Comments on: Family Trees on Ancestry.com http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=family-trees-on-ancestrycom The official blog of Ancestry Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:23:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: judy adamshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-19079 judy adams Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:05:15 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-19079 Ancestry never seems to learn do they!

They have moved around all those bells and whistles on this over graphic burdened AMT in an effort to show they are LISTENING TO US THEIR CUSTUMERS they even moved the research notes up to a more visible position but the fact remains there are no improvements at all. The research notes are now where you can see then IF YOU OWN THE TREE but it seems they are still INVISABLE TO ALL BUT THOSE THAT THE OWNER OF THE TREE INVITE. The page is less informative on the family than before.

ancestry are acting just like a party magician they think that a little bit of slight of hand will impress and quieten our concerners but we know illusion when we see it especially badly preformed illusion. At the end of the day we have gained no improvement yet again we will protest while ancestry goes off to try to learn a new trick to enthral us. Ancestry needs to remember we know how magic works.

I wish we could turn back time and go back to the way things were before the OWT WAS EVEN CONCIVED BECAUSE THATS WHEN THE ROT SET IN but that is an impossible dream mean while we have to watch as the site which we all once loved and wanted to be with for life changes in a direction which will inevitable end in divorce by many customers when they don’t renew their subscriptions that they have possible have had for years. it such a shame when the record collection is so vast and important to us the customers that the improvements which are being rolled out on NEW SEARCH and AMT are angering us the customers rather than pleasing us that we are all begin to fall out of love and we slowly look more and more towards the only solution left open to us.

DORVORCE

]]>
By: Wioletta Mytykhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-13368 Wioletta Mytyk Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:08:25 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-13368 Hallo Kenny ! Strona jest super . Jak można znajść krewnych Kacpra Mytyka ur.1893 wyemigrował do ameryki w 1912 zmarł w 1968 miał żone Josephine i ponoć syna Walter.

]]>
By: Joan Capobiancohttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-10878 Joan Capobianco Sun, 18 May 2008 22:48:49 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-10878 I have just about lost a relationship with a family member who could not understand how to view the family tree. My other uncle, who makes computers, I had to walk him through how to view the tree. I am so furious I am researching other sites to post my info and cancel my subscription of over 5 yars.

This is the LEAST user friendly site for non-genalogogists I have ever seen. I work with a genealogy society and volunteer at the library genealogy section and would NOT recommend this site!!!

]]>
By: Jim Gregoryhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-8175 Jim Gregory Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:45:25 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-8175 In Ancestory.com, when I add another person’s family tree into mine, it has happened twice where the program takes the new family tree as a default, and the data from the new family tree, when incorporated, has errors, which creates problems with my database, and getting my data back is fustrating. Suggestions?

]]>
By: Violetta Mytykhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-6336 Violetta Mytyk Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:21:22 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-6336 search family Kacper Mytyk ur. lubelskie poland i Ewa Pocialik(Mytyk) lubelskie poland.

]]>
By: greverhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-6050 grever Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:27:08 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-6050 Type your comment here.

]]>
By: fran abarhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4878 fran abar Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:04:36 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4878 I’m not sure what website means so I did not fill in that part. My problem is the Family Tree Maker 2008. When I started working with it a pop up said I was not registered. My son tried to figure it out because I could not. Please help me figure this out. Also, make it REAL simple as I am not a computer nerd. Actually neither is my son. Thank you so much for your help. I am looking forward to doing my family tree.
Fran Abar

]]>
By: Patrickhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4399 Patrick Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:57:21 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4399 Hi Kenny:

Thanks for your response #48. However, it’s been 10 days since I re-labeled my “Alexander” tree to “Patrick Alexander” and changed it from public to private, yet nothing appears to have been changed.

I still see the “Alexander” tree and it and all of my posted data is in public trees. Can you help me with this?

Thanks very much.

]]>
By: judy adamshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4089 judy adams Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:15:53 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4089 kenny prehase you can explain why in the old olt system if the tree was removed from public veiw and made private that tree did disapeare within 72 hours although in reality it was near to 24 hours and that included the index not showing. then why in the amt does it take two weeks as my other posting show on the amt blog link to do the exsact same procedue of removing the public version and making it private and i am refering to the index left behind although i agree as you say it would not alough a veiwer to link into the tree the index is still there for a longer time than in the olt version when you are trying to convinse us that amt is better than olt ever was this seems to be the other way round when the old system of olt removes it quicker than the new system amt it says to me olt is better…which i happen to belive anyway

]]>
By: Kenny Freestonehttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4002 Kenny Freestone Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:50:45 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2007/12/14/family-trees-on-ancestrycom/#comment-4002 In response to comment 47…

Hi Patrick,

The search system reads an indexed copy of your tree, and usually lags a few days (or longer) behind the live tree system. So your tree will continue to be labeled as “public” (in the search system) even after you’ve made the change to “personal.”

However, when a person clicks to see your tree, the tree system treats it as a “personal” tree immediately after you mark it–so those who find your tree in the “public” search list will not have access to it when they try to open it.

In either case (public or personal), if we believe a person is living we do not include that person in the search system index.

Hope this helps.

Kenny

]]>