Comments on: Family Tree Maker Focus Group http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=family-tree-maker-focus-group The official blog of Ancestry.com Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:30:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2 By: Arlene G Mileshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52982 Arlene G Miles Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:46:50 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52982 FamilyTreeMaker can be only as good as Ancestry search…so let’s fix the latter first, then offer updates and fixes for FTM 2011. There are way too many problems, one being getting different results when searching for the same information in different databases. Why can’t all the databases return the information being searched for instead of showing information that isn’t even close to being right?
Second, why can’t the databases with the same name and contents be combined? Or is this a way to show Ancestry has “X” number more just to make a point?
Let’s go back to KEEP IT SIMPLY SMART.

]]>
By: Dolores Warrenhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52981 Dolores Warren Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:15:05 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52981 Since Ancestry owns both the website and Family Tree Maker there should be an easy way to switch information back and forth from one to another. If there is, I haven’t found it yet.

]]>
By: Woodrow Danielshttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52969 Woodrow Daniels Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:31:35 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52969 Regarding #9 & #11. I also agree fully. Since I’m new to Ancestry.com, I thought I was doing something wrong but now I know others and maybe everyone has the same problem. It’s very, very frustrating receiving results I didn’t ask for. I try to refine the search and still get names and locations that don’t come close to matching.

Please, please fix it.

]]>
By: Dolores Warrenhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52941 Dolores Warren Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:58:50 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52941 I just bought FTM 2011 and I’m not sure I like it. Too much stuff. I have been an FTM user for years. The first version I had was a DOS version, and then I bought the first Windows version when it came out. I was using 2005 version before I bought the 2011 and was happy with that. I have just signed up for Ancestry and so far I’ve found lot of good and bad info. I actually found a 2nd cousin didn’t know I had! I agree with all the critisms of the posters above. The website is good but needs some tweaking.

]]>
By: Benny Reedhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52939 Benny Reed Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:33:04 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52939 I am upset that I have put in so much time inputting data and can not run different ancestry tree reports. I wish I had just kept “Family Tree”. If I am doing something wrong please let me know….A dissatified customer.

]]>
By: Marie Mackeyhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52934 Marie Mackey Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:21:18 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52934 Regarding #9. I agree. I put in a state or country and get umpteen states and countries. It is frustrating. As to FTM I bought it and I’m sure if a book came with it I would use it. I tried to use it, even printed out what was available for use but have gone back to ancester because I can correct errors and see who is where. I also agree that there are glaring errors on member trees, and I am a beginner.

]]>
By: Scott M. Jamesonhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52933 Scott M. Jameson Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:11:05 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52933 I’ve always found FTM & Ancestry.com very useful and for the most part I recheck many of my sources by going to the Mormon Family History Center on the Internet. There is one feature that craves to be on FTM, the ability to locate data within the area of search. The Utah based library provides quick and easy searches that are right on the mark! Is there any way you could incorporate that type of searching somehow.
Second, why are you making so may changes to your on-line family trees. I love the built-in command that you have in the past year placed on your site. Why can’t you incorporate that interesting model into FTM as well!?
Third, when I think of maps, why put a map module into FTM if you cannot manipulate the data well. It primarily gives you basic feedback on where your ancestors resided. How about providing real data graphing abilities in which we can present in our own way?
As others have posted of late, the trends that Ancestry.com are pursuing tend more to the social aspect of genealogy. While find in its approach, others are more wanting of FTM software considerations, instead. Perhaps you can contact all of us about where your company is headed in the future.
Thank you.

]]>
By: Frankie Guinlehttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52932 Frankie Guinle Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:38:51 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52932 I dont understand your search engine. I put in someone’s name and state in which they lived and you give me dozens, if not hundreds of people all over the country. If I am searching Texas I dont want 49 other states to wade through. If I say John Doe was born in Illinois I dont want 49 other states to scroll through. If I want Texas, give me Texas and nothing else.

]]>
By: Orange Buckethttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52923 Orange Bucket Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:50:34 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52923 Regarding post #5. There is certainly a mass of duff information posted in Ancestry member trees, generally unsourced as well. It doesn’t bother me in itself as if people want to do duff research that is their look out. It is just frustrating when you look at a member tree in the hope of gaining new leads only to find it is yet another one that has facts copied from other trees with absolutely no sourcing and really basic errors in it.

However what does bother me is that Ancestry seem increasingly obsessed with drawing information in member trees to my attention, increasingly giving it greater prominence than the records in their geneaological databases. They seem obsessed with promoting social networking aspects of the Ancestry website above all others. It is useful to be able to view other members trees and to contact them easily, but it is not a priority and not something I want rammed down my throat.

]]>
By: Greg Burtonhttp://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2011/04/08/family-tree-maker-focus-group/#comment-52921 Greg Burton Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:06:44 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=5708#comment-52921 I have been using FTM for many years. 2011 is very slow with importing records from Ancestry on line. 2011 is unable to generate book reports that I want.

]]>