The Pilot search interface and filtering are what we want. Produces much better results. Please keep pilot.

Will there eventually be a way to browse by location or by individual records instead of needing to search through so many records that are not even close to the requested search locations, dates or needed records.
361 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
next » « previous
  • Thanks for the feedback.
    Can you give a concrete example of what you are trying to do and where we are not meeting your needs?
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say browse by location or by individual records. Have you tried the "All collections"? Are you hoping to do search in a specific collection?
    Did you have this experience with the updated search released this week or in the past?

    Looking forward to your continued feedback.
    • An example of how the old Pilot search gives much better results than either Beta or the current Pilot follows. When I entered into the old Pilot the following: Cynthia Delanoy, 1830, New York, and ask for Partial hits, I would find hits for her in the 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880 and 1900 census. Even though the 1860 indexed spelling of Delanoy is Delarney, it still brought it up. Beta only gives hits for the 1850, 1880 and 1900 census. Incidently, niehter Ancestry.com or HeritageQuest gave the 1860 hit. I was greatful for the old pilot because the 1860 census showed 2 children not in the 1850 or 1870 census. rexshumway@gmail.com
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 5
    Specifically, and as an example, German records. You can have a wifes exact birthdate and about where she was born, but no name as she was alway listed as Mrs. Smith.
    It would be nice to do a search as:
    Name blank
    born: Germany, exact and close matches
    date: 7 August 1822 exact matches
    Thank you
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Also, one of the things that I miss from the pilot is being able to narrow by place to find those whose records showed that they were in a certain location. I really miss all the narrow by features of the pilot.

    I'd also like to be able to narrow down to multiple collections (from the list on the left) instead of having to select just one. And...how is the list on the left organized? I haven't done a lot of searching but haven't been able to figure that out. It's a little hard to go through.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    I miss the ability to browse the 1905 South Dakota State Census. It was much easier than trying to guess how the name was written or transcribed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m happy you are considering my idea.
    2
    When I wrote the original idea, it was after I had been using the census search option on Ancestry.com. I was disappointed to see that the requested search just dumped me into a "general" area. I still needed to search to a location and to the individual. I like to browse because many times the name is indexed different than what I need to look for. I have used Ancestry.com for so many years, I guess I am spoiled and prefer the search option found there.
    J Russell
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 5
    Browsing is really necessary for a variety of reasons: spelling, transcription errors, finding other family members, etc. I browsed the 1905 SD Census a lot in the beta(ancestry.com doesn't have it), but I haven't been able to find anyone since the switch - get tired of trying to figure out how they might have spelled a name!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 3
    Another thought on searching the census...
    Sometimes you need to see the page before or
    the page after what the search delivers you to.
    Many times the family is split onto another page,
    the option to see another page without doing
    another search is really helpful.
    • To browse the census (or other images), scroll to the bottom of the beta home page. Select the All Record Collections link. On the Historical Record Collections page find the collection (with images) that you wish to review. Click on the collection name. Scroll to the bottom of the selected collection page. Select the Browse through .... Images link. This will allow you to "drill down" to the images you wish to view. When the images appear you may use the options on the toolbar at the top of the window to move to the next or previous image (use the arrows on the right) or type in a specific page to review in the box provided. As far as I know the ability to do this for all collections with images is new to the beta site. A great feature. I really like it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 1
    Another example of searching by location. In one of the US Census's I could never find a family. It turned out that the surname was extracted wrong. The way I found the family in the census was using a search feature in Heritage Quest, I searched the census I wanted and searched the location I expected they lived in and the name John. It listed for me all hits with the name John in that city and let me sort the results and I found them with the misspelled surname in the list. I have since used Heritage Quest to list all people in a small city and sort by name and just scroll down the list to find who I was looking for. It is a great help. It would also help if you could put a date range.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    It would be great if you could enter one piece of information like a Date and it would say 2342 results for Date in 23 databases. You could then click on the databases and select which database you wanted and it would say 243 results for that date in *** database. Then you could add more info like a city and it would say 20 results for that city and date, then you could list the results and have the option of sorting by several different headings.

    Some older scripture search programs had that type of search method. You could type a word and it would tell you how many scriptures contained that word, then type another word and it would tell you how many had both words and as you kept adding words it would narrow the search. You could also back up and follow another path. If we could do something similar with these databases it would be very helpful, the technology is available it is a matter of creating the searches that way. I could then start with what information I knew and keep narrowing the search until the list was a manageable size then list the hits and sort them several ways so I could find what I was looking for. Heritage Quest does this to some extent.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    I think all the above messages tell a real story when doing research.
    I hope the "programers" are listening.
    • Don't blame the programmers!! They just follow the design specifications given to them by analysts, who quite obviously haven't done their research. Putting together this database is a massive effort, and a massive opportunity to make it available to the genealogical community will be wasted unless the designers look at how others (Ancestry, Findmypast in UK, and indeed whoever designed the Pilot Search, which was great for searching, filtering, and browsing just difficult to extract info into e.g. gedcom) have done it, and talk to the researchers who will want to use the site. They obviously have not done so
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    5
    I really like this site. But I preferred the previous search method to the current one. I like being able to specify the location and document. Even though I check exact it still brings up too many items to browse.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Search produces too many results, needs more filtering options.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m concerned
    1
    The new look, with all records listed in a bunch for a given locality, is more time consuming in looking up the records than the old layout. I have to look at every record in every type of record instead of narrowing my focus to, for example, only cemetery records or only vitals. I prefer the records grouping as in the current catalog. At minimum, I suggest you group microfilms separately from books, if you do nothing else. This would help both the FHL researcher who is at the library to use the books and the patrons who can only order microfilms from the FHCs. If you make things more time consuming, it seriously discourages research by newer genealogists. I don't see this as an issue that is resolved with more experience with this new setup. In point, the ability to narrow searches is vital.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    The ability to narrow searches is vital..
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated, irritated, never commenting on these boards again
    This is not a response to J. Russell; rather, it is a comment about this thread. The engineers just merged two threads to make this thread. Many of the comments on this thread were made months ago, on one of the old threads that was just merged. With the merge, those months'-old comments now all are dated just a few days ago. I know, because my comment above is one of them.

    That is annoyance to me, because I made that comment when the catalog was just a huge list of hits for a given locality and there was NOT, then, the menu on the left of the page -- I would just bet that the comment on the top of the page was made then, as well, with the engineers shifting dates. The problem on the original thread was fixed, so why merge a dead thread into a new thread and make all of us look dumb who posted when the catalog was a mess? Why waste people's time who want to help and respond, like J. Russell, when all of us who made the comments have known the problem was fixed? This and similar experiences on other threads has helped me decide to not participate in these forums.

    It would be good if the engineers put a note at the top of a comment thread when a problem commented on was fixed so that people don't waste their time trying to help out with comments on issues that were long resolved. Merging a dead thread into a new thread is not doing service to anyone and has definitely done a disservice to all of us on the old thread. I can see merging if the threads began within days of each other, but not under the circumstances of this merge.

    Please give the option to delete my old posts!!!
    • I'll take the blame for some of that, as I asked the powers that be to tidy up the Ideas section so things didn't get lost in the shuffle of multiple threads, and I even sent them a list of overlapping threads, and it looks like I erroneously included a thread pertaining to the FHLC in with the filtering suggestions on the FS Beta. Mea culpa, please don't let it spoil your interest in improving these fine products!!!!!
    • Cullen Brimhall (Help and Support Product Manager) October 08, 2010 22:52
      My apologies, the merge wasn't intended to do any harm of course. The reason for it was an attempt to bring more attention to the over all problem that still exists with search filtering. It helps to express the magnitude of the issue to the Product Manager in charge of search. If anything, your original post not only helped to solve the first problem but is now in the process of helping to add leverage to the idea that filtering in general needs to be resolved as well. It's a good thing.

      Under each merged topic it also states that the reply was merged from another topic and gives the link to that original topic so anyone can see when it was posted and read all the original details.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • This reply was removed on 2010-10-08.
    see the change log
  • I’m anxious to see good ideas STAY
    6
    The advanced search on the pilot is ever so much easier to use. Can the two be integrated to make it look more like the other. It was so nice to have it in pedigree format. And searching was so quick and efficient. It made it possible to find children and families in the census with only first names!

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Return Pilot search filter features to the FS Record Search.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    It would be nice if the search function was expanded to be similar to the way the previous version allowed you to refine your search - ie to allow you to narrow your search parameters by birth date, birth place, first names, etc. With this beta version, I find myself doing all the fine tuning on the old version to find who I am looking for and then, with the refined data, going to the beta version with the narrowed data to find my data. Thanks, Al Berry

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Add Beta search refining options.
    • view 2 more comments
    • Al Berry, your last comment hits the nail right on the head. Admit Beta doesn't work and go back to the old one which did. It's a complete pain at the moment and does not seem to be getting better despite all assurances that it is.
    • Totally agree as well, Al. The old Pilot was one that everyone had learned to work with and was pretty intuitive. The search filters worked, the preview panes allowed you to scan thru quickly to further filter out items.

      The new site, not only loads differently on different browsers (some not at all), but it fails to replicate ANY of the benefits of the old site. Quite frankly, its almost un-usable. Why this was rolled out in such a state is a mystery to me.

      As we say down here in Texas,,,if it ain't broke........;-) Go Rangers!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Well that works until Pilot (Record Search) goes away.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • Brothers Maher and Brimhall,
    Thanks for you responses. Couldn't you please separate these threads that are not about the same topic? Even if you do that, the way the community is set up, often people are coming in and commenting on a different project than was addressed in the original posts. I think that is because they don't know about all the parts of the FamilySearch effort and because it appears you have all the areas lumped together in "Topics" under the FamilySearch Community.

    Ah, but FamilySearch is just the file cabinet and you have different file drawers we can pull out and access. Of course having everything in one lump causes confusion and it surely keeps you from getting comments you might get otherwise. Can't you organize the topics a bit to show the different areas (e.g. nFS, Records Search, and FHC Catalog)? Other message boards and forums are able to do that. I think you need to narrow your focus in order to really get what you hope to from users.

    Also, I admit that part of my frustration is the emails I keep getting that so kindly (and sometimes a bit condescendingly) tell me to look to the left and I will understand how to use the catalog! Many of these comments appear to be from FamilySearch missionaries. If the missionaries can't figure out when I made comments and that things changed, then how can the average user figure that out?

    I like that you added some kind of dating system, but any merged comments need to carry the original date. Maybe it's a character flaw in me, but I am adverse to looking like an idiot who does not understand how to use the system. For that reason, it would extremely helpful if users could edit or delete their former comments -- it could be programmed to say "update." You give us the option to edit or delete when we're posting. If deleting altogether tears apart a thread, then let us at least add an updated comment to our original comment.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m confused and frustrated with the new Beta system. Some of the Texas death certificates from pilot are not on Beta.
    3
    I'm confused and frustrated with the new beta system. Some of the death certificates aren't on the beta system but are still on the pilot and I can't get to them. I like the pilot system better, this one is too confussing for me.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m undecided
    5
    I'd like to be able to type in a name and locale and have the search all the collections for that state. I.e. a search for Fitzpatrick in Clermont Co, OH should look in marriages, both death collections, births & christenings, etc. That was available on the Pilot version with a little manipulation - but doesn't seem to exist on Beta. Also, the searches still seem to ignore the search criteria -- searching for Fitzpatrick in OH give more results in England than in OH.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 4
    Dear Friends,

    I have great hopes that you will get it right!

    Researchers expect accurate results for target searches. I believe that your aim is to deliver the best results for a target search.

    When one conducts a search for a specific area, one expects to find results that are related, not 2,000 miles away! I believe a place/location filter is needed.

    .
    • I also have great hopes. It will get there. I like the positive way you approach your suggestion. Thank you.
      Just a side note. The improvements we would like to have will take a little time. I have been working on a program for my FHC. What you see on the screen "looks so simple to do". But, because of the intricacies of everything behind what the user sees it has taken me 2 days to do the update and my problems are simple compared with what the beta is grappling with. We will get there...it will just take a little time.
    • Richard,

      Thanks for that input and perspective. You are absolutely correct. It is common for something that seems simple on the screen, like filters, to require multiple months of design work and testing (to get it right) followed by a month of backend engineering and then a month of UI implementation before the actual feature can be delivered to the user.

      When users are told "we've heard you and we're working on it" - it means we are somewhere along that path between "designing a solution to the user need" and "putting the final touches on the interface".

      I can't tell you how many times I wish I had a magic wand.

      -R
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 5
    YES!! Please gives us the search filters!!! This features has made my research so much more effective. And it was quick! I felt like I had control of my searching. I can't say enough about how much I liked the search filters in the Record Search. There are advantages to both systems -- can we have a link or option to choose between them as best fits our needs? Please??
    • Julie, The more I think about what I like about Record Search and dislike about Beta, the biggest difference is what you point out -- in Record Search you feel in control of the search. You get to choose what event or events to look for during what period of time. Beta just asks you to fill out a lot of information and it decides what to look for and it is usually not what you wanted. I can't even imagine how hard it is to design a search engine that has to guess what the user wants to find.
    • I wish more people would request the Record Search filters or at least a link so that we could search using them if we preferred. This was one of the main features that I touted in all of my classes as showing how easy, quick and innovative the new developments have been.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m hopeful that lots of people will speak up for the search filters
    4
    If you would like the option to use the search filters (like on Record Search), please speak up and provide your feedback.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated, sad, and dispondent
    2
    Julie
    we have been saying just that. just look at the many comments on all the different raised points. they range from 'pilot is better' and 'why replace pilot' this is a 'backward step' (not actual quotes) type comments to your 'I liked the search filters in the Record Search' better. time and time again we have said that beta just does not work as well as pilot but regardless of this 'the powers that be' have started removing records and images from pilot and relocating them on beta and although new records have been transcribed and imaged they are not available on pilot but only on beta. even though many of us have said wait what you are doing / done is / has not working / worked you need to give us filters just like pilot we see little evidence that that is what is happening. i and others have given examples of how beta is failing to give efficient results and shown that pilot found better results even with out using the filters. many of us i am sure feel like our shuts / comments / request / protests (what ever you want to call them) are not being herd although we are assured they are. we still have to see the evidence of this!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m greatly encouraged
    The email sent out about the beta becoming the real thing and how the features from the old relate to the new kinda intimates that there will be something but....
    It is nice to know that our voices have been heard and something is in the works.Thanks!

    However, one feature NOT seen and not mentioned is the pilot's ability to select more than one database. Such has in Massachusetts (70% of my heritage) has 7 databases that have been indexed so far. Being able to select all seven and then the 5 from New Hampshire where the family spilled over into, makes searching a bit faster. Doing one at a time in serial fashion in much quicker. I remember serial computers in boxes five feet tall. That progressed to a hand held "calculator" that had more..... I like smaller, faster, .....

    Thank you for the feed back. It sheds light on a tough subject. Let inspiration do it's thing.
    Allan
    • Allan,

      What you describe is a feature we call Super-Collections. It is the ability for FamilySearch or a user to specify two or more related collections and initiate a search single search across these using a search form containing the appropriate fields for the collection of collections. It is on our drawing board and will likely be delivered in 2011.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Also look at the thread in FHCNET@yahoogroups.com about IGI batches. Lots of comments about the Batch search feature. I have used it to find additional ancestors from a specific location in a specific film number. Worked real good in its application. Hopefully something you are working will take its place. A comment there would raise spirits greatly. It is also another source for knowledgeable users of nfs and FS
    • Allan,

      I have been exploring the IGI Batch # search with users over the last week and we are designing a system that will deliver the users main intent of looking for additional family names within a jurisdiction (ex parish). It is still being designed and tested to insure that we have all the users intents understood and met. It's probably a mid to late 2011 feature.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m better but anxious
    Robert that is getting there. The problem is patience on our end . Can you put it up on labs so we can test it too? PLEASE!!!!!
    Remember the graphic in the department meeting of the large overlap of the beta test time with the development time. Seems to work there so why not here too?
    • Robert, Thanks for your update. I appreciate the work you and the team are doing. The task you have undertaken is not an easy one. The idea of "putting up a test or labs site in addition to the beta site" is an interesting one. However, if that would divert hardware or manpower resources from the primary project I would prefer that it not be considered. I have confidence in you and look forward to many improvements in the future. Thanks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I miss being able to just search a specific collection as in Record Pilot. Will this be possible in beta (like in Ancestry)?
    • Edmond you can do that today. Just click on "All Record Collections" next to the map. Then in the top left text box type in a portion of the collection name you wish to search. The list of ~500 collections will be quickly filtered down to the ones that match. Select your collection and, if it is searchable, you will be presented with a search form.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m disappointed.
    5
    I'm not sure who "J. Russel" is, but I have a comment about this idea. I always liked the pilot search, and commented (to myself) how i could narrow it so easily and get the results i was looking for. It was so much better than ancestry, which gives you all this stuff that doesn't even match at all. The new beta seems more like ancestry. I look for someone in Illinois, and it gives me Germany and New York, and I can only narrow it by one category/collection, unlike the pilot. I know we all resist change, but when something is good, why change it for the worse?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    I agree. We NEED the filters found on the Pilot site. I get terribly frustrated trying to find a record without being able to even filter by sex.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m undecided
    2
    The pilot search results show much more info & take less time to decide whether or not to view details.

    Also the new "beta" search engine filter for locations is faulty. When I give birth & death locations for a person in the US, I don't want the first returns I see to be for people who only lived in England.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    4
    This search engine never works right. I ask for exact and it doesn't work. There's no place to put city except on events. I searched for Kate Singleton in Oswego, NY and got Imia Mullins in Arkansas
    • Same frustration. I can find it in the pilot quick and easy--the Beta site brought up all sorts of things from England when I was searching (exact) for Sevier County, Utah. I never found what I wanted on the beta site. So for the time being I use the pilot to find the census I want and then go to look at the image on Heritage Quest. Seems like there is a better way. Why did the images get taken off the pilot?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 8
    I am EXTREMELY concerned that the beta site will be deployed before the search engine is enhanced -- at least to the capability of the pilot site. The need for the "Exact, Close, Partial" matching capability is absolutely crucial for the use of the site. On the pilot site I can readily find what I am looking for. With the beta site I get nothing or everything. The only choices are 5 records or 5,000. With the pilot I can get the 50 or so I want to look at.

    If the search engine is not improved, all of the effort that went into digitizing and indexing these hundreds of millions of records will be totally wasted because we will be unable to find what we are looking for.

    The beta site is pretty -- The pilot site is functional. I vote as strongly as I am able to for function over form!
    • you said

      I am EXTREMELY concerned that the beta site will be deployed before the search engine is enhanced -- at least to the capability of the pilot site.

      well. there are NO new records being added to pilot ,NEW records are being added to beta ONLY
      Records and images are being removed from pilot.
      and there is a big banner telling us to go to beta

      add this all up and what do you get A NEW SITE which is UNFINISHED that they want everyone to use and to try and appease us they have called it beta so in other words

      BETA HAS ALREADY BEEN DEPLOYED WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m bewildered
    4
    Begs the question......what was wrong with the Pilot site? Right?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m frustrated
    2
    Will someone who is really in the know please weigh in on this question Please?
    We feel that we are being left hanging. We feel that we are just shouting into the wind and no one is paying attention. There has been enough said about this version of beta. It is lousy and will embarrass us to deploy it. Give us a hint PLEASE?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m upset and frustrated
    6
    Agreed. This is now been going on for months. Beta not improving significantly, content moving from Pilot. Employees and FamilySearch ignoring the problems or making excuses, claiming that it is all going to work and be fixed, yet with no measurable change to the public. A thread full of complaints locked down and archived. New threads starting to fill back up again with complaints. Perception is reality folks. Whoever messed up this Beta/Pilot situation in Salt Lake should take credit for their fault, acknowledge that the community is more than upset, acknowledge that the community is not out of line for being upset, and outline how FamilySearch will fix this mistake and provide a useful and functional site that will at a MINIMUM match the accuracy of Pilot. Otherwise I fear that a mass exodus and loss of users is on its way or already in progress and the stated purposes of the change will be negated by the poor handling of this transition.
    • This comment is flawless and dead on. Amen Karl...Amen. Admitting one's mistakes is the first step in correcting them. So far, they apparently aren't ready to admit the new site sucks.
    • well said Karl
      and yes for those ? about the censoring of a thread we have been at least once that i am aware of below is thread name and the quote as to why they did so

      Why replace a great useable site containing specific records with a miasma of confusing records from Aachen to Zimbabwe?

      This topic was archived on 10/19/10

      Archived because: This thread is becoming the entire feedback site in and of itself. It is much more difficult to get good data from one thread than many specific posts. I encourage everyone to please add your comments to other posts that are very specific to whatever it i
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I can really understand everyone's frustration. I have been waiting for the kinks in the beta search to be worked out so I can do some serious genealogy.

    I would like to point out, though, that we are all using the familysearch for FREE.

    Finding records is not a life or death situation.

    I think some of us may have forgotten about this being a free service for us to find our family and a lot of people are putting a lot of hours into getting the beta search to work so we can.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    This is true Trudi....but whereas I would have gladly
    paid for the Pilot site as wonderful as it was, I wouldn't
    pay a dime for this Beta in it's current state. But I have faith it will
    someday mirror the pilot site....why they'd ditch the old one in favor
    of this one is beyond me still.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    Get Pilot back, for easier and less time consuming. Don't ruin a good idea, expand on it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    There is consensus that fs Pilot/labs has the superior search engine,
    Why not utilize that as your official SEARCH engine for FamilySearch, Then insert LINKS from the search results to the images at BETA FamilySearch, or everything that requires a paid subscription or has restricted viewing?

    Removing the images and associated technology from Labs would free up plenty of room to add new data . The link would need to be directly to the image , not BETA's worthless 1000's or zero hit search engine. You already have links in place in Labs for the 1860 census search results, and have a link to BETA. And the Original FamilySearch 1880 census search result had a link directly to the Ancestry 1880 census image. (Members were taken to the image, others were invited to sign up..Unfortunately Ancestry changed their image link and didn't update FamilySearch so now you are referred to Ancestry's census search engine)

    I assume Beta is also slated to replace Original FamilySearch. I hope that won't happen until Original' fs"s ability to search for Batch #'s is functional in Beta. I will really miss original FamilySearch's 1880 extract census record display. It puts Ancestry's awkward vertical ones to shame. I appreciate being able to see familial relationships & birth locations for the entire family, and to "scroll" through their neighbors in the township. Even the original search engine filters and display are better than Beta's!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I hope you don't mind if I, a genealogy geek for 40+ years, share my favorite three sites? They are free and are shown below; however, I do not know how the website developers created these websites because I am not a computer geek. I'd love it if some of the computer geeks could analyse "how" they work.

    If my comments are inappropriate, feel free to delete.

    1. LDS 1880 Census Records: In my opinion, this site has the best census information on the Internet
    http://www.familysearch.org/eng/searc...

    You can choose to click on Tips on How to Search Censuses
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    2. RootsWeb World Connect ~ It is a FREE site.

    http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-b...

    With more than 575 million names on file, I have never experienced
    problems with this site. If the search produces too many results, you can narrow the search by entering more information (if known) or less
    information. You are in control of the results.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    3. Heritage Quest Online ~ It is free to you if you are a patron of an authorized institution (your public library if it has a contract with them).

    http://persi.heritagequestonline.com/...

    Heritage Quest Online is available to patrons of authorized institutions. Your institution will assign you a barcode or other membership ID to access online resources like HeritageQuest Online. If you don't know what your barcode or ID is, please consult your institution's Web site for help. Only your institution can provide this information.

    To access HeritageQuest Online, one enters the barcode or ID assigned to you by your public library. If you do not have a barcode or ID, please consult your institution's Web site for information on obtaining one.

    Search Census
    Surname
    Given Name
    Census Year
    State or the choice of "ALL" states

    If there is more than one individual by the name you are searching in a certain state, you will receive results from ALL counties in a "certain" state which you can search county by county. If the state is unknown, you may choose "ALL" states.

    If you choose one state to search, first, choose one of the counties. The next screen will show the surname, given Name, Age, Sex, Race, Birthplace, State, County, Location, Year (Census). This means that you have all these ways to check to see if this is YOUR individual.

    What is the problem with Heritage Quest's Census Search?...One can only search for the "head" of the household and must transcribe the information to your record.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 3
    These are all good sites along with many other genealogical society sites from many, many counties. Additionally USgenweb.org is one of the very best free sites. There are also good sites that require payment. I prefer looking at original records, not transcriptions.

    However, for original information and the best search options you can't beat family search pilot site. If only a transcription is available I know exactly where to go to look at the original. My local Family History Center can order the film from Salt Lake. For a small fee I can use it for 6 weeks.

    I am an avid researcher and use only original documents for my sources so
    I travel to the Family History Library in Salt Lake at least once a year. The FHL is attempting to put everything online so we will be able to have access from our computers. It is a major undertaking and will take several years. But I can honestly say that they are the very best when it comes to searching for names. No other site uses alternate spellings of first and last names like Family Search. What other site knows that Abigail is also Abby, Nabby, Abagail, Abegail, etc? Soundex does not do the job for many of my surnames.

    I am sure the beta site will become as useful as the pilot site. As it is now it is too cumbersome.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • 1
    I really believe that the pilot family search format was far superior to the beta. Searching is much easier in the pilot and results more relevant with little effort. In the Indiana marriage records for instance you get a list of the last name only and until you click on that name or that little arrow on the left that is all you see. You have to click on everyone to find someone you are looking for and that takes a lot of time. In the pilot search you got more information on the search and it was easier to expand that imformation. Everything about the beta is inferior to the pilot. Please, go back to the pilot format.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Pilot superior over Beta.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    As a long-term FamilySearch user and a long-term Pilot tester, I, too, MUCH prefer Pilot. My greatest frustrations with Beta--in no particular order: (1) There are no icons on the browsing list that indicate new databases. They should be tagged for at least 2 weeks after they are added. Some of us check daily! (2)Too many hits. (3) I find a hit in Pilot (I ALWAYS start there!) but have to wade through a big list on Beta to find the record I just found on Pilot. (4) Beta seems to be targeted towards new users and/or folks just working on small sections of their genealogies. Pilot is much better for experienced users, those of us who know what we are looking for. (5) I am working on two single surname projects, which require looking for two unusual surnames that are often badly mangled by transcribers--and looking for ALL references to these surnames, not just one individual in one place or timeframe. Pilot was MUCH more suited to this kind of search than Beta. (6) As mentioned by other posters here, having to sign in over and over. (7) Not being able to use Pilot-type filters on my results. (8) Also a frustration with Pilot: not being able to do wildcard searches.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Pilot vs. Beta frustrations.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 1
    Please, please do not change the pilot search, it is much better and easier then Beta!!!!! We have a good thing going here, don't mess with it. TX Sister Kathy Bechtol FHL.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Pilot search is better than beta search.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    I just want to comment that I much prefer the "pilot" site over the new beta site. The filtering by collection worked better and it was easy to cut and paste from the "pilot" and the beta site doesn't have the 'copy' button and a copying from the page gives a cruddy copy that requires lots of hand work to clean up.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Pilot is nicer than beta.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    To all employees following this idea. What we alkl are saying is that the new beta search engine is a disaster. It gives too many irrelevant records or none at all. It makes you dig through record by record to find anything that is pertinent to the search.

    On the other hand, the pilot search selected mostly pertinent records and the filters allowed you to easily dig through them.

    For example, using the pilot search I quickly found ten texas death record for pesons with father surname arnard and mother cunningham. When I tried to view the images, I got a message that they were no longer avaioable and must go to beta to view. I went to beta and entered the same info and got no results.

    What we are ssaying as loud as we can is "Bring back the pilot search engine."
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • If you do bring back the filter, please, please have the default include the partial matches. I get most of my useful returns only with this feature selected.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited

  • I would very much like to be able to narrow search criteria.

    That is search only a certain county or city; only a certain date, only a certain event
    ( i.e. marriage, county, date).

    The search engine is now so broad that it results in 1,000's of results.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Search Engine Design Results in to Broad a Spectrum of Results.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

next » « previous