Comments on: Coming soon: enhancements to the image page The official blog of Ancestry Wed, 01 Apr 2015 03:44:53 +0000 hourly 1 By: Enhanced Editing and Image Page Enhanced Editing and Image Page Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:47:32 +0000 [...] You can read more about the enhanced image page in a previous post Enhancements to the image page [...]

By: Donna J. Carroll Donna J. Carroll Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:37:09 +0000 I really do not like the new family tree pages. Like to have never found the “edit” link and page is really much to “busy”. Old format much more user friendly, especially after one has been using it for several years. And cannot find the US Census list to select the year I want to see. Good grief, must you persist in messing up a good thing? Cannot imagine, at this point, that I will renew my subscription next year.

By: connie connie Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:40:25 +0000 Why is a banner for AOL Research & Learn thrown across the top of the search results page this evening? The obstrusive ugly orange thing is a distraction. It only appears on the search results pages in—it is not harassing me elsewhere. And the ugly orange color is the same as your feedback button. We are paying for Ancestry, not for a connection to AOL. Your “new trees” look is already a big problem and now it seems you want to inflict even more ads on us. Is this a new partnership Ancestry has entered into? If so, it is yet another reason for me to rethink my subscription.

By: WilliamKerr WilliamKerr Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:04:20 +0000 I have a gr grandfather born in Pa. I have his birthdate and death date, both in Edenburg, and PA will not give me a birth certificate to identify his parents. How do you get around this brick wall

By: Jade Jade Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:47:48 +0000 Pam (#47), the purported “enhancements” are only one part of the overall marketing scheme that commenced with the first tree-hosting enterprise years ago.

The very purpose of the trees on is to take advantage of the internet-wide tree-piracy/vampirism (whatever you want to call it). Host trees, encourage people to copy parts or wholes, sell having so many “names,” encourage subscriptions (pretend they are “memberships”) so that tree people can see what the “records” are and link them. Now it’s coming almost full circle, using the “records” links to encourage more tree-copying and more names to sell (within the fiction that this is helping research your ancestors).

This is the purpose of the so-called “records” that are such error-prone extracts or excerpts by unknown persons from an actual record (or from a nonsense genealogical book or horrendous database compiled from family group sheets or from non-researched genealogies). You can’t do the same kinds of marketing linkages with actual images of a record (say, a Census enumeration) that are uploaded *from your computer* rather than the mainly dreck *from the site*.

This is not a genealogical enterprise. It is an enterprise to make money from the broad scheme in which actually-researched genealogies are but a tiny part.

Any time you see a broad format change, it is to make money.

The buggy “New Search” was invented to integrate better with Trees and the tree-related “Member Connect” scheme. This is why the place-fields have the infuriating type-ahead standardization feature, to eliminate trying to make the computer program recognize real places (Hundreds, Towns in New England, Townships, beats, judicial districts, Shires and Parishes in England and the myriad other geopolitical subdivisions in the USA, Canada and Europe). The majority of Tree users don’t understand those structures anyway.

The tree New View is most likely a development parallel to the change in the Message Board format: intended to create space for more ads.

They promised to fix the bugs in the Message Boards, but they did not fix the fundamental ones while adding ludicrous marketing features (the popups that cover the text you want to read – promoting useless books and giving ridiculous lists of counties-by-the-same-name-in-different-states).

So there have to be marketing-linkage reasons for having several different code streams that result in what appear as the redundant tabs and path-links. They are not going to ‘fix’ this. They are not going to offer an “opt out” back to the former Tree view.

The New View scheme is so disorganized in appearance because the template is the fundamental disorganization of the various sorts of databases and compensatory patches on the search-engine platform that are now being overlaid by the “Member Connect” tentacles.

It’s the same developmental model as Microsoft’s computer user interfaces. Take bad code and patch it forever until it becomes a behemoth requiring huge amounts of memory and gets so clumsy that the user’s options have to be severely restricted. And don’t forget to call each stage an “enhancement.”

By: Suzanne Suzanne Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:17:02 +0000 I don’t like the “enhancements” at all. There are too many trees that only want to collect names-most of which are wrong. There is too much cluttering the pages.
I went to my tree and found that the person I had attached the day before (after searching through many records on Scotland’s People” was attached to someone else. I deleted it and he was gone off the correct tree too.
This site seems to be trying to appeal the the masses that want a quick fix.
I wish those that are “enhancing” would ask first. For the first time I am seriously considering canceling my subscription.

By: Geneva White Geneva White Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:03:44 +0000 How do I merge two of the same person??? Is there an easy way?

By: Pam Zakacs Pam Zakacs Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:28:03 +0000 I continue to be frustrated with having to go through useless records returned by searches. It’s to the point that I think subscribers should get a reduction on fees.
I have deliberately searched for records I already have copies of from previous searches (before search was broken) and the record is there but buried 50-100 pages in. I don’t know what has been “fixed”, but my experience tells me search is still broken in supplying relative records.
Do you think it’s fixed now and are no longer trying a fix? How about going back to your old computer code as to how it provides search results?
If I say exact search for name, I most often get nothing when I know it should find something. Paying way too much to have this much difficulty for so long.

Please tell me what your plans are for resolving the irrelevant records problem.

By: bill5827 bill5827 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:38:04 +0000 I canceled my subscription recently, not because it is hard to use, as the man at wrote, but because after persevering with frustrations for a looong time, the page layout was the final straw. I had to pencil in partial names and dates that didn’t print because the census image was compressed to 1/3 with promotions on the right 1/3 and navigation links on the left 1/3 of the screen and I need a magnifying glass to read it. (That stuff should be at the bottom of the page, out of the way.) It seems the developers are so preoccupied with their bells and whistles that they have lost perspective that genealogy is about who, what when and where.
I think they should have their utilities in a separate companion program where they can copy family data into a temporary folder and minipulate the data to their heart’s content while they create gee-whiz reports, tables, lists, canendars and anything else people may want to print or compile. Our family data should remain safe in our family files.
I’ve used Family Tree Maker since 1995 to organize my data and document the sources. That’s ALL I use it for. Some of the utilities may be nice to have, but I seldom use them.
These are only my personal opinions but I’m entitled to them.

By: Jade Jade Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:44:42 +0000 I just re-read Ancestry’s verbiage on the aggravating “member connect” stuff added to image/extract database pages.

It says:

“Member Connect will not only show you the member activity on the ancestors in your family tree, it will also show you who has saved or commented on records featuring your ancestors.”

“We’ll scan public member trees on to find members researching the people in your tree. You’ll be able to decide if you want to connect to matching ancestors in other trees to build a network for each ancestor in your tree.”

“A new box on your home page will show you all of the Member Connect activity surrounding your ancestors. This includes activity around records you’ve saved or commented on and members you’ve connected to through your family tree.”

There is constant iteration of the stuff to be found about “your ancestors”.

But this is a falsehood. It’s the same old Hinty junk about anyone at all in your tree, with the addition of Hinty junk regarding any image you’ve saved from a search, and any extract/notes you may have saved to your tree. Oh, and anything at all you saved to your shoebox or that someone else saved to *their* shoebox from a search.

Essentially it’s keyed to a record somewhere of your search entries.

Perhaps someone in knows that the ancestries given in most Trees are false. Only a non-genealogist would intimate that most of the people in Trees are ancestors of the tree owner or tree participant.

Here is a “Jade Hint”: **descendants** of my ancestors are *n-o-t* *m-y* *a-n-c-e-s-t-o-r-s*.

Another “Jade Hint”: you will not be able to discern from any tree I am involved with who my ancestors are.

Since’s intention is to keep another hundred or so servers busy with traffic about multiple millions of non-ancestral people-in-trees, why not be honest about it?

Stop the falsehoods about furthering research on “your ancestors”. It simply is not true.