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
  • I’m frustrated
    1
    WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? I've been trying for the last 2 hours to see the records of Puerto Rico and instead I'm going from page to page with no results. I'm very dissappointed. When this first started as a pilot program I loved it but now I have no idea what you are doing. GO BACK TO THE OLD FORMAT!

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    GO BACK TO OLD FORMAT..
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m annoyed
    1
    Keep the pilot site. This new one is a disaster. On the pilot site filters are better and you don.t get everything you did not ask for on a search. I will give praise when someone decides to cancel the new site.

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

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

  • I’m working withthe new site but is has it limitations
    you need to add more selective filtering refinements o the new search options.. such as filtering to specific state, county locations, allowing for a ctrl multiple select capability. the old search algo was a better intuitive protocol with better results, combining it with the newer interface a good idea .. the sorting into categories was a good idea.. there are times in order to find a better result I revert to the older search interface..

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    New Search Site short Comings..
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    Please do not replace the Pilot project. I LOVE the filters, can search a surname only and use the filters to find exactly who I want. How about leaving them both, and giving us a choice of which interface we want to use? I teach a genealogy class at my library and my students love the pilot project, too! Thanks, Marian the Librarian :)

    p.s. you could also add the filters to familysearch.org to help us eliminate some results ??

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Keep Pilot Project for the Filters, Please...LOVE the filters.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I am greatly appreciative of this site because it has been very helpful to me. However, I thought that the Beta version worked better than the present version. I could leave blank the first and last name, fill out the place and dates, then list two parents. This would give me at least some of the children of those parents. This does not seem to work like that now. Does anyone know why?

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

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

  • This reply was removed on 2011-04-03.
    see the change log
  • I’m VERY FRUSTRATED BY THE LACK OF SEARCH TERMS!
    1
    Just adding my two cents -- the beta search variables were fantastic! I can't understand why they all but disappeared, leaving us with fairly useless search terms to go by. My great-great grandfather's name was John Adams; at one point I had hopes of tracing him back (and was getting close!), but have had to abandon my search here until this is fixed. There isn't any way to narrow the results down to a manageable number to even start looking for him at this point!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated.
    1
    I entered search criteria of George Almond, wife Meriah, Virginia (USA), 1900-1910 and you gave me the result below. Why waste our time considering something like this a match? I'm sure others have said it, but the pilot was a much better search engine. 10000 bad matches are not better than one or two good ones.
    Name: Allman
    Gender: Male
    Burial Date:
    Burial Place:
    Death Date: 26 May 1904
    Death Place: Pittsburg, Kansas
    Age: 0
    Birth Date: 1904
    Birthplace: Amer
    Occupation:
    Race: White
    Marital Status:
    Spouse's Name:
    Father's Name:
    Father's Birthplace:
    Mother's Name:
    Mother's Birthplace:
    Indexing Project (Batch) Number: B54508-5
    System Origin: Kansas-EASy
    Source Film Number: 1404801
    Reference Number: BK1904-1908 P15

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Keep the pilot!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    Use the "Advanced Search" function as it is on the old pilot site. It enables one to search strictly by the parents' names to find missing children not on the census. Invaluable! The new site search engine is confusing and annoying.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Use the old Pilot "Advanced Search".
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    PLEASE bring Pilot back!!!!! Your search engine is NOT user friendly. Pilot was simple to navigate and get a QUICK answer from. THAT'S THE POINT. How can someone who's not a computer nerd find anything ? It makes me frustrated before I even start looking for them!!! I'm lost. On Pilot you didn't need to give accurate info and an abundance and variety of info and it came up. At least add a Pilot button, and let us still have Pilot's quick way of responding and variety even though our info isn't always accurate.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    KEEP PILOT so we can find info about our ancestors fast and easy!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m not happy with the newer version.
    1
    The older version gave much more results. The newer version gives only vague results. I like the older version better. Though it looks very nice.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Keep the orginal version and update the graphics on the orginal..
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    I am sorry but this Family Search website, the new one, is very frustrating. When I do a search for an ancestor, it asks a date for the general search, a date for what? It needs to have birth or death or marriage and then a place for the date of each of those and then a search. Also there is no easy way to do a more specific search. I want to be able to search slc, ut in the 1900 census etc or just the 1900 census like the old family search did. Also when I do a search for birth or marriage in the Salt Lake city, Utah area it is giving me births and marriage in England, I did not mention England anywhere on the search. I use this website constantly and have for years and this new version is not nearly as user friendly as the old and I know it should be. thanks

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Frustrated with familysearch in its new form......
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    I really, really miss being able to filter a search by adding a parent's name or a spouse's name. I wish you would bring that back.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Bring Back Search filters!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m sad
    1
    You really need to bring back most of the freatures from the pilot. A pilot is a means to improve the system. You have a good system to build from and you screwed it up.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Redesign system - The pilot was much better.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    The filters do not seem to work. I put in that I want births for year x +-1 year and I still get all years. It goes on from there. Then so much of the detail is hidden, it takes forever to wade through the detail. It would help to show more detail in tabular form to make comparisons easier. The pilot however does just what I want. Fast and EZ.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Filtering effectiveness, enhanced detail management.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m highly disappointed ...
    1
    I think the current state of the search interface is terrible. I long for the features of the old interface. Specifically, there is no way to include spouse names (for marriages or lists of children), and what I miss the most is the link to the film source information. I see no way to document data on the new interface. The Pilot interface, although not as powerful as the old interface, is much better than the current interface. I'm afraid you've gone a long way downhill at this point.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Search interface is losing capability.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • The search interface needs to include birthplace, and "place of residence". These two are a must. Thank you
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    The PILOT site is MUCH more user friendly.

    I think this beta site difficult to use and to read. (I'm computer savvy, late 40s and researching for years.# I want to see an advanced search on a single screen w/o scrolling. I want the search screen to be easier to refine. And I want to see the refinements #filters) again at the top of the screen post-search function.

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

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    The Beta search page has changed from being able to enter date and place of birth and death to only being able to put in one place and a date range. Some people were born and died in different places. The old page was better. Also the advanced search now only allows to put either parents or spouse, not both as before. Again the old page was better.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Bring back the old Beta search page please.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m unimpressed
    1
    I think this new beta is harder to use. The program is constantly trying to out-think me by filling in the blanks with information I don't want to be there. It also keeps reverting back to searches for people I've already moved on from. Also, I notice the program keeps reverting back to the "Advanced Search" option even when I just want to do a basic search.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    The Prototype works much better!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Family search and the "beta" site attempts to mimmic the smoothness of "pilot.familysearch" ............NOPE!!

    I've tried familysearch several times during the past year. It's awkward and slow.
    Maybe it's simply slow and in the slowness it's awkward because I'm forced to look an a list of every kind of record a "hit" of some kind is found in.

    Please - develop the search engine of family search to behave more like that found in pilot with drop-down lists that allow me - read that ALLOW ME - to to check-off what I want.

    Yes FS has value if I want to see every hit from everywhere from a long list
    That's a scatter-gun approach.

    Scatter-gun search is desparation searching and is generally a wasting of valuable time.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    PLEASE FIX the FAMILY SEARCH search engine.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    I was disappointed when Record Pilot was taken away for a while and very pleased to see it back, however, I was using 1910 and later Censuses and now find them missing. I use the beta version for searching but find it much more cumbersome to use when I want to look at a single census or at a single place or date range. The record Pilot was quicker and easier to use.

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

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

  • 1
    They appear to have taken away the option to select a specific collection after doing an open search. For example, I can narrow down to U.S. records, but I cant find a way to select "Virginia Marriages", for example. Not sure what they're doing, but I'd prefer the pilot site interface.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Cullen Brimhall (Help and Support Product Manager) May 07, 2011 00:09
    Would all of you please comment on what is still missing since we added the new search filters functionality?

    See details here: http://getsatisfaction.com/familysear...

    We are looking forward to the day when everyone changes their tune and says that Familysearch.org is now as good as the Record Search Pilot. Please let us know. Thanks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • Cullen Brimhall (Help and Support Product Manager) May 07, 2011 00:09
    Would all of you please comment on what is still missing since we added the new search filters functionality?

    See details here: http://getsatisfaction.com/familysear...

    We are looking forward to the day when everyone changes their tune and says that Familysearch.org is now as good as the Record Search Pilot. Please let us know. Thanks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m confused
    1
    Yes,I like the Pilot version better also. I do not like this updated way you have done it. I can't seem to find anything I need. It was not too bad the way it was . but sure don't like this new way at all. Bette..

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    go back to the original pilot version .......
    • Cullen Brimhall (Help and Support Product Manager) May 07, 2011 00:23
      can you give us some specific reasons why the latest changes don't meet your needs?
    • Attn Cullen Brimhall (Help and Support Product Manager)

      This was not my post, but can I suggest that you re-activate the pilot search, and invite people to make positive constructive criticisms / suggestions / comparisons. Maybe even devise a user questionnaire.

      It is a while since I last used the site, but I was impressed by what you did with the pilot search, and (tbh) horrified by the paucity of the new design. I am at a loss to know WHY this sub-optimal design has been launched especially in lieu of the Pilot version?

      The filters are NOT EVEN AS GOOD AS THOSE OFFERED ON IGI, and the detail in the presented results is considerably less than IGI. I thought we were moving into the 21st century!!

      As a (now retired) system designer who worked in a commercial environment I would never have got away with introducing a system with such severely reduced functionality.

      You really need to send this one back to the designers as not fit for purpose, and tell them to go out and ask the people who use it "hands on", look at the most popular search sites, and maybe even give them a real Family History project to do!!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    PLEASE, PLEASE , PLEASE GO BACK TO THE PILOT SITE.
    I am so frustrated with this new site. It stinks....Please ....

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    PLease go back to the pilot site........
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    I HATE this new search form. It's much less user-friendly. Please go back to the older pilot version.

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

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

  • I’m frustrated
    2
    Go back to the Pilot, it was great the way it was. Am totally fed up now, can hardly find anything, the new changes have made it so restrictive.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Hate the new changes!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m glad.
    Definitely liking the filters: ) How about that handy filter on names as well?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I MUCH PREFER THE LAY OUT IN PILOT. The current lay out looks and feels inferior. in pilot with the search screen it look more eye pleasing and there for seemed easier to use and therefore gave you a seance of professionalism from the owners. not to say you are not but it is after all important to present your product in a way that says yes this is easy to use just as you would expect give us a try. currently the feel is well here is a form you can fill in to do your search good luck!. in pilot the filters were presented at the top and one only needed to click on them and a nice smooth drop down list appeared with boxes to tick to much room is now taken up at the side of the screen giving the screen its in your face feel and reducing the area for the results to be viewed. and the click in stead of hover is annoying and slows our searching down; click to see the summery and click to remove the summery and click to get the record click, - click, click ,click,click. when you do get the record the list view of it gives no clear info it is not eye catching or pleasing. I know as I type that does not make seance but the way that you presented the records on the original site in a certificate like way (igi) again left a feeling of professionalism. that is at a glance you could see in clearly defined areas no mater what type of record, it would be given in the consistent area no matter whose record it was; here is the name of the person, this person is a male, this is a record recording the baptism, these are the recorded parents, this is other info; this is the film reference, all in a clear and concise way . also once you are at a record there is no citation added which identifies it as being a transcript from your selves at this time I am having to add my own yet another step I have to take to add a record in to my paf persons notes and an automatic inclusion in the source citation list would be appreciated not only for paf but for the other major tree data programs should be possible..

    having said that you are heading in the right direction with the implementation of the filters although having to click twice to apply each filter is cumbersome i much prefer the drop down options on pilot. having said that i would like to be able to filter the dates down further to a specific year in the filters. i know you can do this on the initial search screen but if you don't set the year right at the start and then decide to once in the results screen and then decide to start filtering the only way to look for a specific date from the results screen as you cant go below a 10 year span is to return to the initial search screen so losing most or all of your previous filters. hope that made sense.

    please try and do away with this click click click click and redo the graphics so that your site looks and feels more professionally as it did in pilot and the old original site as it is now it looks cumbersome and CHEEP
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I MUCH PREFER THE LAY OUT IN PILOT. The current lay out looks and feels inferior. in pilot with the search screen it look more eye pleasing and there for seemed easier to use and therefore gave you a seance of professionalism from the owners. not to say you are not but it is after all important to present your product in a way that says yes this is easy to use just as you would expect give us a try. currently the feel is well here is a form you can fill in to do your search good luck!. in pilot the filters were presented at the top and one only needed to click on them and a nice smooth drop down list appeared with boxes to tick to much room is now taken up at the side of the screen giving the screen its in your face feel and reducing the area for the results to be viewed. and the click in stead of hover is annoying and slows our searching down; click to see the summery and click to remove the summery and click to get the record click, - click, click ,click,click. when you do get the record the list view of it gives no clear info it is not eye catching or pleasing. I know as I type that does not make seance but the way that you presented the records on the original site in a certificate like way (igi) again left a feeling of professionalism. that is at a glance you could see in clearly defined areas no mater what type of record, it would be given in the consistent area no matter whose record it was; here is the name of the person, this person is a male, this is a record recording the baptism, these are the recorded parents, this is other info; this is the film reference, all in a clear and concise way . also once you are at a record there is no citation added which identifies it as being a transcript from your selves at this time I am having to add my own yet another step I have to take to add a record in to my paf persons notes and an automatic inclusion in the source citation list would be appreciated not only for paf but for the other major tree data programs should be possible..

    having said that you are heading in the right direction with the implementation of the filters although having to click twice to apply each filter is cumbersome i much prefer the drop down options on pilot. having said that i would like to be able to filter the dates down further to a specific year in the filters. i know you can do this on the initial search screen but if you don't set the year right at the start and then decide to once in the results screen and then decide to start filtering the only way to look for a specific date from the results screen as you cant go below a 10 year span is to return to the initial search screen so losing most or all of your previous filters. hope that made sense.

    please try and do away with this click click click click and redo the graphics so that your site looks and feels more professionally as it did in pilot and the old original site as it is now it looks cumbersome and CHEEP
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I love the fact that you have added the filters to the FamilySearch website. It really helps to be able to zoom in on a specific target or to widen it to include the entire set of databases on FamilySearch.

    Is it possible to make a general place filter and a general name filter somewhat like it was in Pilot, though? I liked the ability to limit my results to more than one target data...that is Illinois, Iowa and California...or Vecheron, Becheron or Fecheron...

    I think it would be great if the date filters could just filter down to a specific date, if we wanted it.

    Collections could be limited by the locality or the time period or the type as well as the specific collection.

    Or is all of this inherent in the search engine's matrix?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m not impressed
    One big design mistake was putting the filters down the left hand side, and taking up too much space which should be used to allow the maximum amount of information to be displayed for each record.
    Think Excel Spreadsheets, all the data in columns, with the column headings acting as filter buttons which would then display a list of different filter levels in a set of drop-down menus. These could also allow the user to sort, hide, or adjust the width of selected columns.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m serious, if not very hopeful that it will happen
    Of course there's one OBVIOUS answer which would satisfy and even delight a lot of people - add a button "Export results", which would create a comma & quote separated (CSV) file that we could bring into a spreadsheet and filter or browse to our hearts' contents!!
    This is one that a trainee programmer could do in his hot chocolate break!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m confident
    I've been thinking on this all day...and running varying searches. I'm quite the proponent of new technology, so the changes don't seem to me to be that extraordinary. However, they must have been because there has been so much negative feedback over it.

    I read though both blog entries about the new search engine and the new filters and I think I can seen at least one aspect that is making it difficult for people to find the records they expect.

    I hope I can explain this clearly.

    The posting on the new search engine dated 8 Apr 2011 explained all the new combinations of search fields that we could type in information to search and get results. I don't think most people ever tried most of these combinations and so they never knew that they were missing anything. This post also mentioned the ability to use wildcards in search strings. These changes hark back to the early days of searching for information. Many people who worked on genealogy "back then" never used computers for that purpose. They came in when WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) was the mode. They don't understand the PRINCIPLES behind the search engines.

    If I understand correctly, search engines that search for wildcards search along "exact matching" theories, letting the USER input (type in) the "exact [wildcard] match" he is looking for. On the other hand, search engines that search for sound-alikes run on a much looser matching framework, giving you more results. Search engines that run on these "looser" or "sound-alike" principles get their good results because of the number of different individual pieces of information that they take into account...

    Can I give you an example?
    FamilySearch now runs the "exact match" type of search engine with only one date/location and only one relationship. So I get thousands of matches that I have to manually turn on or off the filters to narrow down the information I am after.
    Ancestry.com runs the "sound-alike" search engine, but adds parameters for birth, death, marriage, parents, spouse, multiple siblings, multiple children, and multiple places of residence.

    I searched on the surname "LoForte" When I search with the string "l?fort?" I get ALL the results that I knew were in the FamilySearch databases regarding this family (location: Sacramento, California) Whereas searching for just "loforte" gets all the LoFortes and then moves on to the Fords skipping right over the LaFortes

    Searching Ancestry.com for "loforte" in Sacramento, California nets me the same results (they have duplicate indexes) and other results in databases that are not available on FamilySearch.

    I think that BOTH ways are good. But they are used for different purposes. The "exact match" is great for a low-profile surname, especially in a very limited area. The "sound-alike" search engine is great for those common surnames (do I hear Johnson & Smith?) where you are looking for a pattern in order to establish that it is the same family.

    Another thing, the "exact match" is great for traditional research methods. Where one searches for specific records one after another building upon what one already knows. The "sound-alike" search engine WITH the additional parameters is great for the whole-genealogy approach...where one searches for ANYTHING on this family and then looks for any documents that he hasn't already noticed. Kinda makes you think WYSIWYG really could DO your genealogy for you!

    Now I hope you'll forgive the long-winded discussion of the search engines, as I know it isn't directly the topic of this thread...but I think the big issue with the filters is that most people are expecting the WYSIWYG genealogy results similar to other sites. BUT from what I've seen, only ENGLISH speaking folks seem to be complaining (is there another site that non-English speakers are posting on?) I know from my own and friends research & from traveling around the world that English pronunciation of letters is very different from other languages. The "exact match" capabilities of FamilySearch will be a better INTERNATIONAL search engine because the USER can define the wildcards. But in order to give us the specific results that we want, these new filters are the best ones, so far as I can tell, for limiting the results for the search engines FamilySearch has just implemented.

    All that said, I still use FamilySearch, Ancestry AND HeritageQuest to search for people that I have a hard time finding in the censuses! So maybe the best thing after all is to maintain both types of search engine possibilities?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 2
    I think that instead of getting huge, broad-based results from searches initially, it would be better to get smaller, more specific results keyed in to what the stated information is, and then the option to go to other areas secondly.The Beta search was wonderful-it took me directly to places that I wanted to search. This new search seems like the equivalent of throwing a whole basket of clothes at someone when all they wanted was a pair of socks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Search-many things are thrown at you that do not coordinate with the date/time frame you have entered. I put in information for a man from 1748-1808-that is when he lived. I received many results from time periods after he had died-later in the 1800's.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    The "NEW"search is so non-specific as to be frustrating. i.e.-the pilot search allowed for searches with only parents names-useful when a womans married name was not known (TX death records comes to mind)
    while I very much appreciate the work that has gone into this vast site and am VERY grateful for it, leaving it "user friendly" as the pilot site was would be marvelous.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Bring back PILOT SEARCH!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    Please bring back the functionality of the old site! The new site (yes looks better) doesn't have the search capabilities that the old one did and is far too frustrating to try and use. You can't filtre results or search by locality or search by source #, without getting hundereds of hits. The old site worked MUCH better. Why don't you leave well enough alone.

    Ok. The new site does LOOK better. But the new look on the old site and give it back, please! Thanks very much!.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m very frustrated!!!!!!!!!!!
    1
    i want the pilot search back. Using the new site, i put in the same information I used to put on pilot, but i can't find half of the record i was able to find on the pilot search. The new site is horrible, it's hard to search, it takes forever to find one record, and it really gives me a headache trying to look for records.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated and disappointed.
    1
    This topic has obviously been covered heavily. However, the new FamilySearch search engine is extremely frustrating. Even when you ask it to be exact on a name or place, it can not seem to do it. One ends up with hits no where close to what was asked. I will switch to the original familySearch website when I need to search the 1880 US, 1881 Canadian and 1881 UK censuses because the filters work and are easier to use. I have found people using the old system and then can not find them in the new system. The pilot site was clean and quick. The new site may look better, but it is dirty and slow.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m totally frustrated with the inadequte filters for search
    1
    After using the revised search for a long while, I still prefer the old pilot for all the reasons described here. I really dislike the filters on the new version, as they are far too broad to help in a search. Go back to the filters you used in the pilot version, please!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m FRUSTRATED !!!!!!!
    1
    Now I can't even tell you why I prefer the Pilot site, not working. New site doesn't allow me to choose year of birth narrowed down to a 10 year time span. New one just asks 1800 or 1900. I can't choose a state of birth on the new site, just lumps US, Canada and Mexico together. I liked being able to click and copy the information gathered by indexers when I'm helping someone. All the work the indexers did seems to be going to waste as far as I can see. Loved the Pilot, even put up with you moving the digitized copies to new location and now I have to remember user name and password and sign in each time I want to view document, can't the system remember who I am???? Well, maybe it's security, and I can deal with that, but sure not impressed with the rest of the format.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Let us keep the Pilot Program format, PLEASE.
    • Joan,

      There are secondary filters inside of the initial ones that you have selected. in other words...if you select the place as US, Canada & Mexico, then click on that when it shows up in blue under "Place" you will then have the option to choose US, Canada, OR Mexico. Clicking on that location when it shows up blue will allow you to choose a specific state. The same with the dates, however they are limited to only 10 year time periods.

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

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

  • 1
    Thank you for your attempt to improve the pilot program which was a great tool and friendly to the use, This new version is unfriendly and restrictive.
    1.This lacks the ease of use of the pilot program.
    2.The ability to narrow a search to a region, instead of the city
    3.The ability to narrow a search to by date by century, instead of every ten years
    4.The ability to copy record data uniformly into the family tree builder note section is terrible.

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    CAN YOU HEAR WHAT WE ARE SAYING:.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    1
    I can't seem to answer your query as to why I prefer "pilot', as the send button appears to be below my computer. I do not like your new format; it is very difficult to use, and you cannot add names of parents, spouse, etc. The old method is fantastic, and I'm very upset you have chosen to no longer allow me to use it. AFTER I find what I'm looking for, I will then use the new format, if needed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    New format NO; old format YES.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m frustrated
    Now that I have learned to use the filters on the new page, I have found it very easy to use. it just had a learning curve that I hadn't expected. But I had to learn how to use the previous version also.
    My only problem is that when I search a name, and add parents' names it uses my main name as one of the parents. My intent is the main name should be the child, with the parents as noted.
    It seems like the searching mechanism is not set up quite right.
    I hope this makes sense. it is hard to explain in words.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I’m SAD AND FRUSTRATED
    1
    I miss Pilot. It's not the same. A very sad Irish person
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • I read Marge's reply, from about Nov. 2010, and I very seriously hope I misunderstood her. She came across as being very narrow minded with her views on "only" using original records and not using transcriptions.

    I run the MA Vital Records Project and the idea is to eventually transcribe all available records for New England. The transcriptions are a tool and nothing more. With the exception of books that are under copyright, I put online all images from which the transcriptions are done.

    At the present, the project is working on the published records of early Massachusetts from 1600-1850. Are these originals? Technically, no. They are at best secondary. Does that reduce their value? Not in the slightest. They are one heck of a great starting point. Many times they are going to be all there is. The town of Lynn, MA no longer has their original records. If someone requests a record from before 1841, the town clerk's office photocopies the same book that I have online, inprints it with the town seal and certifies it as a true copy. They then charge the researcher $10 for something that is available free on the internet and in a great many libraries.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

  • 1
    I agree that I like the pilot search site better than the beta site mostly because of the ability to filter easier. Thanks.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

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

next » « previous