Online filter does not work for Place searches
Hi,
My main mode of using the catalog is to search for records in a given county. Even when I filter my search to show only online results, I get a display of all types of records. This adds a lot of work and frustration to using FamilySearch. I have to click through each item, only to find that it's a physical book 1000 miles away in the Salt Lake Library. I'm trying to find records I can use from home. This was very simple before and it's much harder now with a cluttered search results display that requires a lot more clicks and dead-end trails before I can find useful results.
A related suggestion for improvement: It would be nice if the displayed results showed the type of record (digital, physical book, CD, etc.). That way, the user wouldn't have to click through each individual search item to see what it is.
Comentários
-
With the "new" enhancements to Family Search this new format has become difficult to use and search for ANYTHING on this website. In my opinion, it would be best to just go back to the older version and scrap what has been implemented. Very frustrating to try and drill down with all of the links.
1 -
I agree with the above poster. I have been using FamilySearch since it first came online. I have just tried to search for a particular cemetery in Yorkshire, England. I had no problem using the Catalog for a placename in the past. And in the old search it brought up a list of available records which could then be quickly filtered & the correct record found. In this case images of the whole of the cemetery burial records were available online……but no longer! Instead a list is provided for the whole county!? What if you don't know the name of the cemetery?
I tried the map feature of the Cemetery search & it was of no help whatsoever! It only showed me a handful of records for the cemetery I wanted & these were what other people had found & added. Same with the surname search. What use is that? The original records for the cemetery I wanted are not indexed. But before I at least had the option of working through the images for the year in which my ancestor was buried.
I agree too that the filters are far too many. I gave up in the end & I am a genealogist used to using various sites & search methods.
Could the old site not be run alongside the new site to give users the option of at least finding the records they want until the new site has been tested & "tweaked"?
I for one won't be using FamilySearch again unless it dramatically improves & searching doesn't require a degree in computer studies!
0 -
Update to my above post…….I had another go at searching for the cemetery I wanted to find in Hull, East Yorkshire, England. When searching on placename one of the options I was given was "Hull, Yorkshire East Riding, England, United Kingdom. City 1996 to present". Note the 1996 to present. Out of curiosity I tried it.
It brought up 118 records from various Hull sources. I found Cemeteries in there with records dating from 1847! I would never have thought to have searched in this option. Something is clearly wrong. I found the Cemetery burial images from there.
0 -
I have been using the family search catalog for over thirty years. This new version is extremely difficult to navigate by place search. If I do not know the film number where I previously have located information, I cannot find it through a place search. PLEASE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION or allow us to search using the old catalog search menu. New is not always better, and sometimes we should leave alone what is working just fine.
0
