Hello FamilySearch Community! Try out the new update to Record Search.
Answers
-
How do I say this? Bad. Like, really bad. I've only been "forced into" the new record search beginning today, October 3rd. At first, the page is literally unrecognizable. I thought that the interface was broken, and I had been mistakenly brought to the "people search" page. After starting-over half a dozen times, and selecting "Advanced Search", I realized that some of the results were like references to records, but without any way to see the results on the page, because of the scroll bar, or to tell that a record had, or had not, already been linked to a person.
Clearly, someone has too much time on their hands, "fixing" what is not broken, and not actually attending to the job, which requires adding *missing* functionality, such as, especially, building a bug reporting system, using the standard tools that are available.
Of course, I would prefer that the entire change be reverted, or, at the very least, that the user has the option of selecting the "old" record search interface.
Someone really needs to learn the difference between "adding functionality" and "dumbing-down" the user interface, to the point of effective unusability.
9 -
Family search please bring back the old records search interface it was so much easier to use, everything neatly placed on the left (the filters and so on), results to the right. As others have said there's no need to fix what's not broken. I am having to refer to other sites to get the information that I need because of the frustrating experience that is the new interface.
Thanks Ian.
6 -
Comments from other thread:
0 -
Don
Unfortunately, you may not be alone ...
Despite, ALL the of NEGATIVE 'Feedback', from the 10% (or, so) of Users/Patrons, who were EXPOSED (ie. had the access 'foisted' upon them), to the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), in the "Production" (ie. "Live") Environment; BEFORE, such was RELEASED to ALL Users/Patrons ... 'FamilySearch' STILL went ahead with the release.
That, in itself, says a lot, for the INPUT (ie. 'Feedback') of us 'lowly' Users/Patrons - ie. such means NAUGHT ...
Let alone the "Focus" Group, that was used to "Test", the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'); during, the latter stages of "Design"; and, "Development".
The scope of that "Focus" Group, MUST have NOT have been very representative, of the general populous of Users/Patrons in "Family Tree" of 'FamilySearch'.
One has to also question, whether or not, there was were any Users/Patrons, in that "Focus" Group, from the various OTHER Countries/Unions around the World, other than possibly those of North America.
As, a somewhat experienced User/Patron, like just about ALL of the RECENT 'Feedback' from the (Representative) 'lowly' Users/Patrons ...
I have NOTHING good to say about the the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch').
And, EVERYTHING is so BAD with the NEW "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), that I do not know where to start/begin; and, honestly, I would NOT waste my time with trying to provide any constructive 'Feedback' on such.
I would humbly suggest, that 'FamilySearch' NEEDS to IMMEDIATELY "Revert" BACK to the PREVIOUS version of the "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), in the "Production" (ie. "Live") Environment; and, TAKE AWAY this NEW version of the "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), certainly for the foreseeable future.
Otherwise, 'FamilySearch' will be doing itself a real disservice; and, will be loosing the confidence of, MANY; Many; many, Users/Patrons.
The PREVIOUS version of the "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), for at least the "Computer" Web version, MAY certainly have needed some work; but, the NEW version of the "Results" page/screen, of "Records Search" ('FamilySearch'), for at least the "Computer" Web version is, a "Total" DISASTER; and, utterly USELESS.
And, I am sorry if such is not constructive 'Feedback'; but, such is life ...
Plus, although, BOTH, the "Computer" Web version; and, the "Mobile" Application version, of "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', need to have the SAME (or, at least, SIMILAR) functionality.
That Said ...
That DOES NOT mean, that the "Computer" Web version; and, the "Mobile" Application version, of "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', MUST have the SAME appearance - quite the opposite.
Trying to turn the "Computer" Web version, of "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', INTO a "Mobile" Application version, of "Family Tree", of 'FamilySearch', is a BIG "Mistake".
Just my thoughts.
Brett ....
6 -
I've spent more hours than I'd like trying to learn the quirks of the new search format. The more I try, the more I realize it is broken to the point of being unusable.
Even when you are looking for a record that you know exists it is extremely difficult to find the actual record.
If the search isn't returning useful records, it is broken for all - new and old users alike.
6 -
I'm sorry but I am hereby joining the multitude in the chorus suggesting a return to the previous search system! (Although I recognize the futility in doing so - FS appears very reluctant to listen to its users.)
Until last week when I encountered this new supposed search mechanism at the FHC, I'd only read the (mainly negative) reports in this forum. (which seem to be appearing in nearly every category - Ideas, Groups, Q&A, etc. etc.
A day or so ago, I tried to search in the IGI (which I have done MANY times in the past) - it went directly into the 'new search' - Aha, this is what is being discussed. No thanks! Today I tried another simple (I thought) search for a marriage.
RESULT: "Feedback" made on the 'new' FS search mechanism, 7 Oct
I see no way of making this selection show any results (Marriage location). I've been avoiding this new 'search feature' since its inception due to the multitude of negative comments about.
As it now apparently has been generally released, I'm somewhat 'FORCED' to try it. Like the vast majority of the other user reports, I agree the previous search system was FAR BETTER and I highly recommend RETURNING TO IT!!!
(I have no idea where this message will end up, hopefully by someone in the FamilySearch hierarchy, but at least in the community forum.
It appears to me the FS has NOT listened to their users. (Reminds me of the GEDCOM fiasco reported in the previous GetSatisfaction Forum - which is still being ignored to the great detriment of the universal tree concepts outlined in the White Paper suggesting the Universal Tree needed Sourcing, Collaboration & avoiding duplications. (END of Feedback)
As these comments will likely be perceived as 'negative,' later today I may post my proposed interim positive 'solution' to this tyhgbrexckih until the user proposed return to the previous search which was quite workable. As many have commented 'If it ain't broke. . .
8 -
I don't like that either. As a workaround, you can add a random empty space character on any of the search fields where you have text, and rerun the search. Most of the time that works.
0 -
As promised above, after I found the topic again:
Later: A temporary solution to the new FamilySearch "search" debacle.
1. Find the source on Ancestry, Find My Past, My Heritage, etc.
2. Post the source, and the info, to the Family Search PID manually or with Record Seek.
3. Return to the PID a few minutes later and look at record hints; the source you could not find using FamilySearch might very well pop up! (Record Hints automatically seems to work better than the manual "Search")
1 -
I'd like to be able to jump straight into the linked person's profile by ctrl-clicking the linkage symbol in the search result entry, like before. Now I have to go through a redundant popup that only duplicates the information that is visible on the search results row already.
0 -
I'd like to be able to jump straight into the linked person's profile by ctrl-clicking the linkage symbol in the search result entry, like before. Now I have to go through a redundant popup that only duplicates the information that is visible on the search results row already.
I begin to like the pop-up. From it I can either open the profile or copy its ID to my clipboard. Here is the current pop-up and its child pop-up:
- I wish these pop-ups swere populated more like pop-ups on PID detail pages.
- Couldn't the two here be collapsed into one? And make it the same as the pop-up everywhere else.
- I never use the PID link at the bottom of the pop-up. Everywhere else on FT the name is the link to the PID.
- On all pop-ups I want a link to the tree view and counts of sources attached. Maybe also a count of hints waiting, data problems, possible duplicates... More dashboard!
- Next to the tree link I wish for counts of ancestors and descendants, or at least parents and children. So often I use that link only to find the PID has no other PIDs attached.
3 -
I commented on another questions, but couldn't stop myself from adding here. Not surprised at the negative comments but am surprised that it is now October 8th and nothing commented on seems to have been changed. Also, is this no longer "beta" since this is the version I got when signing in today?? Like I said in the other comment, you don't need to look like ancestry! We can all get the easy stuff there, I also viewed family search as the place for the deeper dives and the older records. How do I go back the the previous version?
4 -
Here Lies FamilySearch
1999 - 2021
Rest In Peace
I should make an entry for this tombstone on Findagrave. At least that website still works!
7 -
After a few years using familysearch, I recently logged in after being away for a couple of months. I see I’m not the only one who can’t stand the “improvement” made to the search function on the website. Why change what was an excellent user interface the was intuitive and easy to get good, useable results into something that is now basically useless and time consuming?
2 -
I think what the algorithm is doing is - 'casting a wider net' that now needs to be 'filtered'. They want us to become expert filterers rather than expert searchers. That's my perception at this point. From what I have seen - there is pretty good chance that filtering will reveal the gems you are searching. Of course, if the 'net' doesn't gather the fish you are after then filtering could end up 'just taking up more time'.
Or as even the 'old Search' failed to find a record where none exist(s)...
0 -
If you don't make mistakes, you can't learn from them.
Normally however this would be done in a safe environment where only controlled catastrophes are allowed to occur.
A gunnery instructor showing gunners how to fire rounds in quick succession was demonstrating how to half load the round and then close the breech and fire in one movement. He distributed himself across the bulkhead and severely injured the trainee gunners. You have to live to learn !
0 -
I am yet another user horrified by the new search interface. I have not logged in for several months and was greatly surprised to encounter it today. You will likely lose many experienced researchers. I am wondering why this was done. Have you decided that you want to focus on newbies? The bare-bones screen is one a child could understand but of course the results are not terribly useful. Since your services are free I do understand that the loss of my business is not necessarily something you care about. I am sad to see such a fine product/service destroyed.
3 -
Having multiple issues with the new search form, using advanced option. It still is not clear to me when I can specify "exact search".
For example if I enter Terrence Farrel born Nova Scotia dates 1862-1862 father: John I would like to be able to specify "exact search" (I know a record is there, as I have used it before). The results is 243 records, of these only 2 for Terrence, I am unable to move the search button at bottom of form to indicate "exact search" and do not get the old "blocks" which can be checked for "exact".
I am sure this was designed to produce more results for people but with as many as 1,700 hits on some occasions and no seeming way to indicate "exact search" I am really frustrated.
Occasionally it does let me set for "exact serach" but this seems to appear if I specify the type of record or enter a film number.
I do appreciate the new display of hits to the left of the search box however.
0 -
I started from Nova Scotia (selected a location of Nova Scotia on the home page)
Entered Terrence Farrel, Born 1862-1862
I did not enter the name of a father or mark anything exact.
First screen gives me 78 results, and the first 2 are Terrence Conlon Farrel, father John.
I almost always start from a specific location, if I know where the record should be - a state, if USA, or a county, if Ireland, or a province, if Canada.
Hope this helps.
0 -
cross posted:
This new interface (even calling it that is an insult to legitimate user interfaces) is a disaster. Unfortunately, those responsible for this mess are now thinking "Yep, here are the superficial objections and resistance to change we expected. They will pass."
NO, NO, NO - This is really, really bad. As others have stated, this is way unnecessarily cute, effete, affected and difficult, to the point of being unusable. It just is. Others have provided examples but, really, it's just BAD. Concept, execution, everything. Fire whoever did this and whoever approved it and go back.
It reminds me of the conversations I used to have with word processor developers early on (the 90's) when they would explain to me how "neat" and "cool" it was that I could go through several undocumented and/or hidden steps to finally be able to format correspondence. They just couldn't understand that all I and their other users wanted to do was write a letter, not play with their silly software. Eventually WP came around and is now easy to use.
It's the same problem here in reverse. Family search had its flaws but was relatively easy to use. Now it's just stupidly hamstrung by whoever did this.
4 -
Terrible decision to change something that was not broken, simply for change sake. I used to be able to search and get results quickly. Not any more. I have never been so frustrated in all my life. Bring back the old version please!
2 -
its been months now and i hate this update more and more every day. still too many errors. things not coming up in results that i know are certainly there, etc etc. what a crap show. you'd think they'd actually READ what people are saying. Learn from your mistakes FS. this is pathetic. it's a quarter of the usability and just encouraging people to go elsewhere to sites that actually function properly. :(
1 -
I'm getting the feeling that they really don't care what we want or what we think of their disaster. Just please change it back or give us the option to opt out of this change and revert to what worked.
3 -
Wow. Just wow. And not in a good way.
For FamilySearch to crow over its "improvements" is akin to a business advertising a new store in a new location with all new whistles and bells but forgetting to unlock the front doors. This is the crappiest "improvement" I've seen lately in a long line of similar "improvements."
If FamilySearch was forced by circumstances to change its format, fine. Just don't claim that its improved. Incredibly annoying and difficult to navigate. Unreal. Do y'all need me to come down there and straighten things up for you?
1 -
I can't express how deeply frustrated and disappointed I am with this revision.
Let me give you an example: I'm a T&FHC-Family History Center, and I had a training session Saturday, 6 Nov for our staff. In preparation for that training, and to bring them current with the changes in Search, specifically in Records, I decided to use data from my own personal life. My 1st wife and I were married in Sacramento, CA in Dec 1970; she is still living: Nancy J Skvarla; I am Clark N Wilberg. I searched "Collections" and entered California Marriages, and for our year group it reflected California Marriage Index--which I selected. I then entered my name, location Sacramento, and year 1970. Results: Nothing found. So I went back and entered my (ex-) wife's name--and it found the record for our marriage, with data pertaining to us. Ok; for our staff training I'll use ex-wife's data rather than my own.
As we progressed thru training, I had staff members enter the exact same data in the fields as I observed them; 3 of 7 achieved correct results on the first attempt; 1 other became successful after correcting a typo; the remaining 3 required a minimum of 3 attempts--all while re-entering the exact same data--in order to receive a search result that produced any data. When the searches produced data, it was for the correct marriage information. We were unable to determine why (e.g., what changed in the search parameters) those 3 were not successful in their "unsuccessful" attempts.
I'm in the Center again this morning and attempted to search the records using my own name---zero results; search using my ex-wife's name produces results that are the proper record. The search function is inconsistent and doesn't produce reliable results.
As I have worked with the Search function this morning, I have discovered that it will find the record when I use my name, but ONLY if I specify Sacramento, CA as marriage location; leaving CA out will not produce a result--even though searching in "California Marriage Index". In contrast, when searching using my ex-wife's name, Sacramento, and 1970 it found the record.
Following is the record cite information: "California Marriage Index, 1960-1985," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V6F8-CL1 : 27 November 2014), Clark N Wilberg and Nancy J Skvarla, 19 Dec 1970; from "California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985," database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : 2007); citing Sacramento, California, Center of Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento.
2 -
I have no problem finding your marriage
my search term was Clark Wilberg-no other information
Top 10 results all appear to be you
0 -
which proves the point. results are unreliable and inconsistent. this "improvement" is a bloody mess.
3 -
I agree... you fixed something that wasn't broken, and made it COMPLETELY USELESS.
The Search box is backwards being on the right side.
You can only see 10 records that aren't even complete in the information that we previously had.
There is no more Pop-up preview box, nor can you return to the results page when you hit the "Back" button.
There is WAY TOO MUCH WHITE/EMPTY SPACE in the entire Search Page.
The colors are wrong, and don't match the rest of the website.
Searching is made more difficult with these changes, and I WANT the ORIGINAL BACK!!!
The Previous version was incredibly user friendly, easy to use, easy to navigate, pleasant to the eyes. -------------
It seems the Records Search now has become even MORE DIFFICULT to navigate than before. It used to be SO EASY to navigate... Now you have to read a tutorial, both Novice AND Expert, to find out how to use it??? REALLY????
Why did you make it SO HARD to Navigate???
I'll No longer recommend family and friends to use this site. it's HORRIBLE!!!!
1 -
I had taken a break from my genealogy work and just had my first exposure to the new interface. On first blush I'm not a fan. in the old interface you could easily do a basic search and then narrow down results using the options in the menu on the left. I would really like the old menu to be available.
thanks,
Mark
1
