.
The new layout is not an improvement. I don't want to select "Advanced" every time I want to enter something more than a name. We always have to enter more than a name in order to get any kind of useful results.
Previously, I used to be be able to check a box to search for an exact spelling of a last name. Now, it seems like that is gone. I need that back as I constantly get other search results that are meaningless for some last names that I'm searching for.
Overall, this is a step backwards and not an improvement.
6 -
I will try to be polite, kind, and constructive in my comments.
When this post first appeared, the links to the Beta did not work. I commented to that effect, but there was no response
Then I found workarounds to access the Beta. But the Beta search could not access the record sets I wanted to test, since they are the ones I use often. When I mentioned that, there was no response from FS, but only from someone who thinks the new search is so pretty that we should not be concerned that it does not work.
In the beginning, we were asked for feedback. We gave feedback, showing how the new did not function as expected and not nearly as well as the old format. The only response was "we're going forward with this because it seems to work well."
I have to wonder why we were asked for feedback. I do not wish to be rude. I very much appreciate the work that FS has done over the years. But I must be frank - this new search UI is definitely NOT an improvement.
5 -
I've been helping my cousin with his paternal line, and have found census records with the surname mistranscribed. I was nice, and added a note with the correct spelling of the surname. I'm in no way new to genealogy, having been doing it for nearly 40 years. The spelling on the transcription was Kull. The correct spelling is Kell. The census was misread when it was indexed.
1 -
Casey,
I have just found this posting. If I had found it on 15 July, things might have gone differently.
July 15 is the middle of summer in the northern hemisphere, when most people are out enjoying the weather, not stuck indoors for hours doing genealogy like in the winter months.
I suspect this might be why so many people found the new search a considerable shock: They didn't see your posting either.
If more people had seen it then you wouldn't be in this position now.
Maybe you should consider doing beta testing in winter when more hours are available from the community.
I presume that when you beta test you allow ,feedback to direct the development of the final product. Otherwise, what is the point ?
3 -
Something Went Wrong
Unfortunately, something went wrong, and we are unable to display the search results. Try refreshing the page, or come back later.
I'm really getting tired of seeing this message. No matter how many times I re-try the search including changing some of the search criteria. Getting very frustrated and something needs to be done about this yesterday! Never had problems like this with the old version.
I definitely agree with DanHarper1 and his September 13 comment.
3 -
@Judy Holter I've had the "something went wrong" several times today. Each time, I was able to refresh/reload the page, without changing any of my search parameters, and the results displayed. Still annoying to be sure, but it did go away easily.
0 -
Please change the title of this discussion to reflect the current situation.
Rather than "Try out the new update to record search" it should read
"Try and get the new update to record search to work. You probably won't. We tried and failed, and so has everyone else it seems, but hey, why not see if it works for you."
[Update] I'm disappointed that someone flagged this as Spam. I thought it reflected a summary of responses to the new Search.
3 -
This is the worst "improvement" I have ever experienced. It actually seems like someone sabotaged
your excellent site with the idea of driving users elsewhere for their "Ancestry" records !?
4 -
Is there a way to switch back to the old search interface? The new one gives me a "Something went wrong" message on at least half of my searches. And it's not clear why I need to click an extra button to be allowed to click the buttons which gives me an "exact" search in different fields...?
2 -
The new interface is disappointing. It is more time consuming to use the website now. There are now unnecessary steps one has to take to get results. I could be mistaken, but I don't thing the search results are as good now. One example being, when you use exact matching, it does not work. I still get matches for people with the same name living all over USA instead of the county and state in question.
What was the point of making the site so laborious to use? Why are functions hidden now? Things are no longer straight forward. One of the reason I liked the site was it was quick and easy to use. Change things if you like, but don't make the site more difficult and time consuming to use. You can see from the comments that many people don't like the new interface, Can we please have the option of using the old interface please? Thx for reading this!
5 -
Darned pity I have now become one of those users it was released to! Horrid. I've commented extensively elsewhere.
3
