Comments on: New Photo Upload Tool http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-photo-upload-tool The official blog of Ancestry.com Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:13:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Cindihttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-46676 Cindi Wed, 19 May 2010 18:43:24 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-46676 I would like to know how to upload photos that are in a .pdf format.

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45956 Andy Hatchett Sun, 16 May 2010 00:32:35 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45956 To the best of my knowledge there is no sort option available after upload. The order is, I believe, in reverse order of the upload. I. E. The newer one always appears before the older uploaded pictures.

]]>
By: Shirl Leineshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45949 Shirl Leines Fri, 14 May 2010 18:34:09 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45949 Has anyone had problems resorting the photos after upload?

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45913 Andy Hatchett Tue, 11 May 2010 17:16:00 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45913 Karis,

I support the use of family trees to display the results of genealogical research but do not support their use in doing actual genealogical research. The use of photos can, at times, be useful but they don’t fall into the needed category. If one has them one should make use of them but, imho, they are not,in general, worth the time to specifically seek them out.

]]>
By: Kirk Sellmanhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45912 Kirk Sellman Tue, 11 May 2010 16:02:08 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45912 Kenny:

Holding down CTRL doesn’t allow me to upload multiple photos.

]]>
By: Karishttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45911 Karis Tue, 11 May 2010 14:56:45 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45911 Andy,
#26 Your response here seems to fully support the use of family trees for genealogy and the use of photos, which is not what I had expected from you, based on other postings. Perhaps, the difference is that some of us want to do more than the basic birth, death genealogy. Some people are building bios of their family members, and photos certainly have a place in that. In addition, I could not disagree more about the photos providing clues. I started with a group of old photos, that had been labeled on the back. Two of the photos were taken at the exact setting. It turned out that the men were brothers. The photos had a stamp which gave me the location where they lived. They were wearing civil war era clothing so I could determine the approximate years. I searched ancestry for the name on the photos, the town, and the years and got a census with both brothers names on it. By posting the photos others can follow this trail. I would encourage ancestry to provide a way to deal with the back of the photos. What I have done on some is scan the back and then scan the photo including the back scan. Since only the photo portion moves on when copied, this is the only way I have found to pass on the information. Thank you ancestry for both the family trees and photos-just keep making them manageable for searches perhaps a way of categorizing them.

]]>
By: Kenny Freestonehttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45910 Kenny Freestone Tue, 11 May 2010 14:55:35 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45910 For comments 11 and 27, we are looking into this and hope to provide a fix shortly–thank you for the feedback.

]]>
By: David Farrhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45907 David Farr Tue, 11 May 2010 03:38:21 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45907 Removal of media gallery.This was the most use full tool you had.Have the software engineers modify the site to put protection on individual photos as an option when they are uploaded.Ancestry should not be used as a repository for your family photos.There are offline programs for that.Having the ability to view photos has given me access to ancestor photos I never knew existed,and it not only is not feasible to search individual not possible if you didn’t know they existed.Example i am connected to several members with over 15000 individuals.I cannot search and view each ones profile.You should also have an agreement with each member.That member has to agree to its terms or their membership is terminated.

]]>
By: Andy Hatchetthttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45906 Andy Hatchett Tue, 11 May 2010 02:26:06 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45906 Karis,

I didn’t express an opinion because I know that as more and more photos are added the search times will have to increase.

My whole thing on photos is this – they do not constitute a basic part of genealogical research. While nice to have no one needs them to do research.

Were I running Ancestry there would be no photos of *any* people allowed- period.

Far better, imho, that researchers spent their time scanning old documents, letters, bible pages, gravestones, etc and using the server space for those items rather that 42 pictures of their latest grandchild. There are other venues far better suited to those where you can arrange them in almost any order you wish.

I also know this won’t happen as Ancestry attempts to be all things genealogical to all people- as the old saying goes “Jack of all trades, master of none”.

]]>
By: Karishttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2010/05/06/new-photo-upload-tool/#comment-45904 Karis Tue, 11 May 2010 00:01:18 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=3791#comment-45904 Thank you Nancy

]]>