Posted by on January 11, 2011 in Ancestry.com Site, Family Trees

As I mentioned in a blog post last week, we’ve launched a new way to view your tree.   A few of you have been asking me about features that were available on the previous version of the tree viewer.  I thought other members might have some of the same questions, so I put together a list of the commonly asked questions and answers about the tree viewer changes.

When I close my browser and return to my tree, why is my view the new “family view” and not the “pedigree view”?   We felt that some users prefer pedigree view to the family view and vice versa.  The tree now remembers which view you were in last.  If you prefer one view over the other, just select that view prior to leaving your browser and it will open your tree in that preferred view the next time you view it. 

Why doesn’t my root person in my tree change when I select “return to tree” from a person’s overview page? We made it possible to return to your tree the way you left it.  We also made it possible to view the tree with a different person at the root from the person’s overview page.  If you want to go back to your tree the way you left it, select “return to tree”.  If you are on a person’s overview page and want to see the tree for that particular person, click “view his family tree” and you will go to the tree viewer with a new person in the root position.

Where did all my navigation links go like “tree settings” and “family group sheet”?  We made the navigation on all tree pages consistent.  Prior to the change, not all options were available everywhere in trees.  We consolidated the links in the header under two dropdown lists.  If you mouse over the link next to the tree name in the header that says “Tree pages” a dropdown list will appear with “Tree settings” “Family group sheet”, “Tree overview”, “Media gallery” and “Share your tree” as selectable options. 

Where did the “Last person viewed” link go? If you mouse over the “Find a person in my tree” area on the right, the options of “Home person”, “Last viewed Person” and “List of all people” will appear.

Why did all the links on my person overview page change? They only changed names and position, but all the features that were there before are still available.  Here’s a list of the new link names along with what the links used to be called:

  •  Search records (formerly Search historical records) – We moved this link from the middle to the first position on the left and it works exactly the same as it did before the changes.
  • View his family tree (new link) – This link will take you to the tree viewer with the selected person in the root position. 
  • View relationship to me (same name) – This link is the same, we just took away the “new” label, gave it an icon and moved it over
  • View family members (formerly View Immediate Family) – It works the same as before; we just moved it over to the right.
  •  Print (formerly Print & Publish) – does the same things, we just made the link title shorter.
  • More options (same name and location) – No change

How do I print more than 5 generations with the pedigree view? We increased the number of generations that can be printed in the pedigree view.  You can print more than 5 generations by expanding a selected family branch and hit print.  It should print as many pages as necessary to fit all of the expanded branches.  Based on feedback from Mac users, there may be an issue with printing using a Mac that we’re looking into.  We also realize that printing from the site is an area that could be improved.

What is the “See what’s new” blue bar at the top of my view? We added a new feature to help users understand the changes we made called “What’s new”.  If you mouse over the feature boxes in the blue area at the top of the tree viewer, little feature boxes appear that tell a little bit more about what changes have been made.  Once you’ve reviewed the changes, you can click the little “X” at the right of the blue area to close it.

I’d like to thank all of you who have given us feedback on what changes they’d like to see.  I know that some of you have mentioned issues or bugs that you’d like to see addressed or fixed as soon as possible.  If you are seeing a bug or have a suggestion, please email me at newtreeviewer@ancestry.com with the specific issues you’re seeing so we can address them as soon as possible.

59 Comments

Tweets that mention Family Trees: New Tree Viewer Tips and FAQs -- Topsy.com 

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ancestry.com. Ancestry.com said: Family Trees: New Tree Viewer Tips and FAQs http://bit.ly/fNJKXp [...]

January 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Eric 

Please restore the forward and reverse arrows in the “media area” of the “person overview page”. Without the arrows, you have to click through to the media page to open the “photo” or “story” page.

January 11, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Monika 

My first reaction to the recent changes you made was very positive, albeit deemed unnecessary by me, as so many of the changes you make! However, I am in the process of inviting several family members to my various trees, and realize that the changes are not as user friendly for a novice as they should be. As I invite them, I find myself giving lenghty instructions on how to get to the main page,how to get to see all the pictures, etc. etc. etc. These were things that were self-evident before. One of the ways for you to recruit new members are these “invitees”! If you can “wow” somebody with a user-friendly program, you have a better chance to increase your membership, then if you appeal mostly to those members who proudly announce that they have taught computer classes, in this blog section, or those who are very savvy when it comes to computers, and judge the rest of us, who just want to do good genealogical research without having to become computer experts! Just food for thought! Also, having to make an effort to remember to select a view prior to leaving my browser is a pain in the derriere, if you pardon my French!

January 11, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Jade 

Does not do any good to see more generations in pedigree and 5 generations “family view” if the text is too small to see who you are looking at.

Please provide option to delete thumbnails and see larger text.

January 11, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Carol A. H. 

Monica #3:

Excellent point! I didn’t think of that. I have invited folks to see some of my trees and while they have computers and are not stupid, they may have trouble navigating Ancestry. Since they are not likely to be looking at the tree on a daily basis, and Ancestry is always tweaking, I’m sure they have some problems. One of my close relatives lives in a remote New Hampshire town where all he can get is dial-up and he is very computer savvy. That is a real pain!

January 11, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Kirk Sellman 

There needs to be an option to have a simple view for those who are new and/or may not be as computer savvy as others. As they become familiar with what Ancestry has to offer, then they can move to a more intermediate/advanced view. There’s no way my 83-year-old father can navigate with the new view.

January 12, 2011 at 11:18 am
SirColinOf 

I just wanted to support Jade’s point, and request the same – bye, bye thumbnails and hello to larger text.

January 12, 2011 at 11:59 am
SirColinOf 

Actually, just to add a comment regarding Monika’s comment above. I agree that the site is more confusing to navigate for a newbie but I also appreciate that you now have a strong user base that requires more complex functions (as you react to the development of the platform and user comments/needs). It would, however, be better to bury these where educated users know where to find them, or turn them on and have a default of off for these functions. The easier the better for newbie’s and give the power and choice to adopt more complex and powerful technical functions and ability as they learn.

January 12, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Monika 

#5, #6, #8
Agree with all of you, particularly #8. Every time that I put my 2 cents worth into this blog, I recommend that ancestry.com give people “options”. That is, in my opinion, the best way to keep all customers happy! Just because genealogy is your life’s passion should not mean that you have to become a computer expert. I know that the “geeks” at ancestry.com are very well-intentioned when they work on improving this program, but they need to learn to look at things from the perspective of their older members as well, e.g., those who have difficulty reading small print or understanding computer lingo. I bet they make up a large portion of the membership! You can’t just brush this away with comments like “just because you are old does not mean you are smart”, as I have seen written into this blog. This is very disrespectful, self-serving and not helpful! Most of the family members I am inviting are in their late 70s, and did not grow up with computers. I invited one of them three weeks ago, and explained to him how to navigate his way through the tree, only to have to “re-explain” it to him again three weeks later, when the changes were made. As I said, I, personally, like the change. However, this does not mean that what I like should be imposed on the rest of the world!

January 12, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Andy Hatchett 

I agree that the Family View needs work sooo…

I’ll offer this suggestion as a specific way to fix it.

1). Take 75% of the area allowed for the photo/icon and allot it to the space for the names text.

2). Take the remaining 25% and allot it to space for a camera icon if there is a picture of that person. Clicking the camera would show the actual picture (which is under the present system really to small to view anyway).

Think this could be a compromise everyone could live with.

Thoughts?

January 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Wayne Vaughn 

I really dislike the new search screen on the census and other items. We now have to do way too many sittings to get a good result with out all the other names, places and possible showing up that has nothing to do with the original search. To me all it does is waste a lot of time. Please give us the old search options back!!!!!!! I really do not like the direction you are going with your updates. Most all that I have talked with that are Ancestry members say the same thing. Wayne

January 12, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Andy Hatchett 

Wayne Re: #11

From a Blog Post made in December:

[QUOTE]
Old Search is still there.

1). Go to your home page

2). Click “Search in the menu bar.

3). In top right hand corner above the Ad it will say “Go to Old Search” or “Go to New Search”

4). If it says “Go to Old Search” then click that link.

5) If it says “Go to New Search” it means you are already in Old Search.

Whichever way you set it is how it will stay until you change it.
[END QUOTE]

See if that is of help

Andy

January 12, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Carol A. H. 

I noticed that one of my ancestors has 20 characters in his name (without the middle name) and in the pedigree view the last letter is not there. If I zoom in a couple of times, the whole name shows. When I zoom back out it’s gone again. I’s ok in the profile page. You may have a problem there.

January 12, 2011 at 11:13 pm
An older computer user of 26 years 

As long as Ancestry uses a teeny tiny font (and practically hides it) for folks to switch from NEW search to OLD search and vice-versa, I think there will always be someone who just can’t find it. Ancestry: Just make the font BIGGER! Maybe then Andy wouldn’t have to re-post in each blog how to find the command.

I have been a member for many years but I have noticed over the past few years with all the changes, an inconsistency in uniformity of routine and font display. It seems like there are many programmers and they all do a different job, but each “does their own thing.” I don’t get the feeling that these programmers are real genealogists. I think they may have dabbled a bit in it, but with no real long-term commitment. Real problems are very time consuming to solve. And yes, many of us are older, long time researchers but any “oldster” who is willing and trying to master the computer to continue their work deserves a pat on the back.

Little story here, off topic, but maybe some can relate. A friend of mind was talking to a twenty-something gal about computers and he mentioned “DOS.” The sweet young thing said, “What’s DOS?”

January 12, 2011 at 11:55 pm
BEE 

Of course, I’m in agreement with all comments on this blog, but I have to go off-topic to thank ancestry for recent addition of more Maine Vital Records.
From b. abt 1906 – d. bef 1910 of the younger sister of my husband’s mother to b. Dec. 1909/d. Feb 1910 is amazing! So many “abt” now have actual dates.
Thank you ancestry! That’s why I pay my “Annual World Deluxe Membership” each year – I hope you continue to add more of this type of information for as many states as possible.
I don’t know how ancestry acquires their information, but I hold out the great hope that there will be more information available from Poland. I think there is a lot of information out there, and many who would be interested in it but are unable to travel to do our own research or afford to hire a genealogist.

January 13, 2011 at 6:43 am
Andy Hatchett 

Re: #14

If they can’t increase the font size then at the very least put it in red- anything to call attention to it!

January 13, 2011 at 11:59 am
Bob Esch 

Off topic, but while working on my tree just now I saw the dreaded “Check Back Soon” message. It irritates me that no announcement or warning was given before hand.

January 13, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Ken 

Family view is a great help in navigating. But printing the family view is what you really want if you go a re-union, home of a relative, etc. I find printing impossible because you don’t have any features that allow me to print what I want. For example, I may want the family/decendants of my father or grandfather. Then, I may want the family/decendants of my uncle or grand-uncle. You do not make it user-friendly at all for me to send my work product to people and allow them to review it, or simply for me to print for my own display.

January 13, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Joe 

The major issue that needs addressing is the function of the web-site. Since Christmas, it has been normal, slow, or non-functioning. I don’t know if this is because of more users, the new software is buggy and bringing the site to its knees, etc., but it needs attention to resolve the issue. It is very annoying watching the green line not moving or having it quit while you are trying to work.

January 13, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Monika 

#15
Bee, Keep surfing the internet periodically to see whether any of this data is coming on line. Several countries from the Eastern block are starting to put their archive data on line. E.g., I made two trips to an archive in the Czech Republic these last six years, at great cost to me, to gather the data on my paternal grandmother’s side. The Czech Republic has VERY jealously guarded its Archive data for decades. On both these trips, I had to sign a document saying that I would not share the data I was gathering with anyone else. This is why, to this day, this specific tree on ancestry.com is “private and do not show in index”. (If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound??) However, as of 2010, this Archive has begun to put all of its records on the internet and one can download entire church books into one’s computer now! So, I can now finish my research without having to spend the money on traveling to this archive, and, since the records can now be accessed by anyone on the internet, I should be able to disregard what I signed and open up my tree to others.

January 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm
JEWEL JACKSON 

TOO MANY CHANGES.ESPECIALY FOR THE OLDER GENERATIONS.WE MAKE UP A GREAT PART OF ANCESTRY.
DONT SALE US SHORT .KEEP IT SIMPLE FOR YOUR OLDER MEMBERS.WE DID NOT COME UP WITH COMPUTERS. BUT WE HAVE LEARNED THE BEST WE CAN. BY THE TIME WE SCRAMBLE AROUND AND LEARN A NEW VERSION -IT CHANGES AGAIN.MANY OF MY OLDER FRIENDS ARE ABOUT TO CANCEL THEIR MEMBERSHIP.

January 13, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Suzanne 

I agree with most all the blogs but just wanted to know if im the only one who would like to see Ancestry stop changing things that dont need changing and work on things that really need work. It would be very helpful if they would make it possible to combine duplicated people in your tree.
I know Ancestry means well but just as you learn to use the new changes they are making more changes and you have to start all over again. I would rather use the time I have reseaching on my tree rather than relearning to use Ancestry.

January 13, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Ann Ogle 

I am really displeased with everything that is now taking place with Ancestry. Information is very hard to find. In fact, when I add someone, there are not hints or information. It is very slow going from information to information. Would like information, family trees, an hints to be a lot easier to find and faster.

January 13, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Paula 

I too would like to be able to merge people on Ancestry, much like we do on Family Tree Maker. Sometimes the wrong person gets assigned to the wrong parent and to clean up this mistake is very difficult. Also would like to be able to delete from family without deleting from the entire list in tree. Make a delete from family then ask “would you like to remove this person from your list?” click yes or no… Correcting errors is SOOOO difficult on ancestry I can understand why so many people have such screwed up family trees. They just don’t know how to fix them. This is really an issue that Ancestry could work on BIG TIME and leave the rest of it alone for awhile. I have been doing Genealogy for 50 years and have over 13,000 people in my family tree but sometimes mistakes are made and they aren’t caught right away, but try and fix them later WOW what a mess it is and very time consuming.

January 13, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Wilma 

Hurray for Suzanne #22..PLEASE MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO COMBINE DUPLICATED PEOPLE IN OUR TREES!!!!ESPECIALLY SINCE YOUR “SYSTEM” IS CAUSING MOST OF THE DUPLICATIONS. YOU SAY THAT PERSON IS NOT THERE, AND THEN WHEN I GO THRU ALL THE LISTINGS…THERE IT IS. I KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH SO MANY PEOPLE WITH THE SAME NAMES, SO WE “THE PATRONS” MAKE OUR SHARE OF MISTAKES. SO WITHOUT THE WHO DID WHAT, JUST GIVE A SIMPLE WAY TO COMBINE “THE DUPLICATIONS” INTO ONE PERSON WITH THE COMBINED DATA THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ON EITHER NAME. RELEARNING IS NOT HALF AS HARD OR TIME CONSUMING AS CORRECTING DUPLICATIONS AND TRANSFERRING DATA THAT IS SPLIT. WE WANT TO GO FORWARD, NOT BACKWARD AND OVER & OVER THE SAME STUFF.

January 13, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Ida May Noble 

It’s 3:03pm CST, I can not get into my family tree due to “extended unplanned maintenance”. It says to go to the blog to view information about this, I can not find anything about it. How long is this going to take? Thank You

January 13, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Laura Brauer 

The most annoying thing to me about the most recent changes is that Ancestry doesn’t immediately indicate “hints” on the first visit to a new person’s overview page, as it did prior to the change. If I go to another person’s overview page and then back to the new person’s page, the “hints” are indicated, or if I go to “edit this person” and back to the overview page they are then indicated on the overview page. I’m in the habit of clearing any hints as I add people. If Ancestry doesn’t immediately indicate any hints, I move on to adding another person. This new glitch in the system will double the time it takes for me to add people to my tree. My tree has over 6500 people in it and I have several thousand more to add, but at this rate I may not live long enough to get them added!

The slow loading of pages and the thousands upon thousands of totally irrelevant hits in search results continue to annoy me, but I’ve come to accept them.

I think Ancestry should focus more on improving the site rather than making changes merely for the sake of change.

January 13, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Wilma 

DITTO – PAULA #24 WHEN RUNNING EIGHT TREES AND BEING 70+ YRS OLD, SCREWED UP FAMILY TREES IS NOT MY IDEA OF ACCURATE & PRODUCTIVE FUN!

January 13, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Michael 

Personally, I love the new layout (and I know I’m not the only one.) Everything is MUCH more user friendly, at least to people who are used to using computers. That’s not just my opinion- I have two friends who have just started using ancestry who both agree that it is indeed user-friendly.

To the people who complain about the “system” screwing up their trees, are you certain that it’s not user error? Computers only do what you and the programmer tell them to do, and I have never had any problems with any of my trees.

The only thing that bothers me is that there is still no option to merge duplicate people. That would be a very helpful addition.

January 13, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Tom Poole 

I like some of the new features. There is one thing that I miss and that is the ability to see all of the 6th generation when I click on the 5th generation. Now I get the extended family of the 5th generation person I click on but not the 6th generation for everyone. I hope you will make that an option.

January 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Joan 

i was entering new persons into my tree and noticed that when i enter the husband’s name (one that had been previously entered somewhere else)it did not give me the option of seeing the list of wives currently attached to his name. this was a great time saver and I wonder where this feature went to?

January 13, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Monika 

#10
Andy, Since we can’t access our family trees, we have time for the blog! It seems that the major complaint of people IS the constant “tweaking” to “improve” things. But, with this many members, one person’s improvement can be the other person’s “disaster”! This is why I prefer the concept of “optioning” into or out of the “tweak”. Ancestry has millions of members! There is no way that you will EVER be able to satisfy all your members. That’s why I liked the suggestion of #8. I think that ancestry.com should be a basic program that does not get tweaked and re-tweaked every three weeks! Instead of re-inventing the wheel every three weeks, they should focus on correcting the real glitches. E.g., transcription errors. Example: I went to familysearch.org yesterday and very easily found a New York Passenger List record for an ancestor of mine by the name of MARIE KLODNER, female, born in Dittersbach, Austria. Wondering why I had not received a “leaf” on that ancestor’s page on ancestry.com, I went back to ancestry and “searched” for that Passenger list. Found it! The transcription read: Marie Klodner, MALE, city of birth: nun#/Austria (don’t remember all the alphabet soup!) What kind of genius does it take to realize that “Marie” is not a male name? I went into the original record which was written in the most legible beautiful handwriting, with “Dittersbach” being super legible! If familysearch.org can spell things correctly, why can’t ancestry.com? And you know that this is just one of thousand examples I could give you! (Don’t even start me on all the misspellings they have on the German website. I started to point them out to them about a year ago. They said “Thank you very much! We will pass this on to the people responsible to correct that”….and one year later these words are still misspelled!) Let’s just keep things simple and accurate! That’s all that genealogy should be!

January 13, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Lee 

I agree with those individuals who asked for the ability to combine duplicate individuals. I have been asking for this for two years. When you come to the same person from two different directions it is a major problem. If the programmers that did Family Tree Maker could do this years ago, WHY CAN’T YOU?
I also agree wih those asking Ancestry to quit changing everything all of the time. Most of the changes are not needed they just make it more complicated. I believe that you have to remember that it is mainly the “older” generation that is doing the genealogy work. The younger people are not doing it because it takes to much time.

January 13, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Anna 

Could you please just tell us why you have no function to merge duplicate people? I see many users want that feature. There must be a huge technical issue that prevents Ancestry from doing that; I’d like to know.

For other posters: if you look, you will see on the “add a spouse (or brother or sister or child)” menu, in TINY LITTLE LETTERS at the top, Select someone in this tree (or words similar to that). Click on that, you’ll be able to choose someone already on your tree and avoid dupes.

ANCESTRY, PLEASE MAKE THOSE LETTERS MORE VISIBLE.

January 13, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Maggie 

By and large I like the changes. I hadn’t taken time to read about them; the explanations on this blog help. I do hope that ancestry responds to the comments though because they are right. Duplicates are hard to fix!

January 13, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Suzanne 

Hello again everyone. I have also posted our request for a fix with the duplicate problem and ask for everyone to add a request. If everyone tells everyone they know to post this on Ancestrys facebook maybe they will listen I sure hope so. Please help by posting your request for this fix on facebook THANKS AGAIN

January 13, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Andy Hatchett 

Monica Re: #20

The more options you add the more likely you are to break the coding for one of those options when playing with the coding for another option- to say noting of the extra work of keep up all those option codes and the extra computer resources needed to run them.

Options are good- to a point, but everything can’t be optionized (have I just coined a new term?).

As I said in another post somewhere…

One either moves with the times or is left as roadkill when time marches on!

;)

January 13, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Betty Walters 

I really do wish Ancestry would quit changing things so often also, but I do not see that big of a change for me this time. It can be confusing when adding things to your site sometimes. I really did not see any place when I signed up a few years ago for any kind of training and still don’t see it. If you are new you really do not have instruction to help get your self started.
I often use two computers at the same time sitting side by side so I can see the persons history in front of me, sometimes it wants you to add a person because a date is off like the year they were born. Then you have to turn around and take them off. Takes time I would rather not waist.
Being able to to combine duplicates would be great. Also it would be nice if on the “See people with hints page” The number of hits could be color coded, instead of saying there are 5 hints it would have like the #3 in red showing their are 3 RECORDS and #1 in blue for FAMILY TREE and 1 in green for stories and pictures ect totaling 5 hints. I much would rather look at RECORDS than someone’s tree that has copied mine.
All in all I love the site it is much easier to sit at home in my easy chair and do the balk of the searching than to run all over the place to find the information like we had to do many ears ago.

January 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Jean 

The lack of a merge option is very frustrating. If you are unable to merge the duplicates it makes the family group very confusing. The other piece I miss is the family group sheet. How do you print the group sheet so the people have all the input information? Where do the sources get printed? What about the stories and notes?

#18 Ken asked about the printing of charts. How is that accomplished in the new view?

January 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Betty Walters 

I see several people saying they need larger print. You may or may not know that if you have a mouse with a roll button, you can press the control key (Ctrl) and roll the button on the mouse (at the same time you are pressing the control key) roll away from you and enlarge type. Roll the roll button back toward you and make the print smaller. Sure help’s the eyes on the census and documents too. You don’t have to keep using the magnifier.

January 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Silvia Ford 

A lot of members sound annoyed with Ancestry, I love the site, love all the new changes (sorry people!. If anyone thinks the site is slow I can give you the name of another well known site that is so slow it makes Ancestry look as if it’s running at super speed. I think it’s a bit much to blame Ancestry for putting people in more than once, I have done it a couple of times, but it’s been my own fault for not paying attention. What I don’t understand is why so many tree owners don’t bother to put records in, info is useless if it has no source, the majority of public trees have nothing to back anything up. I wish it was possible to separate the hints into sourced & unsourced, I could then just press delete on all the unsourced ones, they’re a waste of time & space.

January 13, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Monika 

“Moving on with the times” and settling for mediocre work are two different things! The point I was trying to make is that one person’s idea of moving on with the times, may be another person’s idea of a “set back”. One of the problems we have these days is that people are so polarized! If you do not believe the same things as I do, YOU must be wrong! It is not for one group of people to decide for another group of people what should be right for them! For me, genealogy should be simple and accurate! Accuracy is obtained with accurate data and not with whether the “Search” button is on the right or on the left side of the page, or with whether you have to click on a button to see all the pictures at the same time or not! Thriving for excellence does, in my humble opinion, NOT depend on revising a computer program every few weeks!

January 13, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Monika 

My message 42, was meant for Andy!

January 13, 2011 at 7:36 pm
netzband 

I’m trying so hard to make a well researched family tree, but every now and then I make a mistake. I really need a MERGE two people feature. Otherwise it takes so much time to redo things, especially since my hookup is so slow.

January 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm
John H 

I want to heartily endorse #34 — I think too many people do not even know that options is there since it is not very obvious.

Also, is it possible for ancestry.com when you put in name identical to (or very similar to a name you already have in yout tree) to ask you check whether it might be the same person as you already have in your tree — rather than a new unique name. You flag other suspect behavior such a children being born before parents — born after parents were of child bearing age, not same surname as father, so why not add this?

I have sometimes done it inadvertantly when using inoformation from a new source, I do not realize they had a person I already had from another source.

Others are right — when you do — it is challenge to make the correction. You have to delete one of them — make sure retain info you have on the deleted one that you do not have on the retained one and then reconnect people as needed using the select somebody already in my tree feature.

January 14, 2011 at 10:12 am
John H 

I also want to endorse the comments about the fact probably being a bit overwhelming to the new user — whether one you gain thru your many ads or referred by another family member trying to get another family member to look at their tree.

I would suggest when a new user name starts in they see it in a KISS version rather then TELL (Technically Elegant Lengthy and Laborious.) As they get more comforable they can use (open up) more functions and since you are retaining user preferences, when they come back those more advanced features will still be there for them.

January 14, 2011 at 10:26 am
Jo 

Posted by Jen Hodnett on January 11, 2011:
“When I close my browser and return to my tree, why is my view the new “family view” and not the “pedigree view”? We felt that some users prefer pedigree view to the family view and vice versa. The tree now remembers which view you were in last. If you prefer one view over the other, just select that view prior to leaving your browser and it will open your tree in that preferred view the next time you view it.”

What about us users who prefer the “person profile” view? I rarely ever use either the “family view” or the “pedigree view” but have to go through an extra step to get to my preferred view every time now as it doesn’t remember the “person profile” view.

Also, I agree with Eric’s #2 comment that we need the forward and reverse arrows back in the “media area” of the “person overview page”. It worked much better with the ability to scroll through the photos with the arrows but now I have to go to another page, yet again, to look through the images.

I’m tired of your constant changes. If you want to ADD features, fine, but stop changing them, moving them, removing them, and renaming them. You’re making this much too annoying to be enjoyable anymore, and I just don’t come to Ancestry much anymore as a consequence.

January 14, 2011 at 11:21 am
Monika 

#40 – You do not even have to do that much! You just press the “zoom” button on the bottom of the display, and “voila” (that’s French for “Whoop, thre it is!” :-) ! you can adjust the print size to any size you want up to 400%.

January 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm
J. Fulmer 

It appears many here are frustrated trying to build and/or modify their family trees on-line within Ancestry.com. I think it is much preferred to build your family tree off-line using software dedicated for that purpose and then upload your GEDCOM to Ancestry.com for sharing and viewing.

As I continue to modify my family tree off-line I simply generate a new GEDCOM maybe once a week or so to replace and update the outdated one earlier posted on Ancestry.com But 100% my tree work is done off-line, and certainly not done directly on the family tree posted here where everything is so confused.

January 14, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Jade 

#40, #48 — the mouse shortcut and keyboard shortcuts zoom in and out on tree. They do not enlarge text while retaining the viewed layout.

On my screen the only zoom provision is on the vertical image toolbar. Again, you can get a closup or further out view of the box-chart display but not change text size while retaining the view-layout.

January 15, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Carol A. H. 

I have been watching carefully what happens when I go in and out of a tree. I still get the home person in the Pedigree View (not Family View) when I log onto a tree from “Family Trees,” not the last person I was working with in the profile page. So I don’t get back to where I left off. The tree doesn’t remember where I was last. This means extra clicking to get back to the last person in that tree.

January 15, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Monika 

#50. Sorry to disagree with you. On my computer, when I, e.g., want to read the original Census record, I press the zoom button on the bottom right of the display and it will magnify the words as much as I need them to be. The same with my “zoom” button under “View” on my computer, it will enlargen the text on my profile sheets as large as I need it to be. As a matter of fact, I use the “zoom” button regularly, and, there is very little print that I have not been able to “zoom” to a readable level on ancestry.com. So, maybe we are both using the zoom button differently, or??

January 15, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Jade 

Monika #52, I was not talking about Census or any other document view – just about the Tree “Family” and Pedigree views where more than 5 generations are known.

I can make text larger or smaller on the Individual Overview (or “profile” view) (is that what you meant by ‘profile sheets’?) with no trouble. Again, I was talking only about the “Family” and Pedigree views.

I do not want to zoom in to the “Family” view and see fewer of the persons in the display. I want to keep the display as-is but make text in the boxes larger.

January 16, 2011 at 6:45 am
Monika 

# 53 – Got it! I thought that we had to be talking about two different things! #40 and I were talking about making the print legible on Census records and documents as well! For the older eyes (like mine!) But I agree with you, it would be nice if the print on the “Family” view could be larger. And, yes, by “Profile Sheet” I mean the “profile” view! A rose by any other name…, and when I print that view out I have a “Profile Sheet”! :-) !

January 16, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Donald E. Kliros 

I want to know how to find Famous People since you made these changes. dekliros@gmail.com
Please E-mail me with the answer.

January 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Andy Hatchett 

Donald Re: #55

If you mean that “Famous Relatives” thing that was associated with OneWorldTree- don’t bother!

That entire thing was pure junk from start to finish and Ancestry should be ashamed to even have it on the site.

January 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Nancy Arnold 

I see my tree growing with Ancestry.com and I try to be careful as I work but I have managed to get it in quite a mess adding new people.

Would it help others like me if Ancestry.com could add a coded linked column to the List of Ancestors with a bullet that would let us know this exact personal profile is the same one attached to our pedigree/family view? I will call this the “tree file”. Other files with the same name may have different or additional info such as the spouses lineage that I need to transfer to that person, so, it sure would be nice to be able to open each of these people at the same time to compare info and transfer or merge (by choice) the info to the “tree file”, then that duplicate name could be deleted without fear of loosing info.

I entered my grandfather as Thomas Morris. I wanted to attach census records to his profile but when his name was listed as “Deck” or “Dick”, it added a new person. It would be nice to have box to click to say this is really the same person.

Like I say ya’ll do a fabulous job and give many people hours of pleasure . . . me for one! Thanks!

January 23, 2011 at 6:09 pm
norma j miller 

Hello, I just renewed my subscription, now I wish I hadn’t. I can’t find things as well as before, now I just feel I am wasting my time. Your site is not improved, it’s more complicated. I liked it when we could choose which search we wanted to use. I am very disappointed. I agree with posts above. I hope you will consider restoring the “old search”. N J Miller

January 24, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Andy Hatchett 

Norma RE: # 58

Old Search hasn’t gone anywhere!

See post #12 above!

January 24, 2011 at 9:35 pm