We are excited to announce that the new Ancestry website is now available to all U.S.-based members*. As some of you know, the new site has been in beta since mid-February, and thousands of Ancestry members have been actively using the new site and providing feedback (thank you!). As of today, the new Ancestry site is available to the broader Ancestry member community.

The new Ancestry site has been designed to transform how you can discover and tell your family story. One of the greatest unmet needs of our members has been the desire for story. We all like to listen to and share stories, but it can sometimes be hard to unravel and tell the stories behind all the facts and information you have gathered in your tree.  With new storytelling features and a streamlined design, the new Ancestry helps you weave together richer stories that can bring you closer to knowing your ancestors as people.

It’s your family story, reinvented.

To get the big picture of the new Ancestry, see this quick video:

For a detailed FAQ on the new site and what’s included, click here.

To try the new site now, click here.

We hope you enjoy the new Ancestry – and experience a whole new way to bring your ancestors’ stories to life.


* We rolled the new website out to U.S.-based customers to start and expect the rest of the world to experience it in the next couple of months.


  1. Valerie

    Is this new site only available to paid subscribers? The FAQ didn’t say so, but when I clicked to try it out, it just took me to a subscription page. (I was logged in when I tried.)

  2. Dorcas Aunger

    I just heard about your new beta edition of Ancestry.com. I looked at the “Sneak Peak” and read many of the comments. I would have liked to add a comment there, but I found no place to do so on that page, so came here to the home site.
    I especially agreed with the comments of Suzanne Frantz. I’ve been doing genealogy for 66 years and have been on Ancestry.com since 2004. Having started out in the ‘old days’ when you had to go to brick and mortar institutions to get your documents, I also made many trips throughout the US and Canada, where I interviewed family members and recorded their stories of their lives and how history affected them. I know why my Great-great grandfather put his property up for sale on 1 Apr. 1861, and why, when the sale was clear on May 1, he put his family on a flatboat on the Red River and floated down to Shreveport, LA to join a wagon train to California. So I don’t need to know how the Civil War, and the events in Texas that led up to it affected my ancestors. I also don’t need to know how the Gold Rush affected that family, or how their attitudes were affected by where they had previously lived in Ohio. It’s all in my records. I hope that feature will be able to be turned off.
    I agree with the practice of using the place names that were in use at the time of an event. How can you logically search for appropriate documents, if you are using place names that didn’t exist at the time.

    I’m also concerned about the degree of contrast between the print and the background in the use of color. If you print something in black on a bright red background, I won’t be able to read it unless it is a 40- point font.
    I like the idea that the media can be re-ordered.

    Something that I wish was easier to do is to list sources of information we have discovered in family homes and the brick and mortar institutions. It’s a pain to have to go to a record that I entered several years ago and remember exactly how I recorded it (before I learned citation from Elizabeth Shown Mills). I wish there was some way to do a simple search of my own documents which I have already recorded. I have my great-grandfather’s Bible which has records of several branches of the family including collateral lines. I worked on my own surname first, and recorded his Bible as a source. By the time I got back to recording another branch, over two years had passed and I had hundreds of sources to scroll through before I found the record of the Bible. It was either that or leave the page I was working on and go to his page and click on the source through his page, write down the basic information and return to the new page. That’s a lot of wasted time.
    I’m also concerned about the costs. Ancestry World is the only paid subscription I have because it is all I can afford. I’m hoping the price will not be increased.

  3. Tim

    Valerie, I’m a paid subscriber, account address in the USA, visiting the site from the USA, and I don’t yet have access to the new site either.

  4. Grant

    I’m no longer a paid subscriber, but have a very built out tree and received an email about this. When I tried the link it seemed to suggest that I need to become a paying member again if I want to see this new site. Please advise.

  5. John

    The original post states that the New Ancestry is available to the broader (US) Ancestry community. Further down the post it says “To try the new site now, click here.” The link just took me to a page for an invitation to the beta version. So the bottom line is that I too (like Tim and Valerie, above) am unable to access the New site.

    Have I missed anything to do with trying it out here?

  6. John


    Just tried it again a few times in a row and consistently got the error message: “We’re sorry but this page or feature is temporarily unavailable.”

    So I assume Ancestry is just getting the initial kinks out of the role-out. An ETA would be nice, though.

  7. Charlie

    I do not like the new at all. Help does not answer problems aas they pertain to the old view. Is there a way to switch back to the old view? I cannot even remove an incorrect photo.

  8. Charlie Boykin

    Is there a way to switch back to the old. I do not care for the new site at all.

  9. Pat Peoples

    Came upon the New Ancestry by accident this afternoon and have been absolutely blown away! I’ve been doing genealogy for about 15 years now and have been an Ancestry subscriber for most if not all of those years. And this new Ancestry is just about everything I have ever hoped it could be! Job well done people — can’t tear myself away from it! Thanks!

  10. Jim Greene

    I’m in Love with it so far… Love at first Site… I just hope she doesn’t start to show her bad side as we get to know each other… Good Job so Far!

  11. Cynthia

    I’ve emailed to you my concerns. I like and dislike the new format. What bothers me most is that this new format is more difficult to edit the main names in the tree. Where you used to be able to edit it straight from the tree, now you have to hunt for a page on the profile to edit the profile name. Editing the facts is somewhat easier, but not always.

    Also, you have removed all the comments sections from each profile so now we have all lost all the important information that has been in those comments, and there is nowhere to comment on profiles now to ask questions or add clarification or anything else. I want all my comments back. There were things in those comments that were important to my tree.

    You also have spots marked on the maps where people in the profiles never lived. That is ridiculous. Either get the maps correct, or remove the maps.

    This could be a good improvement, but you have to fix the problems. Mostly, getting back comments for people who have counted on those comments being there.
    I’ve also found “facts” in my various profiles that have no source and that I don’t know how they even got in my tree. So I have had to now start writing this into the information to state that I have no idea how it got there. It’s just sort of jumped in by some kind of Ancestry magic, I guess.

    Finally, I would like some way to remove some of the historical data you have included. Some of it is pertinent and other of it isn’t. I would like to remove all those that don’t apply.

    I am sure that I will find other things as I use this more. I am sure other users will find things that are not working or not good ideas about this format.

  12. Debbie

    How come when I save a historical event to a person and then edit it to say that they died in that event, the event disappears from their page?

  13. Dorothy

    I depend on the information and questions I have in the Comments – both for providing extensive quotes or history that has been hard to find (especially from sources outside of Ancestry), for noting what I consider speculative that needs further research as well as questions I have about discrepancies and other issues, and for indicating where something is iffy that another researcher might notice and comment on, and sometimes I use the Comments to explain my thinking in making certain choices; it allows me to re-think those choices when my head is clearer and I’ve put some time and distance between myself and the research. To have this crucial feature disappear is extremely upsetting and, if it continues, will prevent me from using the revamped format. I do appreciate being able to rearrange the photos and to see the birth of children noted in the timeline. I haven’t checked to see whether a divorce or the death of a child, sibling, spouse or parent is also noted – in several cases such events were seminal. I urge you to bring back the Comments! Please. (what “Cynthia” said, more eloquently.) The new format looks a tad like scrapbooking and is fussy. It reminds me of Times Square being “cleaned up” (read “commercialized” to the nth degree) and its character obliterated. I’ve enjoyed having a clean picture on the screen. I could check it out further, but without the Comments, I won’t.

  14. Melanie

    Very disappointed. As a previous comment stated–it has a “fussy” look while making it user unfriendly. In addition you have dumbed-down the profile page. I have to dig to find the citation details. Also, I have to dig to find the notes and comments. On the previous ancestry version, everything was neat and tidily presented on one page. The profile of an individual is not viewer friendly (too much scrolling with no additional information than the previous version). And where is the printer-friendly option? UGH! What once could be printed out on 1 page succinctly, now takes 5 pages!!! Did you even research your user demographic? It isn’t 20 somethings into fancy graphics. This new version is fluff. The dark grey background on the family tree page is too dark. Please lighten it. I wish ancesty.com would have invested their money in a better search engine. I cannot express how disappointed I am in this “new” version. There really is nothing new about it. Just smoke and mirrors.

  15. Tracie B.

    What happened to the “quick edit” feature from the main page? That was one of the features that I used the most.

    Unless I’m missing something, now you have to open up the person’s entire profile to make any little changes to their names or birth/death dates. That’s very inconvenient. 🙁

  16. Bev

    As others above have mentioned, the new Beta is clunky, cluttered, difficult to edit, map views have many wrong locations, color scheme is terribly ugly, the font and color scheme on pedigree view makes it truly difficult to read, excessive scrolling needed in both Facts and Life Story views, comments and stories I added are missing, thumbnail version of pictures cuts off the head of an ancestor. And on it goes.

    I was hoping for clean and crisp with far better search functions. Beta version fails on both. Needless to say, I don’t like it at all.

  17. Kay

    A lot of my ancesters were born or died in Yellow Springs Township, Iowa according to IOWA Census Records yet ancestry now says Yellow Springs, OHIO!!!! Here’s hoping you go back to the old version with a few tweaks!!! I just called to see if I could switch back & he said “no” but I could switch to an old dormant account that I had created & forgotten. He transferred my account but I lost a lot of pictures!!! Of course this is only good until the end of the year when they totally switch.

  18. Patricia Walsh

    I would like to go back to the old version of Ancestry.com. The new version is difficult to use, unfriendly and tougher to navigate & utilize. The background colors are not necessary, nor helpful. There is not place to add comments to hints which have incorrect information. I really miss the small box from the top right of the old page, where I could “go to” another person’s page. Navigating within this new version has gone backwards. I’m very disappointed and frustrated. If things don’t improve, I will let my subscription expire.

  19. Spratt

    Add me to those, who do not like the new format. I liked the old profile page, much easier and quicker to use. In fact, I would prefer the profile page on Tree maker, also. Which I find more difficult to use than the previous online tree

  20. Brenda

    I’m missing some of the functionality of the old site. The header is too large and has a lot of wasted space. It forces me to scroll to see anything of value. I hate scrolling. The “edit” button for the sources is not intuitive if I just want to view the source. I do like seeing how the sources connect to multiple facts but it would be better if the page self scrolled when I click on the source instead of forcing me to scroll which I absolutely detest. Where is the Member Connect? I use this function a lot and am unable to find it now. I really like having alternate names available to view. I only wish that alternate parents were available as well.

  21. Natalie Waugh

    The new Tree version has less functionality than the original. For example, Web Links (used to be on the lower right of the profile page) is gone. I used it often to provide information that was too lengthy to put in a story for the Gallery. All my links are now gone! You need to provide users the option of still using the original so they can access functionality you removed. Speaking of this, what happened to the ability to write a story for the Gallery? Now one can only upload photos. Why eliminate the ability to write or upload stories? Also missing: Comments. I used them sparingly, but they often contained important information. Why remove this functionality? And why eliminate the Printer-Friendly option? It seems that you have made changes for a user highly interested in “story,” but eliminated functionality and ease of use for people like myself who use Ancestry to access and aggregate information. For us, it is now harder to enter information by having to go to different locations to put in basic information such as name, birth, and death. And things that could be done in one step now take two or three steps! Just to see a record, one has to first click on a screen that is NOT the record but from which you can access the record or the original source. Why? If you make the mistake of trying to look at a record from entries in the Timeline, you must click on the item, then click on Citations, then click on the specific citation which takes you to the original source, from which you need to click the back arrow which will mysteriously make the record appear. Why isn’t it simple and seamless to get to a record? There are so many issues with usability of the new version I have to think you did not listen to heavy users of Ancestry when you were testing the Beta version. Please, at least, let us have access to the original version so we can reclaim information we worked hard preserve there.

  22. douggrf

    Changes are just superficial and unnecessary, causing customers to have to adapt to yet another format. Don’t like the new format. I think they cheapened it. Can’t say that they have improved anything.

    I really dislike the little round pictures of my ancestors on their profiles. The circles cut off parts of their hair and faces
    I haven’t come across a single photo of a relative that looks better round. Many of my photos I cropped in my photo editing software now they look like disrespectful, more suitable for a clown.
    Maybe face detection is great tech. But the circle template is horrible graphic design. No picture looks good within a circle ever – just the design dynamic is poor. A resizable rectangle (recall that includes a square callout) is the overall best choice – but if you want to be really clever choose a resizable oval vertical.

    Life story page keeps crashing over and over again on an IPad

  23. Sue Januscheitis

    I don’t think I care too much for this new site. I just took a stroll through and now I can’t find where the option to list all of the people in my tree are. I use that a lot when looking for duplicates.

  24. ChrisBianchi

    I can tell that someone has put a lot of thought into the new site. However, I am not liking it very much. It is harder to navigate and not as easy to enter info and still be able to look at the rest of the info already entered to be sure it is correct for that person. Also miss the ease of combining duplicate info. I can see that I am not the only one with many different concerns with many areas. Overall I like the old site. Sorry.

  25. toni

    Wish I could see the new site. When will it be available to the general population. If I have to put up with the things I see written here, I won’t be subscribing again and I won’t be buying any more DNA kits. I refuse to learn a new site every 2 years. Make me happy or I will leave you. No regrets.

  26. Anna

    I do not like the new site. It has ruined the family tree profile page. Takes the enjoyment out of working on my tree. So much jammed on one page. I just switched back to the classic site. When Ancestry wants to make ‘improvements’ they should hire people who actually use Ancestry to research and work on their own family trees. If some web designer isn’t a user they have NO idea what we users want or what works for us.

  27. Linda

    What a shock I got when I renewed my subscription. You got all the bells and whistles but you really missed the boat when it came to substance. It isn’t very intuitive for a user either experienced or new. What happened to all my comments and the Military Pages established for my family members? Talk about a disappointment.

  28. Peggy Chowning

    Where did function that used to be on the member connections tab on each profile go?!!!??? I’ve been hunting for awhile without success and really becoming frustrated. 🙁 It really would be helpful to provide some help documentation that described the changed and moved functions and not just the new features. So far I’m really struggling with the new site. 🙁

  29. Ann

    This version has some interesting points, but is not as “intuitive” as the old version. I heartily agree that the map function needs to be fixed before it causes some real headaches. I am sorry, but Lee Co., VA is NOT up in the north part of the state! The color scheme on the family tree page is not soothing to the eye–I don’t care if coral is a hot fashion color, it just makes me want to shut my eyes.

  30. Kristie Wells

    Valerie / Grant / Doug / Toni: we are rolling out access in several stages, starting with our U.S.-based subscribers. We ask for your patience as the team works to bring all of our members into the new experience.

  31. CC

    Well I LIKE it! change is not easy but after playing with it a few hours yesterday I found it to be very functional but I will need to fix the round photo some of mine had their heads cut off.
    looking forward to the future!
    Blessings and to your staff I know it must have taken many hours to complete this task. Thanks!

  32. Donna

    The “Click here” link takes me to a page that is no longer available. I also received a pop-up on the site and got the same message. Evidently it’s only available to some and not all :-/

  33. I find reading the new site difficult on my eyes. The print is pale gray and some of it is a pale blue. I feel Ancestry is taking control of my tree by deciding what pictures are to be posted. The old format was easier to use. I am also irritated by that pesky “location map” that needs to be eliminated every time I go to the tree. The latest technologies are not always for the better. Disappointed.

  34. Lisa

    I love the new Ancestry! But I found a glitch – When I add a burial fact from the profile page, it adds it twice. This has happened every time I’ve tried it.

  35. Bill

    I’m learning to use the new website — but — feedback — you have a glitch.
    When a child dies as an infant, I’m getting the death showing up before the birth on their parents’ time line. This may be related to the fact I do not know exactly when the infant was born or died, just when they were buried. E.g., buried 11/3/1877, presumably died Nov 1877, presumably born 1877.
    In all cases and variants, birth of a child should come before death of that same child.

  36. Jane

    Have been an Ancestry paid user for over ten years and it seems the website is redesigned at least once a year and not always for the better. Personally, I don’t need the addition of the Life Story, History, or Map functions but agree this may be of interest to some users. HOWEVER, I am really unhappy with the changes made to the COMMENTS feature. The ability to view Comments in the Tree Overview Page is gone and they have been buried on the Profile Pages making them difficult to find. Please bring back the ability to view Comments on the Overview and Profile pages!

  37. Judy

    I’m getting used to the new site, and some of the things I really like. The timeline is great, but I suggest you add more mundane things to make the time period significant. Like when indoor plumbing became more widely available, and when electricity began to show up in homes. Also radios, automobiles and even grocery stores. Day to day life as our ancestors experienced it would be fascinating to me.
    I also noted that when a child dies as an infant, that the death shows up on the timeline before the birth – that’s not good.

  38. Bill

    PS –
    1) The Lifestory page and the left column of the Facts page are nearly the same. WHY, oh WHY do we have two pages to do the same thing?

    2) The Historical Insights on the Lifestory are bizarre and flaky.
    a) They appear and disappear as I scroll up and down the Lifestory. (Disappearing when off screen, and not reappearing.)
    b) The choices are bizarre — such as the 1904 Summer Olympics in St Louis — but not the 1904 World’s Fair there.
    When my grandmother left St Louis to move to Indiana, she was marrying an Indiana man she met in college in Michigan – but the suggestion is she was one of the persons fleeing the “dust bowl” of the great plains. Missouri, particularly St Louis, sure isn’t even in the great plains, but the forested hills.
    c) There should be some judgment applied to who it’s applicable to. I’m seeing things like elections and wars for an infant just born.
    The Cuban Missile Crisis shows up on my Lifestory, when I was 4. Didn’t know about Missiles or Cuba back then. Ditto my wife, who was 1 1/2.
    d) The language! My relative living in St Louis City before and after the event was listed as “near” the city “around the time” of the event, instead of “in” the city “during” the event. I can understand caution — but, since we can edit it, if we’re in the same place before and after the event, just default it to “in” and “during”.
    e) When I reviewed the Historical Insight, it told me the 6 other relatives alive at the same time and place. But there was no way to add the Insight to all of them at once. I had to add it to the first, and then individually go to the six others and add it there too – and edit the language for each of them separately!

    3) Um, HOW do I delete a duplicated record image in the gallary? No delete button…

    4) My ancestor has a son born in St Louis City, Missouri, USA, and his Facts clearly show that. But he shows up on his father’s facts and lifestory (“Birth of Son”) as born in St Louis County, Missouri, USA. Notably, St Louis City is one of two Missouri cities NOT in any county, and St Louis County surrounds but does not include St Louis City. It’s BAD that someone assumed “St Louis City, Missouri” can be written as “St Louis County, Missouri”. They have two entirely different records centers.
    AND – what would be REALLY nice is to understand the historic relationships of towns, townships, counties, and states at different points in time, rather than just today…

    5) The Map says I have a Custom Event for my Dad, and places it in the center of the United States (I presume – SE Nebraska). Turns out the Obituary Record Index is published in the US – which is why I got a pin stuck there. Don’t need that.

  39. douggrf

    Note that this blog post will be accepting comment only thru June 15. The actual correct place to post your observations is at the on-going forum – http://ancestryforums.custhelp.com/pages/home – which has on-going subforum for the topic of New Ancestry.
    Further the original Beta Team will relinquish collecting information and giving support on Friday June 5, 2015 at which time all further requests for support must go to the traditional support center.

  40. PAgenealogist

    Hate the new site. I have almost 100,000 people in my tree and if you roll out this new version without an option to retain the old version, I will be looking into filing a civil suit to assess and recover the damages that your site has done to almost 35,000 hours worth of work sand will actively recruit others interested in a class-action suit for the same. Think VERY carefully before you unilaterally change a site that many, many users have poured their life’s work into.

  41. Barbara

    This is ridiculous!!!! This is complicated and not easy to navigate. How dare you insert information regarding events that may or may not affect the person in my tree. If you wish to provide additional information, you may do so on the side or as a choice, but you do not have the right to insert anything into my tree in the “life story” view. You presume way too much and you are bordering on an invasion of my privacy. My tree is Private, and it’s that way for a reason. You people make changes and surprise everyone, and then act like we should like it. I think your company is getting way too big for their britches. I also think that you must have too many people working for you that need something to do, and these individuals could not possibly be serious researchers. I pay good money for a subscription to Ancestry.com, but I find this new look impossible to work with. The grey background is horrible to view for any length of time. Am I able to change the color? I did not see where I could. The tree is all spread out, and disjointed looking, and not easy to view at once. Why is everything so large in the “Profile” view? I am not blind. I do not see where I can adjust the size of the items that I am looking at. Why can’t I adjust the “relationship” to the person whose profile I am looking at? What happened to all of my media items? Why aren’t they attached to the factual descriptions that I have so painstakingly written? This new version is nothing but fluff, with the pink and blue for the sexes, the grey background, the insertion of historical events, pictures presented in circles instead of the way I scanned and inserted them in my tree. Again, you have taken liberties with my tree that you have no right to. These changes were all done with the intent of attracting new customers in search of that almighty dollar, and making it look “pretty” for the novice researcher. This is very evident to me. I hope that you plan on keeping the Classic View, otherwise you do not leave me with much choice. If you keep this up, there will be another company that will come along and write software that is compatible with the desires of the serious researcher. I was going to give someone a gift certificate to Ancestry.com. I can unequivocally state that I will not waste my money if you plan on keeping this new look!

  42. Barbara

    To PA genealogist, I agree with you you 100%. I too feel that my life’s work has been lost in a flash. Who could possibly think that this new version is an improvement except the persons who wrote the software!

  43. I know that change is inevitable in everything. However, I have been working on my trees for years. I have valuable comments listed in my trees and for it all to be lost is unforgiveable. I am in the process of printing out all of my information for when we no longer have the old version. When it is gone, I am also. I am very sad, as I thought it would be there forever for my grandchildren.

  44. RA Updegrove

    Unfortunately, the majority of changes are cosmetic and some eliminate information that is helpful in tying historical documents to individuals (e.g., individual/spouse/parents/children already in tree displayed along with hint list). The design aspects of the revised display is not composed with researchers in mind as the colors are not user friendly or comfortable to the eye for anything but brief time periods. The added “story” at the individual profile level seems to presume that individuals interested in publication are not capable of using data to write for themselves. The DATA is the story in genealogy — NOT fluff. Please consider your consumers in further revisions to the sight and perhaps utilize focus group research to best serve our subscribers.

  45. satlcat

    This “new” version of the Ancestry Site is HORRIBLE!!!! You say this has been in Beta testing since February but within the last two days is the first that we are hearing about it. Some of us got emails and others have not. You expect us to like this based on how many beta testers???? Who were they, the people who did up the program and not people who are genealogist.. It would have been nice if we were notified about this before hand and not have only a few days to check it out and let Ancestry know how we feel about it so that we would have more input into this.

    I know Ancestry doesn’t want to hear this, but for once listen to the true users of this site that have been here for years and pay out good money, to what, have you destroy all that we have put into our trees. We don’t need all the poofy colors and congestion and historical facts that have been added into the storyline that have no reflection on the person it was added to this ‘new’ version seems to have. Clean and simple to look at and easy to search, that’s what true genealogist look for, not this color form of chaos. This ‘new’ version is not user friendly. Not for editing or viewing or searching, what were you thinking.

    On top of it all you say that our comments will only be listed until June 15. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!

    I hope that you make good use of the negative comments that have been left here (which seems to be almost all) and before you go ahead and make people Use your ‘new’ format, fix the problems that have been noted and work to improve it, not destroy it.

    As more than one person here has said, it may be time to stop and rethink being a member of ancestry especially if you are going to force paying subscribers to use your new format. There are other sites that are improving and becoming more user friendly that don’t charge a small fortune.

    Please retain the CLASSIC and make improvements there without the drastic complexity of the NEW.


  46. I am 70+. I am too old to learn new tricks/ancestry. I tried and do not like it. If this is for the future, I will be cancelling my membership.

  47. Phyllis Hunt

    I like the new site, so far.
    One thing…trying to find to correct my relationship to a person.On one of my ancestors it shows he is a step child and he is not. He is the bio son; but can’t find where to correct this.

  48. Spratt

    Today, between trying to work in the new format, which is slow, more steps, and, still not enjoying working in treemaker software it doesn’t bother me that my subscription will be up next month. The profile old profile page was much easier.

  49. joanne parker

    I liked the old Ancestry site much better. This new site is difficult to navigate. The other commenters are right about the colors on the site being unnecessary and I find them to be a terrible distraction. The people on the trees are impossible to edit now and the family view on the trees are not able to be upsized or downsized and moved around as they were with the old site resulting in much of the family views being unviewable. The main reason that I got an Ancestry subscription was because of the usability of the site compared to other family history sites on the internet. With this new version, there is virtually no difference now between this new site and the others on the net. This is really disappointing!! Go back to the old format Ancestry!!!!

  50. Gloria

    I really like it, much easier to use, especially love the visual linking feature between sources and facts. I have many suggestions and a few bugs but I’m going to test it out more and maybe then submit something to the team. Very pleased with story view and overall graphic design, it’s clear.

  51. Penni Luntsford

    As a subscriber who has been with Ancestry since it’s inception, I am again disappointed at the huge changes they have decided we all need when it’s becoming obviously apparent that many don’t want them. Admittedly, there are going to be those individuals that truly like the new system, although I am certainly not one of them. I find the system to be difficult to navigate and having to “hunt” for things that have normally been there is just wasting my time. It is not an intuitive system and is requiring more work to accomplish small tasks. I’m doing more “clicking, scrolling and mousing” than ever before.
    I am here to do research and I don’t particularly care about fancy colors or life stories. If I want a story about my family “I” will write it myself including the info that “I” want to pass down to future generations, and I don’t need a computer to tell me what should be there. It then ceases to be “my” story.
    A number of years back despite having a subscription to Ancestry, I allowed all of my trees (and I have many) to become dormant due to Ancestry’s penchant to change the tree format every-so-often. During that time, I did research on Ancestry, but contributed nothing to my trees there, keeping them only on my computer. It’s only been in the last couple of years that I have begin updating my trees on Ancestry and now this new system is making a difficult job even more difficult.
    Please, Ancestry, leave things alone or at least give your paying customers a chance to select what they are paying for. What is one man’s trash can be another man’s treasure.
    I am beginning to regret renewing and upgrading my subscription.

  52. Steven

    First you “tweak” the Search function which makes it more difficult to use in addition to giving horrible search results. Then you have (still continue to have) synch “issues.” You seem to be focusing a lot of resources into the DNA aspect of genealogy. But honestly, most of the people who have bought your $99 kits do not seem to be satisfied with the results. In other words, the results do not justify the cost.

    And now Ancestry is revamping the layout again. From what I have read things have gone missing, the color scheme is hard on the eyes, features that were easily accessible are buried within the system, and as a result you have to click more to get things done. Why? What justified any of this?

    I have read where people are saying that all of this is an attempt to make Ancestry more like a social media site rather than a research site. I am 51 years old and I can’t stand things like Facebook, Twitter, etc. Most of the people I have come in contact with on Ancestry are my age +/- 10 years. The age range actually skews older. I believe we come here to research first and foremost, to make contact with distant cousins second, and lastly to socialize. I would really love to see a breakdown of the ages of people who subscribe to Ancestry. The average age has got to be somewhere in the 40s, not the 20s.

    My subscription lapsed in February and I am so glad I am no longer paying for something that has been broken and NOT getting any better. Shame on you, Ancestry.

  53. toni

    Well I saw it. I left. I started deleting some of my trees. I’m printing as much as I can before I delete my main tree. This is disgusting. I had hoped my tree would survive me. It won’t. The whole thing is a big joke. You think I need you to tell me Birth of a son when I have already Announced Birth of William complete with date and place. So now the big huge individual page lists Birth of a son and MY fact of that same child by name, date, and location. I don’t need Birth of a Son or Birth of a Daughter. Leave my time line alone. There were so many things that annoyed me; especially having to click 3 or 4 times to get to where I used to click once. And after those 3 or 4 times I may or may not find a way to enter the information I was going to enter. If everyone would check this web site https://familysearch.org/ you will see who designed this new “look”. It’s identical to familysearch. My subscription has expired and I was budgeting for World plus/premium and more DNA kits. That is not going to happen now. I’m in the process of moving to Myheritage and/or Legacy and DNA kits from 23andme. Your “cheap” DNA kits aren’t cheap when you have to subscribe to get the results.

  54. Penni Luntsford

    I am one of those “I don’t like this” individuals and have been watching this board and others for the past few days hoping that there might be something positive that will take away the frustration and confusion of navigating (or not being able to navigate effectively) through the new system. Unfortunately, what I mostly see is disgruntled and dissatisfied subscribers. Hopefully Ancestry will get the hint and either revert to the classic style or at least offer the option to it’s members before it begins to have a huge exodus of paying customers.

  55. michaelolawski

    Ive been on this site for over ten years.This new fangled crap has no flow have to go ten different places to edit, change it back or I quit.

  56. Gloria

    Honestly, the old style was so ugly, this is prettier and easier, things are clearer, fonts are bigger, colors schemes are amazing, easy on the eyes and pleasing, the site is overall much snappier and faster, the story tab is very nice and I can see at a glance what I need to research or if I have errors and missing items, the fact connecting to sources is very handy. I think those who don’t like this new site have been using ancestry wrong till now so now their tree are all wonky, if you’ve created facts like “birth of william” then i’m sorry for you, or maybe you’ve relied too much on ancestry itself for everything. Being from a non-us country, ancestry has nothing in terms of documents for me, so I just use FTM for creating and maintaining my tree and sync it to the site with the documents I personally photograph every weekend at various church archives and painstakingly clean and label and link every day.
    It’s so much better now that I’m contemplating actually using it more (especially for writing notes) instead of Family Tree Maker.
    I can’t comment on the search function having been changed months (years?) ago, because as I said, I don’t search ancestry.
    Of course not all is perfect, there are bugs and improvements, and I’m writing a list to send out to the team, instead of whining here.

  57. Allie

    I’m trying to think of a “respectful” way to ask: are you people insane?

    I’ve tried the new version for long enough to determine 1) it has no new functionality useful to researchers, only bells and whistles, and 2) it actually removes some functionality such as web links and comments. 3) the functionality which remains is now hidden under a layer of visual frenzy which makes it impossible to easily glance at a record and see what’s there.

    Your goals were pretty and delightful? Did anyone express a need for either of those things? How about “visually not distracting” and “efficient to use”?

    Were people getting too much work done and overloading the servers? Is this a secret plan to slow us all down? Because otherwise it’s not making a lot of sense,

  58. Cheryl Kemp

    New ACOM:
    How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.
    I hate thee to the depth and breadth and height
    My soul can reach,. . .
    . . .I hate thee with the breath,
    Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose.
    I shall but hate thee better after death.

  59. Gareth

    This update is horrible. It has made research more difficult by removing features and adding a bunch of stuff that is of no use whatsoever. Who thought it was a good idea to add generic historical snippets that have no relevance whatsoever? Or to remove the easy editing features? Or to remove the ability easily to enlarge documents? Or to make it harder to edit stories? Or to remove all extra spaces stories that were required to make intelligible displays? Even the searches are much less useful than previously.

    Is there any way to go back to the old look and opt out of these changes that do nothing to help researchers? If not, you can be certain that you’ll lose many customers.

  60. Jeff Jahn

    The new view on mine started dupicating facts. Tree is synced with FTM and the duplicates are not their. If you try deleting the duplicate on ancestry it deletes the full fact on ftm.

  61. Joanne Parker

    I found out that under your username you can click your preference for the “Classic Site” and get back to the old Ancestry, instead of being forced to use the New Ancestry site. I didn’t notice this before. Try this respondents!!

  62. Mike G

    Please give us the option to view our trees in classic mode. Listen to the majority of your users.

  63. Chris Wyatt

    Horrible. I pay for a service and this hideous and useless shiny toy is not what I agreed to pay for access to with Ancestry. This is NOT a toold for serious researchers. Instead of fixing problems, you have created a mess and if you do not make it possible to return to the previous look, you will lose serious researchers like me. I am so disappointed in Ancestry. The sale to British investors was a mistake. We have gotten less and less service for out money and not a site no serious genealogist would be caught dead using. I’m saddened. Please give us the option to opt out.

  64. Sue

    The lifestory view does not include many items that are important in explaining a person’s life and that I spent hours researching and creating. To add these to Lifestory it is required to create a title and narrative, things I already did once. But if I look at the facts view all those pictures to go with the events are gone. I think people should be given a choice to use the old profile view.

  65. oz

    Tried the new site and did not like it at all. After quite a bit of effort, I finally found the option to return to the old site, so things are okay again. However, I’m already looking for other genealogy options because I don’t want to continue paying such high fees for membership once we are forced to the newer, but inferior website. Sorry…

  66. John

    I attempted to provide this feedback through the “Leave New Experience” page, but apparently that page doesn’t work right…

    Sources used to state which facts they are linked to. This was very helpful to determine which sources I may be missing – such as whether I have a death certificate for a person, even if I have a relative’s death certificate cited to them. Now, I must click on it, and follow stupid silly lines all over the screen. Although this might be helpful for the illiterate, I would also assume it makes it completely unusable for anyone requiring text-to-speech assistance. But who cares about blind people, amiright?

    In addition, the color scheme and columns do not adequately differentiate between different types of data. Instead, the focus has been putting lines and dots and useless crap all over the place, even to the extent of putting a date next to a dot on a line next to a date, in order to mark A DATE! WTF?!

    Continuing on, the Gallery is alright, even if the flat pseudo-thumbnails are ugly as crap, and far less useful that the actual real thumbnails that used to be there. But having media thumbnails on the primary profile page was great (granted, that may not be true of partial thumbnails of the Gallery). Thumbnails should be added back to the profile page, perhaps even expanded to allow thumbnails of all media files, and perhaps as using actual thumbnails rather than using thumbnail of some arbitrary small part of the media file.

    I decided to try out the new version early because I read that there was “a completely new Media Gallery”, which I was excited to see. Unfortunately, it was a blatant lie, and there are no (relevant) changes to the Media Gallery aside from color scheme. I suspect some flunky in marketing confused the “Media Gallery” (as labeled on the site), with the “Gallery” (again as labeled on each person profile page). Obviously two completely different things. There should be a way to sort media, as well as filter by category, ala FTM, but I guess what with drawing lines, there just wasn’t time invent a way to sort a list.

    Now the good… The tools buttons on the top-right of profile pages are nice, except that they are confusing, since they don’t carry over to other pages. As such, they’re just completely random. The designers of separate page types should have consulted with each other, rather than the “tree view” and “profile view”, etc. designers each doing their own thing. Or, perhaps, one team should have set an overall look-and-fell and navigation system as site-wide. Like, treating “ancestry.com” as one site, rather than a bunch of mini-sites. Just an idea.

    The new Lifestory page truly silly, with just an insane amount of lines and dots, and offers no value at all to the Facts screen, except the plain-language text. While this could have been integrated into the Facts page, I’m glad it wasn’t. Aside from the probability of doing anything is sans lines and dots (or gratuitous map) approaching zero, as it is, it’s super easy to completely ignore. That’s wonderful, since I’m sure I will never want to ever use it at all.

    Another good thing is that new sources and facts can be easily added, and it’s almost slightly more obvious how. Both sources and people are just as easily added as before, facts just have one extra click for no particular reason, and sources still can’t be linked to more than one person. But they are cluttered with neither lines nor dots! So I guess kudos on not screwing it up significantly worse, even if not actually adding any new functionality what-so-ever.

  67. BEE

    I am scared to death! I have no desire to try this “new” version, especially if I couldn’t find my way back to what I’m using. It’s bad enough I have to deal with those stupid sliders!! I don’t post photos, and rarely download documents, just adding the links. I have no interest in any of the “new features”. Give me more documents, better “search” and things that work like they are supposed to!

  68. douggrf

    Feedback in this format on this article of post of June 1, 2015 continues to move and grow with more posts. Also note that a new Blog article posted as an update by staff on June 5, 2015 is also accepting additional comment. This blog has proven to be one of the most direct ways of reaching staff with comment.

  69. Donna

    Why are my pictures and documents, which were attached to certain individuals, now all together???? Do not like the new look at all. Why change something that doesn’t need fixing just to justify keeping techies busy?

  70. pelton

    I know you must be trying to look modern, but your new layout is terrible. Your original layout was fast, efficient, reasonably intuituve, well-linked, and even looked good. The new ancestry.com has taken everything that worked and fixed it (meaning made it functionsless, or “facebook-ie”). Please go back to the original layout that actually worked, or at least put some lipstick on it if you have to but otherwise leave it alone.

  71. Harvey

    The COMMENT section no longer works for me. Can’t SUBMIT a comment and there is no more TITLE to the comment? wassup?

  72. Sandy Walton

    I agree with the numbers that are disappointed with Ancestrys NEW LOOK. How does Ancestry feel they have the right to add something to my tree with your pictures. I agree with Donna about the pictures being all together. It is hard to find things that were so cut and dried in the old site. Shame on you Ancestry for thinking you had to change the program just because.

  73. Samantha Cardimon

    I lapsed my membership for about two weeks, re-joined today, and poof! Here’s a brand new version that is truly chaotic and unhelpful. Do you realize you have a boatload of unhappy paying customers? I just sprang for a six-month membership and am now sorry I did. You had a great product and it’s a mystery to me why you’d make such a drastic, useless change. If you’re interested in getting new, younger users I think you’re barking up the wrong family tree. Young people don’t care about genealogy and they don’t have the disposable income. Please, please, listen to your customers and junk this new turkey of a site. It does not look like the classy, professional site it once was. It resembles MySpace (and we all know how well that turned out). If you’re going to change something, optimize the search function. Not everything needs to be flashy and sparkly. You’re not paying attention to your demographic.

  74. Nancy Fuhrman

    The new Ancestry is not good at all. Do not like the lay out do not like really any of the changes. And where is the related to you that use to be under the name of the person? And at least for me it looks so bad on my lap top. Sorry Ancestry, please go back to the old style.
    Thank you

  75. Mary Carroll

    Awful! I do not care for the new version! Give me back the old version. I will not renew again to this NEW Version.

  76. Lynell Cooper-JoslinK

    OH PLEASE give me back the old version! Photos of torsos with no heads… lovely! Can’t find what I’m looking for without a search and rescue. The old site was easy to navigate, and included what YOU wanted to include. I don’t know whose idea this was, but I hope you give an option to go back to the original. Very disappointing and after being a paying member many years, not happy with your service anymore. 🙁 🙁 🙁 As above, not sure I will renew either….

  77. Diane

    PLEASE give us back the old way to view our trees…this is awful, I can’t find things I need and I have pt so much time into my tree…why change a good thing?

  78. janet

    I can’t use my touchscreen to navigate the tree. Am I doing something wrong? I would love the option to go back to old version. I would do it in a heartbeat.

  79. Robert Coleman

    So many have already made the unfavorable comments that I wanted to make, so I will just second that emotion…. Let me make a suggestion: make the new format available for those who want a pretty picture book family tree to bring to Grandma’s 90th birthday party, but retain the serious researcher format you had before, for those who want to WORK on the tree and not just show it off. I will probably keep my subscription for access to all the files Ancestry provides in one place, but print the stuff out and build my tree on paper. After all, that’s how we did it just a few short years ago… Ancestry just saves us spending on gas to drive to all the brick&mortar document repositories.

  80. I don’t like it! Many of the previous comments above express my thoughts exactly! “Someone” changed my brother’s birthplace from Delaware to Germany, I didn’t do that and I didn’t authorise it either. A picture of Hitler came up on my brother’s profile page for historical content! I am seriously offended! My brother’s page is not an encyclopedia! Change your “new” style back. I have spent hours and years compiling info and now it is difficult to find. I wanted to leave a legacy and I can’t even find my personal comments to leave behind for future generations. Maybe they are somewhere that I have to dig to find! Seriously ancestry, what where you thinking!!!
    I am so disappointed. I do not want to check through all of my people looking for other errors “someone” did. I am smart enough to realize historical context. My tree is public, for all to view, with a lot of info I put on myself and hours of research for myself, my family and others members with less experience to gather info. Change it back!

  81. Ellen

    I do not like the new format and many of the comments above express my feelings. My brother’s profile page had his birthplace in Germany, not Delaware! I didn’t make that error! And then…a picture of Hitler appeared on his profile page for historical context. I am offended! My brother’s profile page and any other members of my family may contain errors, how am I supposed to check them all! My personal family tree, which is a public tree, to share with family and othr members is not an encyclopedia. I have spent hours and years compiling info. I am so disappointed and angry too. I have spent time and money…Change it back.

  82. Linda

    I HATE the new format! When it gets to the point that I cannot use the original format I will no longer use Ancestry. I do not see how to leave comments on other people’s pages and I do that a lot as it bothers me that there is so much incorrect information out there. I have done genealogy research for 18 years and use sources to support information. In the last year I have put six trees up with over 1000 individuals all of whom are supported by sources.
    I do not see how to put up stories…..I do not see how I can manipulate the site and add comments and information on my pages…for example when I add a census to my pages I will insert the census info into the census box.
    The items on the page are so small that it would be useless to add pictures they would be too small to see.
    I don’t know whose brainchild this was but it stinks!
    And I agree with Ellen I do not want Ancestry adding pictures or time lines to my pages….I want them done my way not yours.


  83. Debbie

    I detest the new format. Is there a way of using the old one? PLEASE. This is not even fun anymore.

  84. Linda Blessing

    I don’t like it. I think the story view in the old version was better. I could still edit but I could add more stuff to it. I’ve been trying to add a picture of a tombstone to my great grandfather’s page. I download but it doesn’t show up in the story. Are you going to answer any of these comments? Particularly, how you can go back to the old way?

  85. Lynda

    A customer rep told me to go to my name at the top of my page and pull down the drop down menu, then hit “classic site” and it will return me to the old ancestry format. It worked. But she also said the new ancestry page is inevitable in about two months. I really dislike the new format.

  86. Barb

    I do not like the new layout for the profile page. I also do not want the narrative, story or whatever you call it, or the historical events. That just makes it trashy, and it takes away from the real facts. I just want the facts. I only put one branch of my tree online to combat the errors that are rampant on Ancestry and other websites. I keep my main tree on my own desktop. Also, I think I am feeling insulted, everyone says how you can toggle back to classic view, but I don’t get that choice.

  87. Dora

    I LOVE IT! The first glance showed me the new bold colors, so much better than that old look from the 90’s. As I dug in further I was impressed with the streamlined options for source citations. The LifeStory is revealing some errors in my tree…. what a great way to double check facts. The Facts workspace is great except for the comments being hidden. I love the future enhancements for the media gallery…. I’ve been waiting a long time for a way to organize the media. Overall, it looks like a nice new modern update that I can opt in and out of functions that I don’t need or care to view at different times while using the site. TY

  88. Mary Lou Klemm

    I also do not like the new version. I like the old version and was just trying to put a book together with the printed pages. Now you make it so much harder to do. I have paid the 300 every year to get the information I now have and do not like what you have done to it. Is there any way I can go back to the old way. I am 81 years old and feel my life’s work has been destroyed with this new version. Please help me. I have the the best advertiser you could have up til now… Now I am so sorry you changed it all… Improvements are usually good but this time you goofed. Please tell me I can go back to my old work.. MaryLou

  89. Fbrunson1779

    Once again, y’all have “improved” the search engine. Just who the heck is telling you how to improve it !! They obviously do not understand the process. Several years ago, y ou took away a wonderful search engine and replaced it with your current one, which now you are changing again! STOP ! Quit improving the wrapping! If you want improvement, add MORE databases. I HATE the new ‘look’….this not haute courture…it’s research…we don’t need new looks…just the info!!!

  90. Anita Lehman

    What I want and need to know is if there are any plans by Ancestry to actually consider the fact that their customers basically HATE this new website and do something to fix the problems, or more desirable, give us a choice to continue to use the classic version. No amount of glitzy PR hyping this disaster is going to turn it into something that is acceptable to a great majority of us. I’m not likely to continue paying $200 a year for something that is annoying, overly complicated, difficult to use and unnecessarily bloated.

  91. Janet

    I dislike the fact that you have removed the ability to print the person page of a member tree. Is there any hope of that functionality being added to the new version?

  92. Judy Buck-Glenn

    I have read all the comments above, and can only say that it appears to me that about 80% are negative. So why is this rolling out anyway?

    I have not tried the “New Ancestry”, out of cowardice, but if “comments” are gone, I will be too. With all the truly dreadful family trees on Ancestry, one of the few ways one could try to fix an error before it metastasized through a dozen or more copycat trees was to make comments. If that feature has been lost, or buried, everything will be even more of a mess than it too often already is. Just to give an example–there are dozens of others, but this is fresh in my mind: I spent two hours between last night and this morning establishing the out-of-wedlock birth of a child who later took his mother’s husband’s name. It took a lot of detective work, as on his 1897 baptismal record, he was given the name of his stepfather, which he kept for life. But his parents married in 1893, and he was actually born in 1890, and when, not able to find any kind of UK birth record for him with his stepfather’s surname, I decided to look under his mother’s maiden name–there he was! (He has an uncommon first name, and was born in the same quarter as later records in Canada gave for his birth date.) I then found him on the 1891 UK census as a “son” with his mother’s parents, who were in their late 40’s, last child born almost a decade before, while his mother was working elsewhere, but single. As I worked, I made comments to direct future searchers to the various UK and Canadian records that would allow them to see that what appeared to be two boys was actually one boy with two different surnames. Judging from every family tree, NO ONE has this information but me, and without access to both UK and Canadian records, I think it would be impossible figure it out without my comments. It was challenging enough as it was. Now you are telling me that losing this information is an improvement? I am disgusted. I have 30,000 people on my tree. I have been on Ancestry for 17 years. But you know what? There are other hobbies in this world.

  93. Peter

    I can say only one things “NUTS!” actually can say a lot of things but I’m trying to be polite. Why doesn’t ancestry put it’s time and money into better indexing and transcriptions of sites. Gray?? Who wants to look at such a ugly color while researching a tree. But then once again Ancestry will make a change despite their users dislike and hatred of it.

  94. Aileen

    I know others may have said this before, but it really needs to be addressed how the new site (in the life story and also the facts view) displays dates which should read “born BEFORE 1784” as “born IN 1784.” It is especially disconcerting to read about an ancestor who was born BEFORE that date, and died BY a certain date (thus, a general time range) as: “Unknown Daughter German was born in 1784. She had seven brothers and three sisters. She died on March 15, 1784, in Pennsylvania, WITHIN A YEAR OF HER BIRTH.”

    That paragraph is SO incorrect! She could have been 27 yrs old, or 3 years old, or 77 years old.

    One other comment…The gray color you are using as background or toppers on your pages is really depressing. I feel like I’m in a hole somewhere. It is a color used for funerals and death. You should really lighten that up.

  95. John

    The new site is still in Beta, from what I can tell. Three minor points:
    1) Number of hints incorrectly displayed at top.
    2) Main Photos chopped off so some ancestors are losing their heads.
    3) Too many mouse clicks in new site to perform the same task as in Classic.

    This update appears graphics-driven rather than data-driven. The main product of Ancestry is not (and never should be) ‘cute’ graphics but rather accurate (as possible) data.
    Summary: Disappointed with new site.

  96. Joel

    Speaking as a former software developer which began his career in 1977, I do not like the new Beta version. Admittedly, it does look more modern and clean. However, the new functionality is confusing and, at this point, makes it harder (which takes more time) to verify that a new hint actually refers to the person on my tree. PLEASE give us the option to go back to the previous version. On a side note… why can’t your programmers address the issue with the “ERROR – There appears to be a problem with your email address. Click here to verify your email address.” The Ancestry help dept. doesn’t seem a bit concerned. I’m assuming that you guys have a protocol where a Help Desk person can report a problem to the I.T. Dept. (Sorry if that sounded snide but they just stick with “Try creating a new email address.” I’ve had the same address for 15 years….

  97. I had a look around the new site today and I have to say I LIKE IT! Enough so that I blogged about it. I especially loved how the source citations and facts connect. I quickly saw items in my tree that need cleaning up. If users feel that is too fussy or messy, I bet their tree is a bigger mess. Granted, I noticed where I couldn’t create a Military page. And I didn’t look for comments I have made as I use FTM for notes associated with facts. I probably will not use the “Story” much, but I believe for those that do, it’s much improved. I like how the timeline brings in the fact of the birth of each child. I think that is important. Please take negative comments under advisement. And please answer some of their concerns as to whether features currently missing will be back in a new incarnation. And for goodness sakes tell them how to switch back and forth between the two. It is easy, and all is not lost. The changes I have seen so far will move us towards being better amateur genealogists and better documentors of our research. If you are using the old quick edit button a lot, you probably have been documenting your work very poorly. How do you source a “quick edit”?

  98. Nancy

    I have been using Beta for past few months. I dislike it very much. New format is hard to read on my computer, glitches abound, I could go on but the issues have been well detailed above. Luckily for me I expire next month, so I am moving my trees to FTM and will be looking at other data sites. I see a real split between those that like it and those that don’t, may have to do with how we use the site. Just because something is new and shiny doesn’t mean it is better. Anyone remember New Coke? (Oh, use it daily, member x6 years).

  99. Betty

    Just learned that when I add new documents to the gallery of my own tree, I cannot access other sites on which I am an editor to share the photos and documents – that’s unfortunate. I have been receiving error messages when trying to update old information which has been transferred from prior sites to new format.

  100. Cheryl Pardue

    I hate the new Ancestry.com. Takes much more time and is so much harder to use. I think the colors on the home page are nice, but other than that I hate hate hate it.

  101. Candy

    I also would like to change back to the old Ancestry. It is better for researching – the new Ancestry should be offered as a choice once you are ready to present your findings.

  102. Cheryl

    Seems like many have problems removing photo as the primary photo. How do you do it? Anyone?

  103. S Tucker

    HATE sources dominating the page. It is like footnotes covering half a page in a book. Hate the colorization, it is far less readable. Please keep Classic version. Hire more tech support for data searches. Fire your website designers.

  104. Shillaker

    Cropped circular profile photos…photos missing from timeline…event years duplicated in the time line but ages missing…important comments hidden away without titles, but sources in your face in the middle of the page…no vital edit page…all the click-through… This needs another year of development before release, not two months.

  105. DT

    Hate it. First, it chopped the tops of the heads off all photos. Those are my relatives you’re decapitating, Ancestry. Second, where the hell did all my comments go? I had VALUABLE information in there. Third, it was a struggle just to add a birth-year to someone already entered — used to be three clicks, now it’s double that. At least. Fourth, the colors — teal for males, orange for women? Whassupwidat? A giant step in the wrong direction, Ancestry.

  106. Debbie

    not liking the new website – too many colors = UGLY – I can’t get the “Gallery” to open – my photos are cropped weird. The old website was simple ad easy to navigate. If it is not broke don’t fix it!!! I don’t know that I will be renewing my subscription next time around. Change the colors PLEASE!! or publish if there is a way to go back to the old website!!!!! PLEASE!!!!

  107. Joyce

    I took the NEW version for an extensive test drive. There is SO much I don’t like that there is no way to comment on all of them. Here are a few highlights. I USED to be abel to see at a glance exactly where I was in my research–I have a VERY large tree of over 10,000 ppl going back to the Pilgrims…I cannot possibly remember everything about everyone on my tree–BUT between being ablt to see everfything IN the timeline (Census, military etc etc ) I could quickly see where I was at. I keep running comments on many people in my tree–usually the “tough” ones and ones that I have found discrepancies. I USED to be able to easily see the title for each comment so I knew which comment I wanted to look at to address which issue. NOW in Classic comments are bot only hidden so they are easy to overlook, but when you open them it is one huge series of pages (that DON’T start on comment # 1) and i have to sort through many pages trying to see what comments I have. I don’t JUST use comments on MY tree, I put them on others trees as well. I put them on trees when I see errors such as duplicates they have overlooked, when I find people who died at the age of 120 as well as putting comments on a person in their tree when I have LOTS more info on that person and/or the family-with a link to where they can be found on MY tree so they can see all the additional information I have. If yhou don’t fix the comment system and make them default as visable, and let people have a button to hide them as they wish. The comment system shoudl NOT be taken away. With over 10,000 ppl in my tree i will never find all the comments i have made and find a new place to put them…BUT I don’t want them in NOTES–I want them where ppl can see them as often I point out discrepancies I have found so I want ppl to know that.

    I document my folks “to death” with tons of story’s, “photo’s” (which are actually pages from various sources-some on ancestry, some not) and I use the comment box under stories and photo’s to post the link to where this info can be found as many times there is much more info in the source I have found than what I post as a photo.

    I DON’T like having the Census docs off to the side, I don’t like having stories and photo’s hidden…I like to be able to see what I have on a person at a glance…I don’t need to “start from scratch” every time I open someone’s page.

    You can no longer do a quick edit on birth and death info.

    I want to be able to print tree view IN THE VIEW I AM LOOKING AT–ancestry has enlarged the print version so a tree view I wanted to print, that I was able to view on ONE page came out as 4 pages…I don’t need ancestry to make the decision to enlarge that view FOR me…Had I printed it and not been able to read it then I would have either written in names or come up with something else to ID the people–I want these in printed copies for my records-and I don’t want ancestry enlarging it.

    I CAN print it another way that involves doing a snip into WORD etc BUT that leaves me with a gray background which is goiing to cost a fortune for the project i was about to begin in organizing my paper records so they make better sense for my descendants.

    What I used to be able to do in 1 or 2 clicks now takes 3 or 4. What I used to be able to see on ONE page now takes me opening a few pages on the same person so I can see all the info at once.

    I HATE the black background-you should give us the option to customize MANY things, including the background color through site preferences–

    Everyone likes things a bit differently and your “one size fits all” policy is a bad one–let US customize how we want to view our family view, proifle pages etc etc …

    MOST websites give you a lot of choices re preferences.

    I know many folks have complained about getting emails re comments on photo’s BUT they have NO option on site preferences to choose what emails you want to get…

    Give people more choices on how they want THEIR tree to display and the emails THEY want to get and you’ll hear a LOT less griping.

    This NEW site is very “user unfreindly” –I don’t think anyone checked the demographics of the people who use this site LONG TERM and got THEIR opinion before you did all these crazy tings.

    MOST folks I have run across in my 16 years on ancestry are 60+. They had a hard enough time when most things were self explanatory.

    I have already heard from a LOT of folks in that age group that they are going to cancel their subscription as they can no longer figure the site out.

    I think the BEST solution at this point is to give people the choice of whether they want to use the Classic version or the NEW version–permanently.

    I think you are probably going to find that MOST folks like working in the old version better.

    SO many more issues and I have been forwarding many to the support@ancestry.com email…but the BEST solution is let us choose which version we want to use…2 hours on the NEW version was enough for me…I never want to see it again. J

  108. Marilyn

    Horrible. Hate it. Let subscribers choose which version they want. Did Ancestry consult with the users of their website? This might be the last year with Ancestry if this problem isn’t corrected.

  109. Joyce

    PAgenealogist-plz contact re these NEW site problems. I recently left a comment on one of your pages since you have emails turned off for a person I had more info on that was in your tree–better look quick b4 it disappears..wrdsrus is my ancestry name. They have taken out a LOT of things that it took me 16 years to build.

    The NEW site is horrible and they SHOULD have done some demographic research as well as used OLD members who have been on this site a VERY long time as I have (15+ years and I am on the website nearly every day for extended periods of time.

    I have WASTED this time it now appears since ancestry is taking it upon themselves to get rid of comments I have made over the years about various things I want to check into further—even in Classic right now they are hiding these comments which means I need to look at every single one of my 15 comments trying to find issues I want to resolve, or things that I put in comments that may come in handy in the future. I cannot possibly go through over 10,000 ppl to find Comments I have made on folks.

    I also can no longer put comments on others trees to tell people about obvious problems/errors OR put a comment in their tree to let them know I have more info on the family that is on their tree.

    The Black background and bright Fuschia is horrible to look at let alone try to print…the folks who sell black in cartridges are going to get rich for those of us who also want keep paper copies of things like Tree views-I was just about to start a BIG project doing that for my tree so my descendants will have a clue about what they are looking at-since they decided to magnify the print feature and it does NOT print the view I am looking at. I would have to SNIP these family tree views with a dark gray background…NOT eyesight friendly and NOT friendly for readability.

    Ancestry would have been much better served to put their money into better searching capabilities and fixing all the badly transcribed documents.

    I find errors all the time, not just in Census and other handwritten documents but in directories where the printed directories are incorrectly transcribed.

    I am NOT sure what is so hard about transcribing a typed document! Many directory addresses are incorrect and many make NO sense at all…I thought perhaps they were being done by OCR which would explain the problem, but ancestry techs told me they are NOT done by OCR–so there is NO good excuse for transcription errors on a typed document.

    SO many problems because they asked a handful of people what they wanted…

    They SHOULD have identified those of us who are serious researchers and have been w/ ancestry for years…

    With today’s technology they could have easily found those of us who have been using ancestry for 15 years, those of us with tons of documents, photo’s and stories attached…when you find THOSE folks you have found the folks who are serious about research and documentation supporting their research.

    So many trees have SO many mistakes these days…seasoned researchers are constantly trying to help folks get their trees straight as BAD trees mislead other researchers as well as mess up the database and create HINTS that should not be there at all as they are the result of people attaching Census or other docs that are clearly NOT the person someone attached them to.

    It behooves ALL of us to try to help folks get their trees straightened out as these errors sometimes go viral (I have seen a few folks with viral mistakes that is like swimming uphill to get folks to even look at new data that enables them to find the truth and fix their trees.

    The ONLY good thing I have to say about the NEW site is you can now see all the alt names and dates at a glance-BUT that is something I used to note in the timeline anyway…many folks don’t though so that will help them.

    That is the ONLY improvement i see with the NEW version which is being crammed down out throats, like it or not…Those of us with large trees and tons of documentation will find it VERY hard to go to a new site…and ancestry knows that.They KNOW they are not going to lose most of the older members as it would be too much work to copy everything over to another site. I may not live long enough to get it all done.

  110. Tom Kemp

    How do I sync my Ancestry tree with my FamilySearch tree? There used to be a prominent button/hyperlink for doing that – now that button is missing. Can you point me to that link? Thank you.

  111. Marshview12

    Where are the weblinks? I had important information in those links and they are now all gone

  112. Jim

    Either Ancestry has become Arrogant, adopted a “To Big To Fail” complex, smarter then any of us long time subscribers OR JUST STUPID. Taking out the comments and drastically changing in such a fashion may be the beginning of the end for Ancestry. Maybe that’s why Ancestry is up for sale.

  113. Su

    In the few years I have been a member I have spent so much time building my tree. I had planned on staying a member forever but the missing features may make me remove my tree and reconsider. Ancestry is expensive when I signed up it was because I liked it the way it was and so even upgraded to the top membership and signed up for every extra.

    The new “look”, well OK, I can get used to it but my complaints are to do with features that are GONE.
    *******No member connect that I can find. Member connect has been VERY VERY valuable for me. The notifications through member connect were great.
    ******No longer able to add comments on other trees. This was an EXTREMLY INVALUABLE way to add corrections or opinions. The few I have made were to let people and others know that they have MY ancestors WRONG.
    ********Existing comments I have placed are GONE. Time wasted.
    ******No longer able to write stories that I can find. WHY? WHY?
    These are what I have found just looking at my tree for a few hours.
    So sad.

    5. Photos do not conform to area provided, now people are without heads or are chopped. I can’t imagine spending time to fix this even if there was tool.

  114. mulley

    Is the old, classic website going to be phased out. I hope not, the new site is cluttered looking and not nearly as functional. My membership is going up for renewal and I am rethinking it with all the problems people are talking about in the forum. The old site is great and I have used it for years but it is too expensive to keep if the new site is all that there is.

  115. Trish

    Not working on CHROME browser.
    So far works on FIREFOX.
    Haven’t had time to check out IE because I try to never use IE.

  116. I hate the new design!!! I’m trying to contact Ancestry people, I want them to change my trees back to the old style. If, I have to live with this NEW design I will be canceling my membership!

  117. Cheryl

    The “new Ancestry experience” is an experience most want to avoid! Among so many things wrong. . .Putting the sources in the middle is idiotic, and those purple octopus legs that make connections from fact to source is just plain juvenile. As to the new gallery, we don’t need a “hidden room” for our photos. The photos need to be thumbnail on the profile page so at a glance we can see what we have. And many like to add their photos to the timeline, something that can’t be done in New. Also each fact must be edited individually taking up time and adding many, many clicks and much, much scrolling. The comments aren’t where they should be on the profile page to see them at a glance. The “find a person” button should bring up the same items as before so that you don’t have to leave the page. And where is “Tree Pages”. Once more you have to leave profile page. Click, click, click. Scroll, scroll, scoll. Time, time, time! As to the Life Story, what a joke! Never used the Story View in Classic and will certainly never use it in New. I see the work HATE most often connected to New. So to change it up…DESPISE, DEPLORE, LOATHE, ABHOR, and DESTEST this piece of garbage. Keep the Classic for most genealogists who want a clean, easy-to-use format.

  118. Cynthia

    I’ve been a member for over 8 yrs. and have previously, until now, been very happy with Ancestry.com and really enjoyed my experience here. However, I’ll most likely cancel my Ancestry.com membership next month (my renewal date) because of these awful changes.
    There are so many words to describe how bad the changes are in the “new experience” and it looks like there are many others who feel the same way that I do.
    I used to enjoy coming to “Classic” Ancestry.com and would spend hours researching and compiling my Family Trees. I have nearly 10,000 ancestors in them and would tell all my friends what a great experience it was. Sadly word of mouth from me to others will not be favorable from now on. Researching genealogy was my favorite hobby, it was fun, and I was very happy with the “old” site. The new experience is horrible. It’s disappointing, aggravating, frustrating, and so many more negative descriptions come to mind.
    If you keep the “Classic” as an option or show considerable improvement on the new site, I’ll consider staying on as a member. If you only offer the “New Experience” as was indicated, then I’m afraid you will be losing me and many other loyal members. Surely this was not your goal with these “improvements”!
    What was your reasoning behind these changes? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
    I thought that the cost for your product was expensive but worth it before these changes, because I enjoyed it so much. Why should I pay for something that I don’t like anymore? It’s aggravating, upsets me, and is no longer an enjoyable experience for me.
    It looks like I’ll be printing out many pages of the information I have acquired over the years here at Ancestry and look for another website that is more user friendly and cares what it’s users’ opinions are.
    What were you thinking? Goodbye Ancestry.com

  119. MarieB

    I like the “new” Ancestry view for the individuals with the alternate facts available for the area. These really give insight into events that happened at the time. However, I’m trying to search individual census records and there is no longer any way to magnify the census records so that I can view them better. This is the pits!

  120. Gen_Jen

    After ten years of Ancestry researching, I took one year off. I just renewed my membership and found the site to be completely changed. I agree with most of the users on this blog. The new format is NOT ready to be rolled out. I can not changes in the names to save. Some of the people in my tree are now showing as “unknown” gender, but it will not allow me to select and save the correct gender 🙁
    I am glad that I only paid for one month. This new format is NOT worth the money. Sad…

  121. Pamela Ford

    A few years back I mistakenly added a wrong person (same name and living in the same area)to my tree. When it was brought to my attention; I spent hours and hours to correct my mistake.
    After trying the new version for the last 3-4 hours this morning I am more frustrated than when I was correcting my tree.
    When I click on a person’s profile, I want to see the facts pertaining to them NOT some filler of what life was like back then. When clinking on the source information I want to see the source, not purple lines. I like being able to click between household members on a census …

    When it gets to the point that the complaints and comments are saying the same thing, then you have a problem. I DO NOT LIKE the new version. If this is going to be my only choice then I will cancel the service.

  122. Bob

    Stories that were previously attached to facts and source citations no longer appear as such under the new web site. This is a big problem! I use this feature a lot. Also, you can not add any new stories to facts or source citations. No stories appear in the list of media to attach even though they can be found in the gallery. These story-attachment issues need to be fixed ASAP.

    The Facts screen does not show the thumbnail images of pictures attached to facts and the links to stories and images under each fact. These had been on the classic Overview screen. I see this as a major flaw since I use stories frequently. This should be returned to the Facts screen in a format similar to the Overview page on the classic web site.

    Overall, I would say the new web site is NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. Please keep the classic version available until all the critical issues are fixed.

  123. geniosogy

    I have found numerous factual errors in the “Life Stories” of my relatives on the New Site. What is the purpose of telling stories if the facts are incorrect? You are truly generating “STORIES,” not information. The stories I have seen are nothing but rumors. Alternate “facts” contradict actual facts and people’s “Life Stories” are false. Why dismantle an excellent site like the classic site in favor of weaving a web of falsehoods.

  124. I already left a comment and it was not posted….I have found numerous errors in the Life Story pages of my relatives. And posting all the Alternate Facts adds to the confusion. I think that the Life Stories are just that: stories, not accurate renderings of what actually happened. The historical photos are of no help. You use the same ones for every person born in the same era. They are too big and lack resolution. You removed all the photos that I had attached to Life Events and dumped them in the Gallery willy-nilly. Now, they make no sense at all and are very blurry and fuzzy. In classic site, they look terrific; in New Site, they look awful I want the INTEGRITY of my work RESTORED to my ancestry experience. I do not like the weaving of folk tales that you are engaged in.

  125. The new Ancestry is too radical a change in my opinion. Simple tasks, such as adding a story, seem to require a great deal of searching. Why is it necessary to change everything so that the site is much more difficult to use, even for an experienced user. Will it be possible to opt out of the new version and stay with the “classic” version?

  126. I dont like that the new family search icon is missing that was a big part of the old Ancestry and if they take that away it almost wont be worth all the hassle.

  127. Brian Howell

    I agree with most people here. There should be a way to go back to the classic Ancestry site. The lifestory aspect is just getting in the way.

  128. Albert M. Franco

    ** Yes, users, you can change back to the Classic view. I did! **

    Who ever chose to remove comments doesn’t have experience with family research. I use these to remind myself just how certain or uncertain things are for a specific individual, or for a part of his or her life. So, if I spent a month focusing on another part of my tree, I can return and not lose time trying to re-orient myself. Those comments are also useful for any distant cousins who visit my tree. Also, if I have a mistake in my tree, a person can contact me directly. But, there are times that it makes more sense for them to post the correction publicly in my tree, so other researchers can also learn from it. (Maybe it’s a reasonable error that is only corrected after finding a specific record that disputes, and that comment quickly and easily points that out.)

    I didn’t both to try the rest, but if other users’ comments are accurate, then this entire version should be pulled off line until input is received from long term researchers. No longer being able to zoom in on documents would be silly; I tell old school genealogists–who do not like Ancestry–that one benefit is that we can zoom in so much on documents that we can clearly see writing to interpret numbers, ages, names, etc. Take that away, and a microfilm would do. If I have three documents that relate to a death, then I want those to show with the listing, as in the old version; who would think that would be something to remove?

    It seems that some new owners or management thinks that they can make our trees “appear” to be more complete and certain by removing comments and trying to provide a “Wow! Look how certain this one looks!” experience. What they’re missing is that we all know that research is never ending. If a user tells me that their tree is “complete” and “100% accurate”, then I would immediately consider their research suspect. Rather, I want to see their tree–with sources and comments, and docs attached to events–and judge for myself.

    ** I had already started to advise friends and family–and the general public, via Facebook–to wait, and not pay for Ancestry until they see what changes are forced upon users by the new owners. Now, I will certainly tell them that they should not pay for Ancestry for at least six months to a year, until we find out how many of these changes will be forced on us, how many of the old features–including our important comments–will be lost for good, once Ancestry phases out Classic. And, on this board, I suggest that anyone who’s membership period expires wait to renew. Do not renew as a “vote”, so Ancestry knows that users are serious about these issues.

    I agree with most comments above my own.

  129. rlahistory

    I have a “global” tree of 46,000 connected individuals and about 9200 photos posted on one of my trees. I DO NOT WANT TO REVISIT EACH INDIVIDUAL TO CORRECT INACCURACIES CREATED BY ANCESTRY. I DO NOT WANT TO RE-CROP ANY OF MY PHOTOS–HAVE DONE THAT ALREADY. Am I the only paying member who believed that the tree I created, researched, and invested thousands of hours on, belonged to me? That I was the only one who could determine the contents?
    I experienced the beta version several months back when it suddenly appeared. Shocked was my immediate reaction. My tree is a repository for data and photos. If I wanted a scrapbook I would not have used Ancestry for the past 10 years. Like PAgenealogist, one does wonder if a class-action suit for a “switch&bait” maneuver by Ancestry is in order. Even Microsoft has had to come to the realization that even if they do not support Windows XP, people will continue to use it.
    We should get what we paid for. When Ancestry advertises its services they are not touting the accuracy and the available resources for RESEARCHERS, they are promoting other people’s trees for acquisition by dilettants. Now we have Ancestry scrapbooking the format for a “look” that is not of interest to those of us who have spent decades and considerable personal hours building our trees. Now, all of that time I invested is being stolen so Ancestry can re-write our personal histories and inject their spin on my research.
    All of our trees, which we have personally researched in and out of Ancestry, added personal photos and documents to, have become a resource that Ancestry uses to acquire new users. In return we are now being forced to submit to changes that have nothing to do with legitimate research. Font changes, color changes, layout changes, anything graphic related has nothing to do with genealogy. Ancestry claims that they are interested in our opinion, but the train left the station long ago without us.
    The majority of comments I am seeing are from long-time RESEARCHERS who are not satisfied with the forced changes that are coming. We’ve had changes before and acclimated, so the misguided individuals who want to prattle about how they have embraced the new “look” are nothing more than shills for Ancestry. No serious researcher would have asked for a graphic re-working of the format. What is of interest to me is accuracy and data sources. What is important to me is fast, easy entry in an uncluttered format. CHEESY and DYSFUNCTIONAL is what they have devised in the many months of revamping the site.
    Without our PUBLIC trees, what does Ancestry have to offer? If we all change to PRIVATE trees, we remove a primary resource. Serious researchers do not need the shaking leaf, we just need the resources for which we pay a great deal of money. Ancestry claims over 40 million trees containing 4 billion profiles. All of that built by individual members who had no say in the strictly cosmetic changes coming our way. These changes will make our experience more difficult so that new users can “app” their way through our genealogy. Until we can transition to a new provider, our only recourse is to PRIVATIZE our trees. Did I say I detest the changes?
    Ancestry uses all of our personal trees to tout the ease of creating their family history to new users . Our PUBLIC trees need to go dark so that Ancestry is made aware of how upset we are by the proposed rollout of this horrendous misstep. If Ancestry cannot give our hard-earned research away, new users will be forced to do their own research in their own time. Let us see how that works out.

  130. Albert M. Franco

    My first comment was on June 15, 2015 at 10:05 am.

    UPDATE: I have cancelled my membership, and will not renew for at least six months. I need to wait to see how issues related to these changes are handled, and to see what other changes the new ownership forces on paying members.

    I used Ancestry to create a “working” tree, not a presentation tree, so functionality is key, not appearance. If Ancestry chooses to make changes related to presentation (colors, format, story time), I could live with that…if they do not remove any functionality, and try to add or improve functionality as they make the presentation changes. For what I used Ancestry for–and it was very useful!–this New Ancestry is a huge step backwards.

    See you in six months. Maybe…

  131. Shirlie Sharpe

    I certainly hope the old version doesn’t go away soon. The new one is far too clunky and slow to navigate.

  132. We hate this new version! Terrible. Will we be required to use it? Why were we not warned it would suddenly show up today?

    I agree with Albert, above. I use Ancestry to create a working tree, not a presentation tree, so functionality is key, not appearance.

  133. Anita Lehman

    For the love of all that is good and decent, please let someone with decision making power read all these comments and act on them. Your customers HATE these changes, we despise the extra work it takes us to do a simple task on New Ancestry, and deplore the things that have been taken away by your developers.

    LISTEN TO US, PLEASE! Don’t make these changes mandatory… give us a choice… the classic Ancestry or the New. You’re taking away something that has given me thousands of hours of delight and discovery, and leaving me with a bloated, frustrating experience that makes me wish I’d never started my genealogy journey, as it’s now being ruined.

  134. Rebecca Zehner

    Very user unfriendly. If I am unable to go back to the original format-I will cancel my membership.

  135. Rebecca Zehner

    I agree totally with Anita Lehman. If you will not let me access the Classic Ancestry-I will cancel my membership.

  136. Laurie

    I’m having difficulty navigating the new site here. How do you view a person’s family tree? I can search and find a person, which takes me to their profile, but I can’t find how you can view the family tree with that person in it. I am just taken to other parts of the tree. Thanks.

  137. Laurie

    I agree 🙁 Very user unfriendly. PLEASE give us the option to use the classic (old) version of Ancestry!

  138. Pat

    I don’t want fluff. I want to be able to see what I am looking for without all the color coding. It was so much easier to look at the family trees before you added all the junk.

  139. Alexandra

    Horrible. Just horrible. A computer generated story for my ancestors lives made me angry at first but now I’m just sad. So much work.
    I want to leave, but I can’t get FTM to work for me …it’s so clunky. What should I do?
    I loved Old Ancestry, so intuitive, so clear, simple & not more than you needed…
    Really I’m just so, so sad.
    Listen to us corporate Ancestry…don’t make this the “only Ancestry”~ We want a choice.

  140. I followed the advise given in a previous posting: “under your username you can click your preference for the “Classic Site” and get back to the old Ancestry, instead of being forced to use the New Ancestry site. ” Don’t like the new format at all. Clunky, takes up too much space, visually confusing…. I’m happy with my old classic format and will stick with it as long as possible.

  141. Rosalind Sonnen

    I don’t care for the new look. It makes the front page look to busy, hard on the eyes, too many steps to do (for example: just to edit a person’s name, birth date and death date, you have to use 3 steps), comment section is hidden, the photo layout is not good, not user friendly. I don’t like fancy layouts, the other way was easier for me. NOW, I am a little nervous because your software team wouldn’t go out of their way to do a beta and not use it. I believe Ancestry will use this new version regardless in people comments. I will not renew my subscription if they use this newer template. Very sad, I know it not a loss for them if I don’t renew and I know my comment won’t matter to them 🙁 I WAS a happy with Ancestry since 2008.

  142. Anna Kasper

    Your “new format” for MY tree of 18k people up on YOUR website sucks! I can’t get it to let me add new spouses or children or anything. I hit the ‘save button” and it is stuck on stupid! Very unhappy ancestry customer! I also hate that you allow people to “lock” their trees when they are related to me via DNA and we have mutual ancestors but the people never respond to messages or let me see our mutual ancestors. Why pay for subscription or leave my tree up? You let people “hide” and not interact and your new format sucks. So, I think I need find some place else to upload my DNA and move my tree!

  143. Linda Hayes

    I cannot believe that Ancestry would follow thru on these changes based on all the comments here and those on Facebook. The dislike far out number the likes. Let the people who want TV, write their own story, most of us are looking for facts and trying to break down brick walls. The new format is unsightly and cumbersome.

  144. couchtwins

    I’m gobsmacked by the recent format change to ancestry.com. I don’t use the family tree feature with any confidence, because it is inundated with copycat info that is not sourced. I use the site for RESEARCH. Today in the All Category option I only receive Pictures and Maps. No land deeds, no census records, unless they are posted by other trees. What happened to the actual source documents? Without fuzzy logic search options, we cannot narrow down our search factors to even a close proximity date. I’m searching for land records in 1720-1780, but I’m getting yearbook pictures for 2000. What generated your decision to change. Do you actually have anyone on your staff that experienced the old search or even the most recent search from 3 years past? I MISS THE OLD ANCESTRY! I couldn’t even leave a comment or upload a document to another researchers tree. Where did that option go to? I’ve been a member for well over 10 years, and this change is even worse than anticipated. It has been WORTHLESS to me over the past few days. I want to undo the switch! I want to go back in time, and not click the sexy little link offering to let me try the NEW site!

  145. couchtwins

    Go to the far right side of the top bar and click on your user name. There will be a dropdown box with account options, and at the bottom will be a CLASSIC SEARCH option. Just click on that link to return to the previous search and page structure. GOOD LUCK!

  146. Christian

    GREY! more GREY! CLUMSY! COLD! UGLY! Hiding features that were very useful and easy to see. Lets not call it CLASSIC VIEW, its called FUNCTIONAL VIEW. The new version is lipstick and a very ugly shade at that.

  147. Tim

    Nope, nope, nope – I don’t like the new interface. I’ve tried it for several days now and I wish I had the option of returning to the old one. Too large, too busy, grey color is somber and heavy, prefer the old interface that gave ME the option of seeing a timeline if I wanted to see it and not because it is the default, now too much drilling down to get to where I used to go with far fewer clicks.

  148. Gary

    Congratulations to Ancestry officially becoming a Software-as-a-Service company. All of the fluff you created could have been added as options to the old interface, but then you are more concerned about attracting new subscribers who watch your TV show and want to find their “story” – even if most of it is make-believe.

    On that note, I think there are two categories of people who love the new version of the site:

    (1) Newbies who think it’s pretty and requires no thought to get something that they can do 4 generations on and print it for grandma and think they actually did genealogy because they “raked some leaves” or
    (2) Ancestry employees who are posting rah-rah sentiments to stem the tide of irate, long-time genealogist subscribers.

    OK, maybe a third category: people who are so drunk on Ancestry kool-aid that they believe that Ancestry will eventually “fix” the issues because they care about their fans, unicorns and leprechauns (genealogists not included).

    I fit in none of these categories and my 20-year-long subscription run with Ancestry expires in July. I think this new version is the last straw. Glad I’ve maintained digital copies of all of my photos and documents. Unless something changes, I’m moving everything off and wishing everyone else fare thee well.

  149. Heather

    I do not like the new site. I feel that it is horrible and it makes the information too hard to read and find what you are looking for on an individual persons page.

    I don’t like the story line feature and I don’t like that it is the default setting when going to view any individual. You had this as an option on the classic site and I never used it because that’s not what I wanted. I wanted a place where I could enter my family history information and record all the facts in one place to make it easier. Even on the facts page that you have, it wastes so much space and doesn’t show nearly the amount of information that was previously shown on the classic view.

    I have read numerous comments that most people are not happy with the new site. I think that you will find less paying subscribers who will take their information elsewhere. I sincerely hope that you reconsider the final roll out of the “New Ancestry” and maybe make some of the features options in the classic view instead.

  150. Nancy Parr

    Please give us a choice of keeping the classic version. The new is not user friendly and I will not renew my membership if we are not given a choice.

  151. You should not add YOUR comments to MY tree. You have made mistakes! One ancestor had been divorced for 20 years and you commented on their 50 years of marriage!! Don’t add YOUR unknown facts to MY Facts.

  152. I miss having the “find a person in this tree” on the ancestor’s page. I used it to click back and forth to compare information on the possibility of duplicate ancestors. The information provided when you now click Tools and then Merge with Duplicate is not enough to be sure it is correct. Also have to go all the way Home to get to new hints for other ancestors. I find the new system cumbersome, and as some have said, fussy. I hope some of the changes will be made and I hope I can get used to the new format.

  153. Diane Long

    I agree with another comment made above: “I really miss the small box from the top right of the old page, where I could “go to” another person’s page. ” How can I switch back?- don’t like the colors or the new hints that were easier to find before.

  154. michaelolawski

    Who likes this new format. Its Ugly, Ive been on this site for 10 yearsI Can’t take this BS it was so much better before what is wrong with you people. Change it back or will extract my tree My God You’ve pissed me off beyond reasoning

  155. michaelolawski


  156. michaelolawski

    my favorite Hobby and yet Nobody cares about this BS format CHANGE IT BACK Maybe I waste more time changing info because ITS ALL OVER THE PLACE

  157. I really appreciate your now making it difficult to copy documents from the Classic Site. It shows your really low ethics! If you can’t get people to voluntarily use the new super stupid site so you can “reinvent” genealogy, you force the issue. I used to enjoy genealogy with Ancestry but no longer. It is tiresome if not anxiety provoking. If you don’t leave the Classic Site alone I will be asking for a refund! And don’t give us that ——– about how you appreciate feedback when you have no interest in what your subscribers say. I wonder what our deceased folks think of your self serving project.

  158. James Hadamik

    Please give us the OPTION to continue to use the OLD and simpler version we have used for YEARS and NOT have to fiddle with all the crap the new format has to offer.

  159. Bettye Jo Wilson

    I absolutely hate the new ancestry site. The old one was concise, complete, and amazing. New one is all fluff and clutter.

  160. Joan Parker

    I took one look at the new site and was amazed at all the errors. My dad married and divorced both in 1940 (NO!) in a state he’s never been. . They were married in 1923 and in NY. That did it for me, I exited that mess never to return to it. Doesn’t all this mess remind you of what happened with Window 8..perfect fiasco. Maybe the same people are at Ancestry?

  161. David Lay

    I hope this does not turn out to be the same kind of experience as “New Coke” did a generation ago. It looks like change just for change sake. All of the substantive changes could have been made without changing the look and the comfortable navigation feel that we have all become accustomed to. I also miss the ability to save a viewed census document to multiple people with a single click and a name. This 3 part question, “yes, no, maybe” business is confusing and an aggravation. I am really upset about the dark background on the main pedigree screen. Looks dreary and is not helpful.
    David Lay

  162. Jim Gish

    We pay way too much for a subscription to not get what we want. How do we switch back to Classic? The new style is way too hard to navigate.

  163. Jim Gish

    I propose that if we don’t get the ability to switch back to Classic soon that we all cancel our subscriptions in protest!

  164. Cindy Beam

    I do not like the site, so far. I cannot print anything, and it hard to nevigate. I want an option to use the Classic site.

  165. Amanda

    I am definitely on board the keep it classic train. The new format is so difficult to read. The colors are awful. The profile information for ancestors is completely chaotic. It’s unfair to make us change to the new format. I understand the need to upgrades but this is a huge change and not for the better.

  166. I have spent an hour working on getting the facts and the photos together on Lifestory page and do you know what I got . . . The same timeline I have with the classical style except now I am spenting my time in busy work instead of researching my family. Why can’t Ancestry put the photo on the fact page? Like the Classic Style? It took me many years to arrange the events with photos and not Ancestry is going the rip the event & photo apart, placing them in two separate pages and telling me that IF I want event with photo, I will have to redo all the years it took me, for what, the Lifestory page? I already have my timeline w/ photos. Why can’t I just keep that- Why can’t Ancestry put the photos back on the fact page

  167. barb

    I am devastated over how you destroyed the timeline I worked so hard to personalize and created the Lifestory in your own words. You have ripped out the events YOU want to feature in my Lifestory and added a bunch of cheesy and sometimes insulting (in the context of what they meant to my family) historical events. Even if I then to go my Facts column, the continuity and loving story I worked so hard to create has been dismantled and lost. There is no way I can or will visit all 4800 members of my tree to try to fix what you have done. I am done with Ancestry.

  168. barb

    Just noticed all the date errors your timeline contains. It does not allow for a range of years to be used when an event is documented. For example, I noted that a cousin was married between 1985-1992 because I cannot find the marriage date. In his timeline, you write that he was married at the age of 17! When I think of all the times I have used date ranges for my thousands of family members, that adds up to a lot of erroneous comments created by your ridiculous desire to write a new timeline after all the hard work I had put into carefully and personally describing the lives of each of my folks.

  169. Deborah Sullivan

    I vote for the former format and ways of doing research. The timeline/story telling feature is interesting, but I agree with others, that we should be the ones to ultimately tell the story. There should be a way to turn off this feature or to be able to edit liberally. Please listen to the frustration I hear in so many of these comments. Doing research with this new format is not as satisfying.

  170. Carol

    I switched back to the old version, did not like the new version at all. When editing a person’s birthdate and death date, there are too many hoops to jump through, whereas the old version had one (1) editing box for both. The media files for an individual take too long to load up. The new pages have way too much information that I find annoying especially facts about things that happened during that era. I just find it too difficult to move around and find things. I hope you keep the old version for those of us who like it better. I did see a button to switch back and forth from old version to new version and vise versa, if I need a story I hope I can use this switching. PLEASE KEEP THE OLD VERSION HANDY!

  171. Robert Rhude

    Programmers for the New Ancestry need to work on its capability to examine census data and distinguish between township locations and cities/towns. For example, Lafayette Township in Owen County in southwestern Indiana shows up as the city of Lafayette in northwestern Indiana on the map. 100s of such errors in my tree.

  172. Anita Lehman

    I’m wondering if there is any way to contact the owners/ directors/head honchos of Ancestry to point out to them how we despise new ancestry?

    I understand there is another sale of the website in progress taking us further and further from the original intent and operation of Ancestry. Very distressing. http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/05/20/ancestry-m-a-exclusive-idINKBN0O52UI20150520

    Considering the lack of two way communication between Ancestry and its customers, I can only suppose that there is little interest hearing our wishes. Do we even know how to contact anyone up the line from customer service, etc. which seem to exist to pat us on the head and ignore our dissatisfaction when we complain about New Ancestry.

    As far as I can tell we don’t even have a forum in which employees of Ancestry monitor, answer questions, and pass along complaints.We have an “online support community” but the moderators are apparently volunteers. Yeah, we can comment here and in the online support community, but seriously… it just gives us an outlet for our frustration – no change will result.

    I suppose it’s futile to hope for Ancestry to listen to us, indeed I doubt that anyone at the top of the chain of command has any idea of the misery they’re causing with New Ancestry.

  173. Doris Wiedmann

    Eight years and many hours down the drain. Don’t need the colorful background and botched up pictures (showing only round tummies or half a head). I am almost 78 and loved what I have found about my family. I had to change one story about my uncle by marriage which said he was married twice–actually it was only once but there were 2 documents on that one marriage. Pretty poor. All I want is facts; I’ll write my own story and will save historical pictures that have something to do with my family. I want my old form back; have been printing it for the day when I can’t afford to belong to ancestry but will still have some to pass along to my grandchildren. I am very upset, unhappy and am too old to learn a whole new slick version of what to some is pretty boring stuff. I love what I’ve found and been so excited but now I don’t know what to do.
    I really do like the old version–is there someway you can keep the old and let those who want the new have that. Thank you for 8 good years; I’m going to have to rethink making #9.

  174. Allan Garner

    Likely redundantly to some of those preceding but two specific items (among many more) to add as feedback. Among the many “un-improvements” you should make going back to classic, is that thumbnails of attached media, specifically photos, that were attached to events need to be shown on the primary individual’s page regardless of the setting (facts) for that page. What is the point of attachment any longer on the new site if one has to dig to find relevant media? It should be immediately evident as in classic. Second, why are you trying to stuff typically rectilinear photos into round holes, cutting off portions of the photo. Do you expect members to now go back and reformat hundreds or thousands of photos for the new site simply because you decided a new round format would “look pretty”?

  175. William Smith

    When I got the “Soon the New Ancestry will be the only Ancestry” banner when leaving the “New Experience” this is the message I left Ancestry…

    “I’ve already taken my “public” tree private, it will not be seen by others on the “New Ancestry”… I’ve deleted two of my private trees and will not be renewing a subscription to this site if I am forced into using the “New Ancestry”… Bye Bye… I’ve spent to much time researching and uploading “my family story” to be displayed the way that I have it with the current “Ancestry”… I don’t need your “Lifestory”, I know far far more about my family than Ancestry.com and your software engineer that truncated the names of “Locations”… Goshen is not the same as Goshen Township…”

    I’ll spend the rest of my current subscription collecting and downloading the records I have already attached, including “index only” records (print screen)… When enough people flee just maybe Ancestry will get the idea and work on the issues people have been addressing and suggestions people have been asking for…

  176. Barb

    I have just spent the last hour reading through the above comments and all of my dislikes about the “new” have been stated….I’ve been doing genealogy since the middle 1960’s using a lot of leg work and the old pencil and paper. Over the years I’ve computerized all my work first strictly through my FTM then a few years back, online. I’ve spent years cropping and editing photos so that I have them just as I want them to be displayed….now all those years of work are down the tube with this new layout. And I don’t understand why all the “fluff”…..if I want a map, I’ll add a map (most of the time the map displayed isn’t the right location anyway)…And If I want a lifestory…I’ll write it…what you come up with isn’t what I would put…I could go on and on but it seems like many people have the same frustration as I do….it may be time I take a step back and simply rely on my computer tree and not deal with the online tree at all…so disappointed in what you are shoving down our throats. And I’m sure you will do what you want and how you want without considering what your customers want….

  177. Joe

    I actually like the Story view. Very nice (I don’t have time to write life stories myself). I just wish I could print it! I like the look of the new site, but I haven’t used it enough to see if it improves workflow. I’d love to see some checkbox options so I could indicate whether I have DNA cousins, circles, or circle suggestions for a person/branch of family.

  178. Please let us choose, between the old and new site, which we would prefer to work in. Let ME choose what goes in my tree. The bits of history you insist being part of my tree have no relevance to my family members. Please let us control what we put into our tree. Or are they really our trees? Are we doing all this work for you or us. Let those, who wish, go back to the classic site. Don’t let this be another Coca-Cola mistake.

  179. Mark Clark

    I’ve looked at the “improved” site and I must say I don’t care for it at all. I don’t need a “life story” peppered with someone else’s version of history. I can decide what’s important and write it myself if I choose to do so. Even the timeline looks as if it were composed by a sixth grader writing a history project. It’s way to wordy. I know what “death” means and I don’t need it spelled out in a sentence. I use this site to record facts, dates and photos and I don’t need this unnecessery verbiage and someone else’s interpretation about the what is important in a certain time and place. If this is the way it’s going to be, consider my subscription cancelled.

  180. Sharon Harris

    I HATE THIS NEW FORMAT! Yes, that was me, screaming that this new business that is going on with Ancestry is simply AWFUL. There are at least 2 dozen things I can say about this that I do not like. There is no way to get done the things that I need to get done. Features are missing or hidden(?). It is NOT user friendly. You cannot get to what you need and you cannot do with the pages the things that you used to be able to be done.

  181. Margie C

    Once again, Ancestry rolls out revisions without consulting with the most frequent and experienced users! I STILL want the old search back … it retrieved results, while the new search is worthless.
    With this new rollout … how can I remove items that ancestry decided should be on my timeline????!!! On one of my ancestors, I had listed the birth of two children who died in infancy (based on family Bible records) and I can “assume” where they were born (at the residence in Lowndes Co., AL) and Ancestry, in its infinite wisdom, add the children’s births to the timeline with a totally FALSE place of birth (as Cowan, TN).
    Let ME add the timeline items I want!!
    How the heck to I remove the timeline items Ancestry inserted in the timeline??? They seem to be hardcoded … I can’t edit them … and I can’t find a way to turn off those items. You’ve take a tree I’ve worked hard to ensure is accurate and you’re adding FALSE information to my tree.

  182. Helen Asmund






    my name is Helen Asmund from Canada, the greatest testimony i have

    ever seen in my life i want to use this great opportunity to thank prophet

    Tb Joshua the man of God.i was having a breast cancer over 5moths,

    everyone around me run away from me even my husband who i think he

    loves me so much told me is over i cried and cried no body could help me

    out i went to the best hospital in Canada no solution, all hope was lost, on one faithful day as i was going online i saw a testimony of this great man

    of God Tb Joshua (tbjoshualivescoanminitries@gmail.com) that people sharing about him how he has been helping people i never believed that this will work out but not withstanding there is nothing God can not do, so i decided to contact his Email: tbjoshualivescoanminitries@gmail.com i
    explain all my problems to him he told me not to worry about if really i
    believe in God the most high i shall be healed. he told me what to do i quickly follow up with his instruction i never let money be my problem.
    within the next 2day my illness and pains were healed, my brothers and sisters there is nothing God can not do if you have not given your life to
    Christ please try and do so once again his
    email:tbjoshualivescoanminitries@gmail.com if you have any problem similar to this you can contact him and your problem shall be solve, i will not stop sharing his name as a
    testimony because he brings me joy and
    happiness now i am happy my husband is back. any problem regarding as
    follow you can contact him God almighty is great
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.

  183. Allan Garner

    After further attempted use of this “new/exciting” site…

    Many of us have spent years writing stories and attaching photos to create our own “life stories” for individuals long before ancestry tried lifting the idea from us and now making it a feature…their version, is of course, condescendingly dumbed down, incomplete, and dysfunctional. I do not want the idiot’s version, I want mine back, with my photos and my attached media for life events, which are not now included or referenced. Generic photos and irrelevant facts (the Civil War?…thanks, would never have known, since I have Civil War letters referenced in my version…) are like a child’s version, with mostly omissions. So far in checking, nothing ancestry has added is of the slightest value, and all that was added by me is no longer referenced. Guess what?…membership canceled. Will maybe be back if/when they start listening to members.

  184. ida c gurman

    Please OH! please give us the old version of Ancestry It is dreadful, I spend so much time on my Tree and this just looks like a cheap version, why ever was it changed, so many hours of work over many years, now its hard to follow, I am totally disappointed with Ancestry ,*I thought they were always so clear and helpfuI want the old one back, Ida C Gurman

  185. Suzette

    Not pleased with the new ancestry and will opt out, if it is to become mandatory at some point I’d like to know so that I can print off all my info and go to a new provider.

  186. roni rice

    Point Blank I tried it I hate it! AND I will be deleting my tree and all my information and pictures and going to another site when this new ancestry becomes mandatory. I have loved ancestry until trying new site. HATE IT! my tree me and my DNA are going else where. Have been researching for days where I am going. This new set up is a step back not forward and all the little history things added are ok BUT have nothing to do with my tree it is all stuff I can look up and add if I want too not pay to have added

  187. Ron_H47

    The new format of the site is very poor and very slow. I have a high end computer and superfast broadband and the trees and media are slow to load. It is a step backwards

  188. Jason

    WHERE IS Member Connect? I used this all the time, but now it is gone….Are not upgrades suppose to ADD not delete?????

  189. sunny1555

    I am livid with the way I’ve been treated as a paying customer in being forced to sign in every single time I tried to check a record, even every time I tried to check a name in the same household on census records. The prompt asking me to join could not be clicked off the screen, so the only option was to sign in. I must have signed in at least 50 times in the span of 1-2 hours. In between that, I was constantly prompted to join something else. To treat any paying customer like this only highlights the extend to which American businesses have lost all sight of what it means to be ethical, respectful and considerate. This company and the employees who set the system up this way should be ashamed of themselves, but, now that you have a monopoly, are we expected to put up with this disgusting service? Is that it? Not going to happen. People can still unit and boycott your business for a time if that’s what it takes to be treated with the respect a paying customer deserves.

  190. sunny1555

    After reading the other comments about the horrible experiences everyone is having with Ancestry’s new format, it’s time to unite for a class action lawsuit on the basis of “bait and switch” and/or whatever grounds you can find. Or, as one subscriber suggested, agreeing to render all family trees private for six months, which, apparently, prevents Ancestry from accessing them and changing all your hard work. In any case, I wouldn’t put up with this for a single moment longer. To think that this company thinks it has the right to write software in such a way that it arbitrarily re-writes your stories and changes geographic locations (Yellow Springs, Iowa to Yellow Springs, OH) and moves photos around is beyond insane. In one case, a photo of Hitler suddenly appeared next to a profile for “historical content.” Are you kidding me? That’s appalling. I mean, could this company be more offensive? Either you get to create and add to your family trees as you wish or they’re being created for the benefit of Ancestry. If it’s the latter, then maybe Ancestry ought to be paying you for all the time you’ve spent creating something that now benefits only Ancestry. I don’t know what management is thinking, but no potential customer wants to pay for the opportunity to create something personal if the company it pays can access his/her work and arbitrarily change and add to that creation. I don’t know what’s happened to everyone born after around 1960, but the decisions they’re making and the actions they’re taking while in positions of authority at (mostly U.S.???) companies reflect an unethical attitude of greed the likes of which we’ve not seen in over 100 years. But, it will continue so long as we remain silent. That evil can exist and persist is only because good men do nothing. It’s time to do something before all your hard work is ruined.

  191. Bill

    I’ll chime-in with my comment that I, too, think the new format is awful and I want to go back to what it was before. Why fix something that’s not broke? And if someone wants to fix it they should at least test it beforehand. What was once a pleasure, visiting my family tree and page has now become a very bad experience.

  192. douggrf

    Comment A: I’ve been noticing a lot of emphasis on “your story” lately in advertising for genealogy sites, materials etc. There is also a discussion here about a new series of commercials by Ancestry about the “stories” and I wanted to just make a few additional comments.

    Yes, I know that we don’t need to look at it or use it – but it IS there, and today I decided to take a good look at it. I read through the LifeStories of several of my ancestors, and nearly all of what is included in the story is what I had added myself in the Classic timeline. Not much is “new” or “different” except for the insertion of the historical events – which may or MAY NOT have anything to do with my ancestor. It is just information that I have already added, and can easily see in the Classic view anyway, plus some poorly written summarizing info such as “she was married for 1 years” – very poor grammar where I didn’t do the writing. In a couple of places I have some info in all caps letters – even that is recreated just as I wrote it – in the LifeStory view – when it definitely should not be. And yes, I know it can all be edited – but who has time – or wants to – edit all of those stories when it is all clearly seen in Classic now.

    I just continue to be incensed that the perceived clamoring for this story feature seems to be what is driving the many changes here at Ancestry, and seems to be the trend as other competing genealogy sites also try to appeal to a different audience. As they proclaim, “it’s your story – reinvented” – and possibly not even accurate as evidenced by the many stories reported here of problems with that feature.

    I just wonder where anyone thinks these stories actually come from – like there’s a LifeStory fairy out there somewhere taking everyone’s information and then creating and crafting a well written, grammatically correct, historically significant story of our families with all the small, interesting details included! Without US providing the research – and the substance of the story – there would be no story! If you don’t know details about your ancestors’ lives – where they worked, what they ate, hobbies they had, clubs they belonged to, what they did for fun – Ancestry’s LifeStory isn’t going to provide them for you.

    It is a shame that Ancestry has put so much time and effort into such a poorly conceived feature to the detriment of the site as a whole. I know that soon we’ll be stuck with New Ancestry – wonder how many serious researchers are going to stick around once that happens.

    Reply: Agree with almost all of the points you raise. The situation is now the cart before the horse as I see their marketing emphasis. As you stated a good clean story line is possible from the entries that were already made in Classic. The early storyview predecessor was weak on implementation. So the LifeStory is similarily but differently weak as well.

    LifeStory presentation competes in several arenas that do not do well for its display value.

    1) The tree with excessive sourcing and families that have many children over the parents entire lifespan. This creates a huge inefficient story. This would be common in a tree with families of the 1700-1800 centuries.

    2) The other extreme is the tree with little sourcing, and nuclear families, with one child per relationship union of two people. This is the so-called modern family of the recent 1960”s thru present.

    Comment B: Those of you who have been around this forum for a while have seen some of my horror stories from LifeStory – my mother shown repeatedly as “he” because of military service, and my 2nd great grandfather shown as a former slave in chains, because he owned slaves before the Civil War.

    The latest one I’ve seen – a reference to food rationing beginning in 1947 in the US – the year the last of rationing was ended. As if the incorrect comment was not enough, the accompanying photo, with caption mentioning a small rural town in Georgia, had northern city housing in the background, and people of various races in the same line waiting for their ration cards. Bad history, bad image, impossible image for the time and place.

    I don’t know who wrote this drivel, or where ancestry purchased the package, but it’s a disgrace.

    I keep trying to be the voice of reason, but reinventing history is not acceptable.

    Yes, I know, I can refuse to look at it. But anyone browsing other trees will still have the option to view and believe.

    Before someone asks – yes, I have left detailed feedback, with links.

    … wonder how many will take the “facts” that are presented in the LifeStory as actual facts?? I can foresee comments along the lines of “Ancestry said in my LifeStory that….” you can fill in the blanks, but we all have seen incorrect and inappropriate “facts” passed off as reality. It soon will be complete history reinvented – and totally wrong!

    I’d almost rather see them offer us a number of different “facts” for the historical events that might – I repeat MIGHT – surround our family stories and let us choose what makes sense and what is just irrelevant.

    And to think that Ancestry is focusing on this and not on true research is just wrong IMO.

    Comment C: Ancestry has been headed in a direction for some time to lose their customers. The customers that do the serious researching don’t need fancy features they need records, they want improved searching and they are able to tell their own stories in their own way. Anyone doing this kind of research has never balked at work, I get the feeling that they are trying to appeal to lazy people which we are not. So if the goal is to appeal to the lazy you are going to lose the non-lazy.

    Reply: Ancestry does not seem to have a clear direction of what audience they do want to target. For years it was assumed to be serious research because they were amassing a giant collection of databases, making research available and expedited the means to do it.

    Now the pendulum swings the other way to the trivial and ornamental view.

  193. Kim

    How do I revert back to the old format? They’ve taken the “quick edit” tool away, and now I have to go through so many extra steps just to make simple changes.
    There are also a number of other functions I frequently used before that are no longer available.
    I’m fine with the look of the new site, but very unhappy to lose this much functionality. I’m very disappointed.

  194. Betty Wynne

    Raul G indicated that most of us who disliked the site and thought it was a ‘mess’ have trees that are even messier. I am a serious genealogist, writing stories to assist those who have incorrect information attached, all with documentary evidence, not just other persons’ trees as a ‘source.’ I take this business very seriously. The new site is flashy, but it is unnecessarily cumbersome, if for no other reason, you have to scroll all over the pages to find and click on something that was consolidated in one spot. The one thing I do not especially like is the line directing us to a documentary view. After all, you could just click on a source and voila! There was the same thing.

  195. Betty Wynne

    Referencing Raul G – just because I think the new site is cumbersome and messy does NOT mean I have a mess on my tree.
    That being said, Ancestry developers, a suggestion:
    Please move the “Search Ancestry” spot from its new location. Every time a evidentiary source is added, the “Search Ancestry” block drops further and further down the page until you need to scroll several screens down.
    Perhaps it could be put closer to the top and also duplicated at the bottom.
    Thank you.

  196. Colin

    The new site has been over engineered to the point of being close to useless. Please can we have the old one back.

  197. Reiver

    First searching got worse and now this? Ancestry was great for finding and sharing facts and comparing guesses. What is this “life story” garbage? It’s bad enough that incorrect information get’s disseminated, but now it’s fully pretentious, not to mention slow. Is it time to migrate to family search? I still regret not getting a g-mail account when yahoo turned to garbage. Congratulations ancestry.com. You have become yahoo mail and my space with your so-called upgrade. Do your marketers and programmers even consult customers, or are they locked in the ivory tower of expertise? I’m tired of being fed squalid upgrades and being told that they are improved. It is neither improvement nor regression. It’s self-important junk.

  198. Janet Racine

    I had the opportunity to try to use New Ancestry. I found New Ancestry upsetting. I found incorrect information on almost every record I found. They had a great deal of incorrect information – No, my gr-grandfather didn’t have a midlife crisis, leave his wife & have several children by his young daughter. I found mistakes in all the records I checked. I DO NOT like the new format. I have too busy of a life to be able to correct what I found. The Historical Events that seemed to be plopped into the records I checked, did not apply to the the people whose “Life Story” Ancestory employees included in the material I had carefully researched and was of Personal Interest to my relatives. I didn’t work to gather data on my relatives to have it look like a garish cartoon book.

  199. Susan Herczeg

    Listen to all the specific comments about your changes by the users as they are all correct.. Return all the functionality you are removing. Remove the ridiculously inaccurate story and map features and print unfriendly color scheme. We want access to full records (index only is useless.) YOU ARE RUINING your product.

  200. Scott

    This new website is truly horrible. Bring the old one back please. You lost all of the functionality to tell a story? It truly is useless and I have been a member for a long time. he prior format was so easy to use and intuitive. It is so difficult to attach pictures to more then one person when you are adding them on hints. The quick edit feature is gone when you are looking at your tree for an individual as well. Who ever you involved in the beta testing was a miss. You can read by these comments how unsatisfied people are with these changes and this is just from those willing to right something here. PLEASE BRING THE OLD FORMAT BACK!

  201. Fro

    You can switch back to the old by typing “home.ancestry.com/newancestry/leave” in you browser.

  202. Liffey Thorpe

    I have been a daily user of Ancestry for many years. I really understand that people resist change, and so when I first started using the “new experience” interface, I kept telling myself to give it a chance, that things would get better. It’s been a month and they have not. I feel sick and depressed about it. It seems to throw up unnecessary walls in the way of just about everything. Things that used to take one or two clicks now take several. Why?? The search pages are pretty much as is; I can live with them. But the individual/profile pages are so bad. Cluttered! Not intuitive! Appearance over usability! Ugh. Not that the appearance is good, either. The circle frames are just dumb. Most images are rectangular—what exactly was the thinking there? I feel like decisions were made to cater to unserious researchers who care more about the appearance of a family story than about careful accumulation of documentary evidence. I will FLEE Ancestry as soon as I can.

  203. Sherry

    WAKE UP ANCESTRY! YES I AM YELLING, as if that makes any difference to you. Ancestry seems to thrive on our frustration. Here are some of my favorite comments:
    PAgenealogist – Hate the new site. I have almost 100,000 people in my tree and if you roll out this new version without an option to retain the old version, I will be looking into filing a civil suit to assess and recover the damages that your site has done to almost 35,000 hours worth of work sand will actively recruit others interested in a class-action suit for the same. Think VERY carefully before you unilaterally change a site that many, many users have poured their life’s work into.
    rlahistory – one does wonder if a class-action suit for a “switch&bait” maneuver by Ancestry is in order. Until we can transition to a new provider, our only recourse is to PRIVATIZE our trees. Did I say I detest the changes? Ancestry uses all of our personal trees to tout the ease of creating their family history to new users . Our PUBLIC trees need to go dark so that Ancestry is made aware of how upset we are by the proposed rollout of this horrendous misstep. If Ancestry cannot give our hard-earned research away, new users will be forced to do their own research in their own time. Let us see how that works out.
    sunny1555 – After reading the other comments about the horrible experiences everyone is having with Ancestry’s new format, it’s time to unite for a class action lawsuit on the basis of “bait and switch” and/or whatever grounds you can find. Or, as one subscriber suggested, agreeing to render all family trees private for six months, which, apparently, prevents Ancestry from accessing them and changing all your hard work. In any case, I wouldn’t put up with this for a single moment longer. To think that this company thinks it has the right to write software in such a way that it arbitrarily re-writes your stories and changes geographic locations (Yellow Springs, Iowa to Yellow Springs, OH) and moves photos around is beyond insane.
    Allan Garner – After further attempted use of this “new/exciting” site…Many of us have spent years writing stories and attaching photos to create our own “life stories” for individuals long before ancestry tried lifting the idea from us and now making it a feature…their version, is of course, condescendingly dumbed down, incomplete, and dysfunctional.
    Margie C – Once again, Ancestry rolls out revisions without consulting with the most frequent and experienced users! I STILL want the old search back … it retrieved results, while the new search is worthless.

    “We really do appreciate your feedback…” NO YOU DO NOT. Ancestry does not appreciate nor do they listen to our feedback. It just gets worse every year. I think someone in the main office absolutely GETS OFF on changing things that DO NOT need to be changed and then gets even MORE excited watching all the long-time customers get so frustrated they want to scream. If you have ever seen that tv commercial with the man trying to work in an office full of monkeys . . . you get the message.

    WHERE is member connect?? WHERE are our comments?? Ancestry management does not to seem to GRASP the fact that WE ARE THE ONES who allow them to have a paycheck.

    I suggest we: a) Change all our trees to PRIVATE, as stated above (just did that); b) Leave them PRIVATE for the next six months, c) If Ancestry does not LISTEN TO CUSTOMERS, we need to unite and file a civil suit as also suggested above. We PAY FOR THIS SERVICE, a ridiculously exorbitant amount, and for that we are ignored and have changes we do not like and do not want SHOVED down our throats! Enough already! ENOUGH!

  204. Sherry

    Saw from a previous comment how to switch back to the FUNCTIONAL view, and was greeted with this slap in the face . . . “Soon the new ancestry will be the only ancestry.” And here is our announcement to YOU ancestry: “SOON YOU WILL BE LOSING A BOATLOAD OF YOUR LONG-TERM AND PREVIOUSLY LOYAL CUSTOMERS.” I will be curious to see how much money is there for non-functional “improvements” and television marketing when your long-term users pack up their checkbooks and take their business elsewhere.

  205. Kristine

    As of today, July 4, 2015, there are approximately 322 complaints on this blog, plus 670 ‘signatures’ on a petition to keep the Classic version of Ancestry. ( http://www.thepetitionsite.com/600/803/575/save-ancestrycom-classic/ ) and, 218 negative comments on the Ancestry Facebook page. That means At Least 1,210 mostly long-time users are giving their time to give feedback. Business studies indicate that (for every dissatisfied customer who bothers to give feedback), “For every customer complaint there are 26 other unhappy customers who have remained silent –Lee Resource.” Therefore, approximately 31,460 Ancestry subscribers are currently, VERY, VERY, Dissatisfied. 31,460 customers who are ready to cancel your services. Now calculate 31,000 times the going annual subscription revenue of $150. I believe that comes to $4,719,000 in imminent Lost revenue. Can you hear us now?

  206. Liffey Thorpe

    I just made my tree private and invisible in searches. The rollout to this mess brags, “It’s your family story, reinvented.” That’s right. Reinvented. I didn’t need Ancestry to invent, much less reinvent, my family. I’m embarrassed by the mistakes and by the “stories” (unsubstantiated) that Ancestry has added to my tree. Ugh.

  207. Patrick Lombardi

    After reading hundreds of negative and critical messages about the “new” ancestry format, I am convinced that the folks at ancestry.com have created a real mess for themselves. Maybe they should consider closing down the site for a few days and taking their entire staff on retreat to discuss the best way to deal with their brewing rebellion of subscribers. I knew immediately upon looking at the new format that I wasn’t interested. I looked at my grandfather’s profile and discovered that ancestry had added a photograph to his profile. My grandfather arrived from Italy in 1905 and lived in NY for several years. Ancestry, for some strange unknown reason, added a photograph of Mulberry Street in NYC and included their own story of how Italian immigrants lived on this street when they first arrived in the US. I don’t know how they ever concluded that I would like something like this added to his story. My grandfather never lived on Mulberry Street and adding this to his profile is absolutely wrong in my opinion. Information of this nature is entirely superfluous and indicates to me that the folks at ancestry.com do not value or follow their own privacy rules. Please stop adding things to my family tree just because you think it makes for a more perfect story line. I have lost my trust in ancestry.com and personally think their attempt to improve their site by reinventing the “new” format is a major fail. I wouldn’t be surprised if down the road they’ll be removing the Confederate Flag from my southern ancestor’s profiles because that is now become the new PC thing to do. I too have made my family tree private and hidden it from searches because I want privacy. Please stop adding things to my family tree that you think are relevant… it’s an invasion and breech of my privacy.
    Have a nice day.

  208. Nancy

    I was involved in the Beta testing but the feedback icon never worked. I submitted feedback through the more cumbersome routes, but it obviously wasn’t listened to. So, I cancelled my subscription after 7 years (today is the last day). I made my trees private, offloaded to FTM, and will leave only a skeleton tree for DNA. For many people the changes don’t make a difference. Maybe they only occassionally use ancestry, or maybe they have a less emotional attachment . For those of us for whom it is a passion, or consuming hobby, it is very disruptive and feels invasive to have our trees changed. I don’t believe Ancestry cared or understood how much of a personal violoation it feels like to have your work “re-invented” and have inaccuracies added. I am very disappointed, but I’ll find another way to continue my research (and spend my money!). What will Ancestry market when we leave with our hard research, or make all our trees private?

  209. Cindy

    I want the old version back. Geneology is complicated enough and trying to figure out this new format is exasperating

  210. I will be ending my subscription if there is no choice to return to the old version. The new features are hard to navigate.

  211. Vince

    I have used Ancestry.com nearly daily since 2007 and have found the Classic Site to be well organized, intuitive and very helpful for my research. The “new” site is just the opposite — ugly, annoying, inaccurate, frustrating and useless. Please keep the Classic Site intact for serious research. If you really think there is an audience for your new “pretty” version, make it an option for those people.

  212. amy

    I also agree that the new version is extremely disorienting and difficult to work with. Is there any way to revert back to the older version?

  213. Stew

    Last Friday, I got the flash screen introducing the New Version. I viewed the short video and decided to Try it, not knowing that I would be locked into a TOTAL DISASTER…..if you cannot see that 95% or more of your true subscribers absolutely hate the New Product, you have your heads in the SAND! Thank goodness, someone pointed out how to get back to the old version, click on the down arrow next to your Subscriber Name on the top right of the screen. You get a drop down to switch back to Classic View, the Old Version. Whoever you are that pointed this out, thank you thank you thank you! Now I am going to back up everything I can on FTM before I am forced into something that I don’t want and then I will probably let my subscription lapse when it is due.

  214. I hate your new website. Its very ugly, and not intuitive or user friendly. Everything is black and white, black outlines to boxes, the font is utilitarian and stark. You can’t see most of your data on a page because its spread out so much and looks awkward, you have to click redundant buttons to navigate. And where is the little leaf for “Hints” you’ve been advertising on TV? I want to be able to switch back to the Classic View.

  215. Joanna Tolhurst

    One of the most annoying things is that as someone from the UK whose family generally lived in the UK unless I added England, Scotland or Wales to the place in any reference to a place, the new site automatically locates that event in America or somewhere else in the world. E.g. a reference to my Grandmother being at Portsmouth High School for Girls lands her in America rather than Portsmouth, England, and a reference to my father’s ashes being spread on a mountain in Wales had him buried at Mountain in the Philippines. It’s going to take some time to check through my whole tree of over 3000 people.

  216. Marge

    I do not like the new format at all. Luckily I was able to switch back to the old format. Please do not change the site permanently to the new story format. It is horrible.

  217. BEE

    Well, I’ve just added this to two other blogs, but I guess it won’t hurt to add it here as well: Why in the world do I have to practically stand on my head to add a spouse, error messages, “phantom hints” for years! PLEASE stop this nonsense and pay attention to the “classic” site and get it working properly instead of all this “fancy-dancy” stuff! I hate to tell you how many “trees” I find with 2, 4, 6 names entered “over a year” from people with ethnic names, probably thinking they could type in Grandma and Grampa’s name and find documents. Unfortunately, those ethnic names were badly spelled from the minute they boarded that boat, until their dying day, and the transcribing of those names made it even worse.
    Some census records had surnames written that bore no resemblance to the actual name, so it is next to impossible to find, unless you are a persistent person and know a few “tricks”. FORGET those stupid sliders. I’ve hated them since the last “improvement”. I refuse to look at the “new and improved” site, and I dread the day I have to use it. I don’t need “STORIES” – I need documents! STOP THIS MADNESS!

  218. Steve

    236 comments can’t be wrong. The only thing that will get their attention is to cancel your subscriptions.

  219. Kenmaag

    Ancestry please listen to your loyal subscribers. We have worked thousands of hours on our Trees. This new format is train wreck. You need to create an option for us to retain the “classic” look. Shame on you Ancestry!

  220. Kenmaag

    To those commenting about a way to revert back…I have news for you, it wasn’t an option yesterday when I renewed. I had to call Ancestry on the phone and they had to change it there. I said, fine, leave it like that please. She informed me that pretty soon no choice at all. I am canceling tomorrow.

  221. Kellywpa

    This new site is horrible and I was not given the option to switch. Ancestry programmers obviously don’t care about people that have vision issues because this is very hard to read. I will never ever renew Ancestry again when I can’t read anything on your site.

  222. Becki

    I’ve been a researcher for over 2 decades, spending 20-30 hours a week at it. I’ve spent years building several trees and have several trees built and thousands of people in them. Ancestry.com has always been my number one ‘go to’ place for research, that is until I tried out the New Ancestry. I don’t like anything about it! It takes me twice as long to go or find anything. The colors are dark and gloomy and I want to write my own stories, thank you. Why can’t ‘I’ design my own New Ancestry if there has to be one, instead of you giving me a ‘your way or the highway’ platform that I hate? My number one complaint is that I can’t switch back to the Classic Ancestry, and from what I read, the New Ancestry will be permanent very soon. Wow, what a very bad business decision.

  223. J

    Missing Member Connect. It allowed me to easily compare my tree to multiple others, and find other members with the same ancestors. Also don’t appreciate needing to crop all my pics. Banner takes up too much room and necessitates scrolling. There’s a lot of wasted space. Other changes aren’t bad. I like connecting the facts to the sources. Also like the ability to customize the life story. I do wish the background color on the tree views were customize-able.

  224. Larry

    I worked in online systems development for 15 years. This new version is AWFUL… A-W-F-U-L. If we don’t get the option to use the older version (or switch back and forth) I’m outta here too. The colors are distracting, the fonts and boxes are too big. Navigation is a pain and there are things I just can’t find anymore! It’s no longer the last bit intuitive. And I don’t want to waste valuable research time trying to learn your darn new system. I HATE IT!

  225. Donna

    I’ve been a member almost as long as Ancestry has existed. I don’t need/want Ancestry to tell me a story about my tree or anyone else’s. I need to be able to quickly and easily do research. Using the HUGE picture/box layout for a tree is awkward and very slow, taking far more time to use. Please use a model more like the one in Family Tree Maker. Please use black type instead of grey. Its very hard to see unless turn the contrast intensity up full blast. Thank you

  226. Patricia

    I don’t like this new format very hard to understand. I am to old to have to change how things are being changed

  227. Lisa Lichtenberg

    As a paid member since 2009 I have enjoyed ancestry.com immensely! When I saw the TV commercial about the new “story” view I thought I’d take a look and imagine my surprise when the entire site changed. I HATE it!!! Let me just repeat that, I HATE it, it’s terrible, not user friendly, just “pretty” unusable screens. I can’t even see my pedigree version on one screen anymore, i.e. the bottom is cut off. The dark background and light color type is awful! Why did you take away the access to and ‘count’ of facts that are attached to each event under each person. I could go on and on, but it looks like all the comments above confirm my issues. I was so upset I called the 1-800 number because I could NOT work with the new version and they told me how to get back to the old version. If you make me switch to the new version, you will lose a customer. My advice, leave both versions up and see how many people switch, then you will know how bad it is!

  228. susan szymanski

    Cheapened. Dumbed down. Just bloody awful. You must be looking for a NEW audience. Dreadful product. Don’t do it – for our sake and for yours. What a horribly, horribly disappointing turn. Not bluffing – if this is the “NEW”, I am out of here. Not an easy decision given all I have invested. Offer it as a different product if you want to talk to “that” audience. Charge less, another level. But do NOT impose this dumbed down distortion on your loyal subscribers. You realize this is – personal – right? If ever there was a moral responsibility to a “customer” – this would be it.

  229. John

    Awful. I have been using ancestry for several years and loved the reliability of it. Now I have lost info (via the Comments sections which have disappeared), and there is new inaccurate information … e.g. ancestors who were born in Sicily, Italy, are now noted as Sicily, Nebraska. Shaking my head in disbelief! Listen to all of the complaints, and give us back the old version which had YEARS of work invested into it. I am now embarrassed to share my page with friends and family because I know some of the info is no longer accurate. FIX THIS!!!

  230. Josephine

    I do not like this new website, it does not help a serious researcher. It is all gloss with no real substance. Luckily I keep the major portion of my tree on my computer. I occasionally will add an ancestor to the online tree but will have to rethink this for the future. I have had a world subscription for many years but am wondering if I want to continue. The new site makes you work to find basic information, scrolling from screen to screen, i KNOW THE STORIES of my family and when their children were born and parents died, it is not necessary to have you indicate this information. I want to have the classic ancestry as my online tree and not this new mess .

  231. Dissatisfied Subscriber #1

    Ancestry has devastated its most valuable asset by destroying the classic timeline that was able to contain photographs and images of documents along side the text in each timeline slot. Those images along side the text could express so much information and emotion in such a small space; they could draw your attention immediately to a particular time in an ancestor’s life with an image of their family, a picture of their covered wagon or sod home on a prairie, the one room school house where they attended school, or a tribute posted of an image of a folded U.S.A. flag beside the text explaining the death of a soldier who died in service to his/her country. The classic Ancestry timeline was GREAT — it gave us a unique way of presenting our family history in a series brief timeline summaries in a text format highlighted with photographs or documents pertaining to an ancestor and their families along side the text. The timeline images (that could be clicked on to open to full size) helped to draw a reader’s eyes to a particular timeline slot and stimulate their interest in reading the text in the timeline to learn more about the person, family, or historical event presented.

    The classic Ancestry timeline enabled the subscriber to have options to display their work in a format that was attractive, easily used and understood (not just by the subscriber but by anyone they wished to share the information with – from the young to the elderly). I have worked on Ancestry for years to preserve my family history in an easily used, informative, attractive, and interesting manner — in one fell swoop Ancestry destroyed a good portion of what I have tried to create. Ancestry needs to place itself in my shoes, as well as the shoes of so many other Ancestry subscribers, and understand how DEVASTATED and ANGRY we are to have years of our hard work vanish or be separated away into distinct screens. Screens where our timeline is cramped by useless census file icons with large print identifying the census file (basically a “screen hoarding ad” to promote Ancestry’s records), or cramped media galleries presented in a jumbled random sequence, filled with cropped file icons, and covered in white print titles. Ancestry should never take the images we save to our family tree(s) and crop them or print across them! The classic timeline had so much genealogical information neatly displayed on one screen – it was a focal point to show how all the information on a family came together to present the history of an ancestor.

    My family contains many men and women who served their country from before the founding of our nation to the present. Part of what I worked on was to honor them and their lives — Ancestry threw my work aside and replaced it with generic fillers that have caused my work to lose the personal touches and tributes that made my family timeline unique and interesting. Just as I was hitting my stride and getting to a point to know exactly how to best present my family history, Ancestry devastated the format that suited my work the best.

    For an internet site that wants people to subscribe, Ancestry has taken very little time to truly understand what would make their site desirable to users. Ancestry has never understood the genealogy records they have available at their site. Several of us have tried to get Ancestry, through surveys that we have completed for them, to look at and understand the records available at the Ancestry site. So much of the transcribed information Ancestry presents is worthless. Despite our attempts to get Ancestry to reexamine their transcribed information, THEY DO NOT LISTEN. For example, when Quakers write a date as 26day 12mo 1741, THEY ARE NOT WRITING December 26, 1741, they are writing February 26, 1741. Ancestry has never understood that the calendar we use today is not the same calendar that was used in the past. Another example: When I record information for an ancestor living prior to the American Revolution, they were living in the Province of Pennsylvania in the North American British Colonies — NOT IN Pennsylvania, United States of America. Ancestry has always failed to take into consideration the dates when territories became states, or a country becomes a nation, etc!

    The two examples listed above are just the tip of the iceberg of the things that are wrong with Ancestry’s transcribed historical records and how they interpret historical situations. I do not want Ancestry trying to use historical records to generate my family history because ANCESTRY DOES NOT have accurately transcribed historical records nor do they try to put events in correct historical perspective.

    If Ancestry has redesigned its site to attract more subscribers, the dissatisfaction with the new site will only drive subscribers away. To attract more customers, Ancestry should reinstate the classic timeline and uncropped images, and provide more ORIGINAL documents: Wills, Marriage Records, Birth Record, Death Certificates, Obituaries, Old Newspapers, County Histories, Land Records, Naturalization Records, etc.

    Ancestry needs to make their site desirable by providing accurate information, more original documents, and listening to the needs expressed by their subscribers – THEY SHOULD STRIVE TO BECOME KNOWN AS AN INTERNET SITE THAT TRULY LISTENS TO ITS SUBSCRIBERS AND PROVIDES WHAT THEY ASK FOR!!!!!!!!! Not as a site that forces thoughtless, devastating, unnecessary, unwanted, and useless changes upon subscribers (soon to be former subscribers!!!!!!).

    I vote that as Ancestry subscribers, we join together to make our voices heard – if Ancestry chooses to continue to ignore our requests, do not renew your subscription to Ancestry. Take some time to spread the word about the errors and problems that you have experienced so people thinking about subscribing will be informed about the problems we have experienced with Ancestry before finally deciding whether they are still interested in subscribing or should be looking elsewhere.

  232. Vince

    Re, Dissatisfied Subscriber #1 Quaker date comment — I agree that Ancestry’s transcriptions of most Quaker dates are pitifully wrong. But note that the example of “26day 12mo 1741” actually converts to 9 March 1742 on the Gregorian Calendar, not 26 February 1741. The Quaker “12mo” in 1741 was indeed February of the *following* year (1742) on the Gregorian Calendar, because the British colonies were still observing the Julian Calendar that regarded March as the first month of the year. But 11 days must also be added when converting Julian dates in 1742 to the Gregorian Calendar to account for leap days missed since that calendar was adopted by most of Europe in 1582. See, “Dual Dating and the Gregorian Calendar Conversion in Great Britain and its Colonies” (http://www.adamsonancestry.com/calendar/) and http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/. I’ve raised this matter with Ancestry in several forums but am not holding my breath for them to get it right.

    For all the reasons that you and other dissatisfied customers have eloquently narrated, I certainly hope Ancestry will keep the Classic Site intact for serious researchers and make the new interface an option for the very few subscribers who seem to like it. If they do, all tree owners should also have control over which interface is presented to other subscribers who view their trees. I do not want anyone viewing my trees under the cumbersome, misleading and inaccurate environment of Ancestry’s new interface. That’s why I’ve made all my trees private for the time being and will warn any invitees about the problems of the new interface.

  233. Kenmaag

    Paying customers shouldn’t have to suffer through this beta period. It isn’t like the site is free. It is obvious the new version was rushed out. I am already preparing for my exit from Ancestry.

  234. Kenmaag

    Dissatisfied Subscriber #1 hit the nail right on the head! Many of us have time lines with media attached. It makes sense to us to see that way. I too have spent a great deal of time doing just that for my ancestors. Having media jumbled all together in another area without a connection is a step forward?? I don’t think so. Ancestry attaching their own ideas to our time line is not my idea of serious genealogy but rather some generic crap they through on because that’s what was happening in the world. It is very obvious to me that Ancestry is not directing themselves to serious researchers. This is a real step back from a site that I thought encouraged serious genealogy.

  235. Barbara

    Hi fellow researchers, I copied this comment because I thought it sounded like mine. Out of 261 negative comments here, mine isn’t even listed. I’m sure Ancestry has gotten thousand so negative comments.This upgrade is big joke! I have already considered not using Ancestry because of their lack of professionalism. I’ve been doing research for 10 yrs This new site has dark background horrible for eyes and studying so that is why we read text on white backgrounds.Also, we don’t want you to put in the historical facts on a timeline because they are wrong for our ancestor. area to area was different. You pretend that this is like Facebook trying to advertise to the new market that you have the ancestry information and you give it to them. We are the ones doing the research and posting our documents/pictures for you. Don’t use the DNA circles to post a biography for our ancestor based on 200 member trees I don’t match dna with and I’m not related to. You are throwing a lot together with your computer that is false. Leave the pedigree as it is so we can read it properly and add people to the pedigree. I do not like the Family view and your new outline. You need to let us keep the classic view so we can do serious research. I agree with every bad comment on this page. Nobody I know likes the new. I have bought 10 costly dna kits for family. And now this new format makes me feel I made a big mistake investing when you are giving us junky format to work with. From another Barbara: This is ridiculous!!!! This is complicated and not easy to navigate. How dare you insert information regarding events that may or may not affect the person in my tree. If you wish to provide additional information, you may do so on the side or as a choice, but you do not have the right to insert anything into my tree in the “life story” view. You presume way too much and you are bordering on an invasion of my privacy. My tree is Private, and it’s that way for a reason. You people make changes and surprise everyone, and then act like we should like it. I think your company is getting way too big for their britches. I also think that you must have too many people working for you that need something to do, and these individuals could not possibly be serious researchers. I pay good money for a subscription to Ancestry.com, but I find this new look impossible to work with. The grey background is horrible to view for any length of time. Am I able to change the color? I did not see where I could. The tree is all spread out, and disjointed looking, and not easy to view at once. Why is everything so large in the “Profile” view? I am not blind. I do not see where I can adjust the size of the items that I am looking at. Why can’t I adjust the “relationship” to the person whose profile I am looking at? What happened to all of my media items? Why aren’t they attached to the factual descriptions that I have so painstakingly written? This new version is nothing but fluff, with the pink and blue for the sexes, the grey background, the insertion of historical events, pictures presented in circles instead of the way I scanned and inserted them in my tree. Again, you have taken liberties with my tree that you have no right to. These changes were all done with the intent of attracting new customers in search of that almighty dollar, and making it look “pretty” for the novice researcher. This is very evident to me. I hope that you plan on keeping the Classic View, otherwise you do not leave me with much choice. If you keep this up, there will be another company that will come along and write software that is compatible with the desires of the serious researcher. I was going to give someone a gift certificate to Ancestry.com. I can unequivocally state that I will not waste my money if you plan on keeping this new look
    – See more at: https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2015/06/01/announcing-the-new-ancestry-website/#sthash.2M0M5bkw.dpuf

  236. gp_4hbc

    What were your programmers thinking about? This “new” Ancestry is worthless to us professional genealogists. I have several private, unsearchable database on the site for clients and I use it only for researching and ease of data entry. I then download them into Legacy software. How DARE YOU CHANGE MY data and make up stories that are computer-generated and add historical photos at whim. All my trees are private for a reason! If we as the paying public are not allowed in the future to have the “classic” version then I will no longer be a paying customer. There are so many errors I found in trying out the new version a few times; they are too numerous to mention. After spending over an hour reading all the negative comments, I am glad to be in the majority. Rather than coming up with a new design, you should have concentrated on making improvements in your search engine and eliminating other sources that are useless. If there is a deadline on when this “new” version will take effect, everyone would like to know as we all want out of Ancestry.com ASAP! No serious researcher wants this garbage that mimics social media sites. This is NOT genealogy.

  237. I really think that the so-called positive response to the “new and improved” Ancestry site is wishful thinking on the part of Ancestry. I hate it, and the first thing I did was re-set my trees to the Classic view which, will, BTW, be discontinued. While the Classic view has its problems… mostly with the search feature… it is neat and clean and easy to use as well as view. I have no interest in the Life Story which is extremely dumbed down and has zero sophistication. I have glanced through all of these posts and see that the majority of members want to keep the Classic view. They do not care for the extreme color scheme, the round photos which are pointless, the inability to see the comments, etc., etc., etc. Really people at Ancestry, you need to pay attention to your subscribers who pay you a lot of money to use your site for their research and the maintenance of their records! Don’t be foolish about this. Just count the new version a bad choice and move on… or back to the original and just make necessary repairs to the old features!

  238. Carole

    Leave Family Trees alone, when I saw that you had done away with all the notes I made JUST THIS MORNING about where the census says my GGGAunt was born I did cry. I cried… just leave it alone. I was grateful to see my notes were still there when I went back to Classic view. I don’t want your timeline. I want the classic view of Family Trees. I have got to say any positive messages I have read sound like they were bought and so reminded me of a meeting I was in at work today, their was one individual there today who really wasn’t shouldn’t have been but kept agreeing with the speaker. It’s like they hired a Amen Hallelujah choir for their message of change. I have a quote from Wally Lamb on my signature block at work that says “Learn to Love Revision”. Revision I can handle this change I can not.

  239. Carole

    And PLEASE spend your time and our money on bringing us new databases, not new “experiences”.

  240. Linda

    Hate the new site. Have started using family search.org much more. Your color choices are horrible, notes go away, can’t make changes easily. Please, this will be my last year to pay for this site which is now a total mess

  241. gp_4hbc

    I would like to further comment to all Ancestry members, they better download their tree ASAP into GEDCOM files into genealogy software before Ancestry.com makes this “new” Ancestry disaster a definite reality or otherwise you will lose all your hard earned work. You should do that anyway on a regular basis as you never know what might happen to all of your trees. This “new” Ancestry is a total mess and a disgrace to the genealogy community.

  242. Mary

    Like many previous commenters, I’m a longtime Ancestry member – 7+ years now. I’ve seen several changes/overhauls made to the website over that time, but this one takes the cake. Honestly, I don’t mind some change, but the best I can say about this effort is it’s a nonsensical mess. Things have been moved, dare I even say hidden, for no obvious reason. You even swapped the ‘messages’ and ‘hints’ icons at the top right, so now it’s ‘hints’ and ‘messages’. WHY? What possible justification could there be for swapping these two little functions?? It seems not useful, but malicious – as so many of the changes do. Never mind the entire look is untidy and confusing to the eye. It isn’t a place I look forward to visiting now. The “new Ancestry” is sub-standard in every way to the classic site, and that’s putting it kindly. After trying it for two weeks, I’ve now switched back to classic Ancestry and will stay there. Bottom line: force the “new” on me and you’ll lose a subscriber. And btw, I’ve taken your survey about the “new Ancestry” once already. I would expect not to be asked again, yet I was. But then I’m repeatedly bothered with a cookies banner and a “bad email” banner too, on both the classic and “new” sites, despite attempting to correct this with customer service. You need to get back to basics and concentrate on providing value for money. This ain’t it.

  243. gp_4hbc

    Mary, I liked your last comment on here. I wish however, you used your screen name with Ancestry.com so I could contact you as well as others that are against this awful change that will come to fruition unless we act as a group. Please contact me through Ancestry.com so we can get the ball rolling. It may or may not be realized that we demand that either the “new”

  244. gp_4hbc

    …to continue…Either the “new” Ancestry is shelved or we have the choice of classic or new, Contact me through Ancestry.com at gp_4hbc. Thank you.

  245. gp_4hbc

    to continue…Either the “new” Ancestry or the “classic” version be available to other subscribers or we take action. Contact me through Ancestry.com at gp_4hbc. Thank you.

  246. Jayne

    As a paid subscriber to international (complete) version of Ancestry, I must say that I do not like the “new” Ancestry online presentation, and have told them that they should either repair it or allow me to use the “old” version.
    First of all, I no longer have control over which image becomes the primary photos for persons in my trees. In addition, the little round pictures the profiles cut off parts of the photos.
    Secondly, the timeline does not show which images I’ve attached to each event; the only way to verify this is to edit EACH event.
    Whatever happened to the Comments?
    Images in the Gallery are fuzzy, not clear, and I can’t distinguish between photos I’ve uploaded and images of Ancestry documents. Why can’t we upload text documents to the Gallery any more?
    Many of us have added photos of gravestones and cemeteries to persons in our trees, but these are not shown in the life story mode (presumably because burial occurred after death 😉
    Addition of a map was a nice idea, but the map is not detailed enough and does not allow zooming in and out.
    There should be some way of removing the “Historical Insights” added to the Lifestory page, as much is not pertinent.
    The Tree view now has some color, but problems still remain, e.g. dates lacking on name tags.
    Ancestry FAQs and how-to’s still give instructions for former version, do not apply to new version.
    In conclusion, the new version looks too commercial, not serious.

  247. jayneire

    As previously said, I am not at all happy with the “commercial” appearance of the new site and think that Ancestry has wasted a lot of money on it. I need to be able to upload documents to profiles, choose which images I want as primary photos, include comments to explain some choices. Moreover, all of the instructions in the Learning Center refer to the classic version, not the new version. I have tested the new presentation and judge it to be inferior to the previous one. If they want to offer this “new experience” to beginners, OK, but then I would suggest the creation of an “Ancestry Pro” version for professionals and advanced users.

    Rather than leave Ancestry completely, I opted to return to the classic version. (Thank you, Sarah for instructions on how to do this !-) However, I am worried about the parting message “Soon the new Ancestry will be the only Ancestry”. If Ancestry cannot repair all the flaws of the new version, I will have to start looking for another genealogy site…

  248. gp_4hbc

    When I tried out the “new” Ancestry and went back to the “classic” I did not get that particular message but if that is going to be the “new” Ancestry.com, then I too will definitely cancel my subscription and remove all my databases from the site. I have already downloaded them to my Legacy genealogical software.

    If Ancestry.com refuses to listen to it’s subscribers, and the majority of them are complaining, then they are being foolish. No serious genealogist will use this “new” Ancestry. I and many other people are furious with this impending change and Ancestry.com is possibly on the verge of distinction.

    No sense in rehashing what I have already posted on this forum but thanks jayneire for your comments, I am glad you were able to access the “classic” view, if only just to download your present tree/s to your computer as a GEDCOM file/s. Do not forget to save any media you might have to your computer also, if you do not already have it stored them.

    This is a total inconvenience to Ancestry.com members that have diligently worked on their trees over the years.
    It could bring lawsuits and people will complain to the Better Business Bureau about Ancestry.com and the reputation of Ancestry.com will be tarnished forever by bad reviews.


  249. Mary M Zashin

    So, the negative reviews keep piling up. Perhaps you are making small changes on the basis of feedback (one I need is to have a “View All Sources” option as on classic–not seemingly available on the new site). BUT, nothing is being done about the truly dreadful cosmetic features of the new site. I don’t know how you did it, but you’ve managed to be both dreary and garish. . . with that dull dark grey on the profile and tree views (the grey on the profile page makes me think you were “inspired” by a dead and rotting alligator hide!). The shocking neon green, the circular primary photos that make hash out of most pictures, which in the real world are overwhelmingly square or rectangular–this ONE change is enough to make me leave–did I mention the fuzzy rounded corners, etc, etc. I can’t think you even employed a graphic artist, or if you did he/she should be fired. Whey you believe the new look is “modern” is beyond me. It seems dreadfully retro and 1950s-ish to me. “Modern” I associate with light color scheme and clean lines of classic. I can ignore your “historical insights”–which are at worst inaccurate and irrelevant, at best trivial–but I can’t ignore the look of the site. It’s just unpleasant to the eye and that seems so unnecessary to me. . .

  250. toni

    rlahistory advice to make our trees private is a great idea. Ancestry is using our work for their benefit. We have no other way to fight back. Since I didn’t renew they don’t have my money anyway.
    The second part of my solution is to use desktop software for my tree. I don’t NEED to have my tree on line. I wanted it there for other people researching the same people and hopefully for sometime in the future when someone might want to do more work on it. It is a possibility that ancestry won’t be the web site in the future that it was last year so now my reason for keeping a tree there makes no sense. I will continue to print my family history and the family stories I’ve written. I don’t need ancestry for that. I have also found so many other web sites filled with information most for FREE that this horrible presentation was a good thing. It forced me to look elsewhere for information and I FOUND IT!!

    P.S. Gloria, Would you rather your facts page for William’s mother and father said, Birth of William 6 June 1824 in London Twp. Ontario, Canada OR do you want it to say birth of son?

  251. Mary Ann

    I don’t want round picture, fancy colors and your presumption to try to tell my family’s story. Its my family and my story to tell. Not yours!

    I will be leaving Ancestry if you continue to foist this ill-conceived monstrosity on us.

  252. charleygirl36

    Hate the new format!!! There are to many unnecessary and unwanted features. The coloring is awful and where have you taken all the thing that I added that you presumed were not important??? Why are you always trying to change what isn’t broken.

    Once upon a time, ancestry was THE PREMIER GENEALOGY SITE. But in 2015, that all changed when THEIR STORY was REINVENTED. The NEW ANCESTRY STORY is titled, “THE EMPEROR’S NEW (no) CLOTHES”! Everyone can see that their new outfit leaves them NAKED, but they keep on INSISTING that they are wearing THE MOST BEAUTIFUL OUTFIT (New Ancestry family history software). The JOKE is on them! Will Ancestry “pass away” soon?

  254. Vince

    As of today, the drop-down menu item under the user name at the top right corner of most screens in the new interface for switching back to the old interface has changed from “Classic Site” to “Old Ancestry”. Ancestry administrators: Please tell us that means you have decided to keep the Classic/Old site available permanently, as requested by hundreds of your long-time subscribers.

  255. Martha

    For the love of all that’s holy, what are you people thinking? You have subscribers who have tens of thousands of people in their trees, and you’re forcing them to re-crop every photo? Your seriously think you have the right to insert information into other people’s stories that’s apparently often either incorrect or irrelevant because you’re software can’t make subjective decisions? Creating Life Stories for subscribers with a computer program violates their right to write their own stories. That they can edit what you’ve done is irrelevant. Why should they have to return to re-write and edit what was fine before you messed with it? In one instance, your program changed Yellow Springs, Iowa to Yellow Springs, OH. How dare you? In another, your idiotic software actually embedded a photo of Hitler in someone’s tree b/c there was a German ancestor. HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY? Could you be more offensive? Given the quality of the writing your employees have produced, they have no business using English to write anything about anyone’s alleged history. On behalf of all subscribers, I scream: HOW DARE YOU!

    Smart businesses and smart employees are able to recognize their weaknesses and act accordingly. Your weaknesses are use of English and software programming. You have an excellent product in the Classic program that could be even better with some tweaking. Why in the world wouldn’t you focus your efforts on that? NEW DOES NOT EQUAL BETTER. When-o-when will human beings get that through their thick skulls? American education leaders have destroyed our educ. system by believing that new is better.

    The overall format and colors used by the “new” site were described by one disappointed user as “dreary and garish.” Your target market is over 40 yrs. of age, not 20. Trying to appeal to those who have the attention span of a two-year-old is idiotic at best, obtuse at worst. Information that used to print on one page now requires up to five pages to print. You can’t be serious if you think people will put up with that….given the cost of paper.

    This page has over 340 negative complaints. Every page I’ve been to also has posted complaints that number in the hundreds. Clearly, you do not have support for what you’re trying to do. This software was designed by young programmers who know nothing of genealogy research and have their cognitive development and ability seriously impaired by a very poor K-6 education, especially those educated in the U.S.

    Please…acknowledge your error in judgment, apologize for putting all of us through this nightmare, and get on with the business of improving Classic to make a really good product even better through your users’ suggestions. Shame on all of you for wasting such a grand opportunity. Shame on all of you for not caring about all the damage your “new” program does to countless decades of work by your paying users. May other companies take a page from your book of poor judgment and gross errors…as your organization slips slowly into the sea with the loss of 1,000s of paying customers.

    That your Terms & Conditions permits you this latitude is a joke. Every clause in that document is a unilateral clause, i.e. it grants only you the option to do the act described and does not give the other party a right of refusal, a right to negotiate nor any other option. It’s also a joke, because, according to a study, if internet users took read the Terms & Conditions of every site they use, that’s all they will be able to do for an excessively unreasonable period of time, like several years, so let’s not pretend that you’ve entered into contracts with your subscribers at arm’s length and in the spirit of fair dealing, because YOU HAVE NOT (caps for emphasis only).

    Now, it’s time to do right by your subscribers by responding to their needs in an ethical and fair manner. In case you haven’t noticed, most are literally screaming at you to please drop the “new” or at least keep the Classic so they have a reasonable option that meets their research needs. Most say they will leave if you don’t.

    To the principals of this company: That you are each no doubt paid millions in salary and benefits doesn’t excuse bad character, unfair dealing and fraudulent acts. In the end, this is about the quality of your character and whether you have any integrity at all.

  256. Sandy

    I’m clinging on to “Classic” ancestry as long as I can! It seems to be shrinking in size though – just don’t care for the new enhanced experience. If you’ve been doing family research for decades, you really don’t care what the page looks like, you want new resources to search! I suppose you think we will all just adjust with time – well, I think you’ve jumped the shark on this one. Stick to finding us more records! Please.

  257. C

    The old format is preferred. The new format provides many graphics, but prevents viewer from seeing the information. And the information is why we go go ancestry.com

  258. Debbie Bake

    I have had many conversations with familysearch telling them how they would be wise to copy some of ancestry’s great features. How much easier ancestry is, in many arenas. Now, I won’t be using ancestry as a great example any more. I hate the new look and would give anything to stay with the old. Why do some people think something has to be fixed when it wasn’t ever broken!

  259. MikeG

    Well said Martha. I eagerly signed up for the beta on the new site but switched back after about 10 minutes. I persisted and tried it again several times, but always found it to be a horrible experience. I don’t need all the historical events information cluttering up my timeline. I would imagine, like me, anyone who is into this knows much of it anyway. I really detest the new look and all the scrolling, I just want everything presented crisply and cleanly, in as little space as possible. What was easy now seems unnecessarily difficult. I too will be holding on to the old site for as long as possible. I work in IT and have seen this before where a company has employed web designers who don’t understand how the core demographic uses the services they are designing for. Perhaps someone should raise a petition to keep the old site on Change.org or some such!

  260. Vince

    Martha: Well said indeed — your concise summary of the problems with the new interface is spot on. I hope the powers that be at Ancestry take your comments to heart.

    MikeG: A petition of the sort you suggested has been running for several weeks and has 1,061 signatures as of today requesting that the Classic Site (currently named Old Ancestry) be kept as an option for members and subscribers who prefer it. You can add your name at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/600/803/575/save-ancestrycom-classic/


  261. jozeran

    Where are the Comments attached to profiles? Several others have mentioned how valuable those comments are for describing on-going research and the thought processes that went into drawing certain conclusions. I PAID to have that information stored alongside my ancestors statistical data. {lease restore them!

  262. Don’t like the new site. Horrible! How can I get my images next to the facts again? Do we have an option to go back?

  263. Colleen

    I hadn’t used Ancestry for a little while and was very disappointed that all my notes and comments are gone. I see other people have expressed their feelings on this as well but I don’t see anyone from Ancestry addressing the issue???

  264. Vince

    Becky: So far, you can go back to the Classic/Old interface by clicking “Old Ancestry” in the drop-down box under your user name at the upper right corner of most screens in the new interface. It’s unclear how long that option will remain available.

  265. Elhura

    There are other Ancestry blog sites with equal or more negative – actually overwhelmingly negative – comments about the new site. I am adding mine here to be heard once again. In short, the old site was truly “classic” and timeless with ease of function, visibility, etc. The new site destroys most of that and distorts our hard work – that, as someone pointed out, has contributed to Ancestry’s overall success. In short, the background and script colors, font and font size and cluttered fact page make it impossible for many users to visually remain on site for long at a time. The added layers of buttons and moves to do what was once simple function are distracting and time consuming. The loss of sources directly accessible from the “fact” block complicate matters and the purple lines drawn over the page are childish and distracting. The multi-page layout to see what was once available at a glance ruins the overall effect of Ancestry. The “cardboard” life story with unwelcome and sometimes irrelevant photos is only for a select interest group. It is clear many, many users prefer to keep the Classic option permanently open so we can continue our work. Unfortunately, those viewing our trees in the “new” mode will still get the distortions and hype, but quality research efforts can at least continue by those who prefer the Classic mode. We will probably never be able to let our guard down, so continue to let Ancestry.com know if you prefer to keep the Classic as an available option.

  266. Priscilla

    The New Ancestry site is awful. To clunky, too large, and unnecessary. The old site was better as everything was easily visible and concise. Do we really need such long narratives. Most on this site are literate enough to click open a document.

  267. Jann S Grimes

    I think you, Ancestry, need to take a step back and listen to the customers. Although I did not read all the comments I think I can say that the vast majority do not like the changes. Please reconsider, this move has been a failure!

  268. Susan Ricketts

    Ancestry is making a huge mistake by forcing long-time members, like myself, to use the new format – which is not as clean, intuitive and user-friendly as the old format. I am a Web Content Specialist and I find the new site very difficult to use. Ancestry has been a great hobby for me, but I may lose interest and you may lose a customer if I cannot have the choice to use the old format. You need to listen to the preferences of your loyal customers.

  269. Emily Day

    I really have to agree with other comments about the look and format of the new site. As a young adult in my early 20’s who spends quite a bit of time on social media, and online in general, using different interfaces, I have to say, the new look is absolutely awful. I cannot accurately describe to you just how horrible that gray background is on the family tree’s Pedigree page with the bright blue/pink boxes for family members. It makes my skin crawl just looking at it. I also really hate the profile pages for family members; it looks like some 2001 early Myspace page or something. It’s all awful, from what I’ve seen, and I really do not want to be forced into using the new format. If you must roll out these new changes, please find a way to make it optional.

    I’ve only been doing research and using Ancestry to do so since 2010, so I am not near as experienced in this as many other commentors here, but I hope you listen to their feedback; if not I fear you will lose a lot of users who know how to research the old fashion way, and I can tell you that you will definitely be actively turning away new and younger users simply because of the new formatting.

    It may be ridiculous, but its true that pretty much all young adults I know judge everything by the way it looks, BECAUSE there are so many visually appealing interfaces out there competing for our attention. The better something looks and flows, the more fun it is to use, especially if it’s centered around learning. This new look WILL turn potential new users away, instantly.

  270. Sheryl

    Please at least give us back the option of the old format. After trying the dumbed down beta version I was grateful to be able to return to the old format. After a few days vacation, I came back to this format. What a huge disappointment. Dissatisfied Customer has some right on target points. The “story” aspect is particularly ridiculous, and an embarrassment to Ancestry.com. This is not a good way to try to capitalize on TV shows like “Who Do You Think You Are”. Lame.

  271. Susanne

    Changes to the site are horrible! Navigation is terrible. If you run a search, find a census for the person and want to browse the other census pages you can’t get back to original person search page without a lot of back tracking, every time you go to a new census page someone else comes up, if you back arrow it goes to whoever is at the top of that page and have a heck of a time getting back to the original results page to do more searching. Absolutely hate the family tree pages and where is the option for printing a family group sheet? Unless I’m missing a LOT, and I’ve been doing this for awhile, something terribly wrong. Maybe site creators should try doing some searching and see how terrible it is. And we pay for this. Not likely I’ll be paying for it again when renewal comes up. Please keep the option for old Ancestry going so we can continue as we have managed for many years!

  272. Nicola

    First thing to do is click the Edit button top right and choose Show Research Tools! Then at least you will see at a glance whether you have Comments or Notes for a person. I DO like the Notes and Comments appearing to the right-hand side of a profile page, much easier to work with, so thank you for that. I wish Ancestry would allow you to add notes specific to events e.g. a note against a birth, marriage, military etc.

    Not a fan of the brown header. I liked the simplicity of Classic green and white.

    There should be an option to switch on or off additional timeline events of family members. Other genealogy software does this e.g. Roots Magic and Family Historian. Sometimes it is distracting – especially when you have a large family. I would probably work mostly with the option turned off for the sake of a clearer screen, but it is a useful feature to have.

  273. Jared

    When are you going to fix your old system first before bringing any new “look” into play? You have huge potential, but your servers are crap! they keep timing out in Australia even though I can access trees in the UK fast and with no hindrance. It seems the Australia/New Zealand servers are majorly insufficient to deal with the volume they get and all website functions crawl to a halt, even some state “cannot access the server”, although my internet connection is as fast as ever. Your “team of experts” don’t know much and have really degraded the system especially with the new layout which (take a guess) is slower and full (I mean full of bugs). The new layout also takes 4 pages to print what use to fit on 1 page in the old setting. It looks very similar to the App version, which is why I do not use the App on a phone, etc. Why make the text bigger? You are just filling space with no added value, if people want bigger text there is a function on their computer, duh! Why not try the story mode like the US version which at the start of the year your bug filled system allowed me to log into. I found the previous US version (with a book maker and story mode) work more efficiently than the latest system that does-not-work. To me Ancestry is just a bunch of uneducated nerds creating something they just can’t. Time to hire some professional help! competent employees=great website=happy customers=more business=more money=NO BRAINER!

  274. Robyn Baume

    Ancestry keeps logging me out and it switches countries when I am in the middle of a search or just anytime? Also not easy to use on an iPad as the links don’t work and constantly having to go back and start again. Not user friendly at all. Am disappointed as a subscriber as the search engine is still slow and for the price we as subscribers pay, it doesn’t perform particularly well. My other issue is the overpricing of Ancestry DNA in Australia which I complained about and was ignored. It costs another 50% ( way more than the exchange rate ) plus delivery. That is exorbitant!!! Ancestry needs to lower its prices especially as Australians don’t get newspapers.com or fold3 thrown in like it’s US counterparts for a world explorer plus subscription.

  275. Jasmine Palmer

    To everyone saying how do you access the old view again; hover over your name, click on site preferences and then click Old Ancestry. Voila.

  276. RSmith

    I tried out the new format. I have been a member since 1999. I don’t need all the extras on new site. Hard to use. Don’t like the format at all. Will be looking into other ancestry sites if this is going to only format available. Very disappointing.

  277. Kris

    Also unhappy. Hard to use. I can’t attach a PDF I’ve already uploaded. Would like to know how to go back to the old version, please.

  278. Chg

    Ancestry.com- your arrogance is unbelievable. You are blatantly ignoring the concerns of your PAYING subscribers in an effort to make your product “better”, hipper, more relevant. ??? Stick with what you’re good at. Don’t alienate your customer base (take a hint from JC Penney). After over 10 years, I’ll be taking my data and cancelling my membership.

  279. Jim

    I agree with negative comments about the new site. Please don’t try to fix what’s clearly not broken. I have enjoyed working on ancestry.com almost since its inception, and I’ve seen many positive changes. This is not one of them.

  280. Elhura

    New Ancesty is a pretty product for show, but not much good for working and recording a tree. Too, too bad for us all! Please continue to let Ancestry know your concerns in every way possible. Only then can we keep the hope that Classic will be retained at least for working purposes.

  281. Sherry Lewis Miller

    I have not used the “new” ancestry yet but I have watched several of the videos and for the most past I like what I see. I like the new layout of the facts page and the media gallery. The LifeStory and Historical Highlights are meh. The thing keeping me from switching is the colour of the layout. With most everything in shades of grey the contrast between the writing and the background is diminished making it harder to read

  282. lorna warren

    really slow on ipad and unnecessarily confusing for what is meant to be a hobby I can quickly dip in and out of.

  283. patricia hannafin

    I click on ‘search’ and nothing happens, I then click on anything and the same happens again. I have paid a yearly sub and I can not use the service, not good enough!. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!.

  284. Teressa

    Just putting in my 2-cents and agreement with nearly every post above — I HATE the new Ancestry, hate it to the point that I HAVE been looking at alternatives. My particular peeve is that ridiculous “main map” and the inability to turn it off. Yes you can turn off the submaps, so why not the “main” one, too? Thank you for now letting us go back to the “old” ancestry. Please… let your users choose what design version they prefer while allowing folks to select which specific features they want to turn on, and which they do not.

  285. General

    The new version is cumbersome and hard to use in the way most professional genealogist would prefer. If we cannot get a choice of either the new or old version I will be dropping my membership which, up to now, I have used for years!

  286. Alan

    Hopefully you are looking at these comments. The New Ancestry is basically rubbish. It adds random and wildly innaccurate information to family members timelines, it’s missing features such as the Member Connect tab, media if it is fact shown take ages to open. It’s cumbersome, it’s ugly and its simply does not work as well as the pervious version. Either dump it or leave it in Beta mode until it’s functional.

  287. Sharon

    I do not like the new version at all. Microsoft Windows offers it’s customers the choice to have a “classic view” being the old version. Please allow that here. I have been using computers for over 20 years and you are bombarding people, particularly those with minimal computer knowledge, with too much information. I will be considering cancelling my membership and joining another group…

  288. John Paul

    I was horrified the other day when I signed in to MY Ancestry Tree, Try the New Ancestry. So I did.
    It took a while but finally managed to find a reply to someone’s request on Facebook, on how to get back to the Old view.
    While everyone appreciates the efforts to continually improve the site it seem by the comments before me that I am far from alone in the dislike for this “New Ancestry”.
    I like many other people who have created there family trees from a blank page thru to vast structures that to my mind seem to take on a life of their own.
    They require constant nurturing, adding facts, photos, document not all just from Ancestry sites.
    To me it has become a very important member of my family, and to have it messed with in the fashion I have seen is highly disrespectful of our efforts to record our Family’s Tree. Please do not force this change.
    My only other alternative is to remove / delete my tree cancel my World Heritage membership and take up an offer with another business.
    I have signed the save ancestry com classic petition in the hope that this may make a difference. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/600/803/575/save-ancestrycom-classic/

    John P Critchley. World Heritage member

  289. PKFullagar

    the “new look” is incredibly juvenile in appearance; similar to a childish picture book. This was a data base; I want serious hard facts. Total rubbish. I write my own family stories. I simply need a data base; nothing more. We certainly will not renew, and I’m looking now for an alternative data base. I develop databases, so I may do that myself.

  290. ARiley

    members are now little round circles to the side and it is more time consuming and One of the most frustrating things that I truly dislike about Ancestry is the continued attempts to “dumb down” the site and use pictures instead of words. I love the features of Ancestry and have been a member since 2000. In the 15 years of membership the two worst things you have done are “new search” and now this New view nonsense. I finally figured out a way to make new search work and now this. The basic problem is the photos of family difficult to view photos. Sharing photos was one of my most favorite things. Now, it’s a nice round circle which doesn’t crop well and is harder to operate. Enough with the new and exciting changes. How about let’s stick with something that works. Also, I am sure like new search my views and the views of many other long time customers will be swept aside as not wanting progress and we will continue to have these improvements. Soon, it won’t list mother and father, but will just have a graphic of a man’s head and a woman’s head. Come on Ancestry you guys are better than this.

  291. SGOOD

    The old Timeline took up much less space than the new one. The new features are needed, but the layout is horrific. Would like to be able to ‘hide’ events in the timeline that I don’t want included. Being in software development I am shocked how horrible the layout is. I would have thought the beta testing would have stopped you from rolling this out to the whole community. Tried using the new format a while, but it’s taking too much time to get used to so went back to the old format.

  292. sally

    Just switched today and notice 2 things straight away. On the time line instead of Farnworth near Bolton it has just assumed it is Farnworth near Cronton! Also again with time line it doesn’t take all facts into account. An example being someone I am researching remarried yet when she died the timeline of the first husband reads “they had been married 29 years”, really! This is totally frustrating as when I come to publish my tree it means I will have to go back and check every single entry to make sure it is correct.

  293. Alan

    My advice for what it’s worth? Take New Ancestry off line and give it back to your developers, provide them with all the feedback you’ve received and tell them to start from scratch.

  294. Margie Scott

    I was HORRIFIED when I saw that I APPARENTLY WAS AROUND DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, ETC ETC ETC! what is all of this time facts, as so forth that are INCORRECT!!! WHY DID YOU MESS WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS GREAT??? The information is wrong that you have taken the liberty to insert and names that may be formal names are inserted into a life story when nobody knows the person by their “formal” name. This is outrageous and I, for one, feel as though our trust has been compromised by a cheap invasion of privacy. BRING BACK THE OLD VERSION! THIS IS NOT GOOD AT ALL!!!!!

  295. Ann Jones

    There is a grave error on one of my ancestor’s timeline, an occurrence I inserted some time ago but later deleted, still shows. This is on just one ancestor, I cannot afford the time to check each and every one, I expect them to be correct when carried over from one system to another. Can Ancestry explain please?

  296. I too dislike this new site “if it aint broke why fix it?”. I would prefer to go back to the old format, much more user friendly….it would have been nice if we as users were consulted on out thoughts regarding a new format.

  297. Dee

    I agree with the majority of users who dislike the new site. In common with many of them, I shall not be renewing my Ancestry membership unless it is changed back to the format I was used to and found easy to negotiate.

  298. Kristine Swanson

    May I keep the old version please? I may have to give up my subscription if I can’t. I hate the new version. Why did you decide to change it so drastically? Who asked you to change it? No one asked me.

  299. Warren McLaughlin

    I see that they are going to force us with this new format. I believe it is horrible, and while it may address some of the desires that people have asked for, it degrades the overall experience. I will be done with ancestry.com when this change becomes permanent. I thought that ancestry.com was by far the best genealogical site available and I have steered several people in that direction. I’ve tried archives.com but it was in-superior to ancestry.com. Does anyone have some suggestions as to what site I can change to? It may be 5 years down the drain to start a new tree, or is there a way to import your tree from ancestry.com to another?

  300. Please return my tree to the old version asap. I cannot begin to describe everything I don’t like about it, but one of the peculiar thing that it is doing is somehow listing things that were never in my tree!!!!

  301. Jim

    I cannot understand why you feel the need to add so much junk to the new Timeline. With the classic Timeline I can add any fact that I think is needed. I don’t want extraneous events added automatically. The classic Timeline works very well: Events, notes, sources, and media are all displayed neatly. This new Timeline looks like a comic book.

  302. doreen

    the lifestory part of the new site seemed like a good idea until you read it & discover a lot of missinformation ,place names in england are coming up as being in usa. even though dates of birth are correct it shoes one of my male relatives having a baby at 8 ears old instead of eighteen.cant see how this is useful with so many errors

  303. Caroline

    I have only been using Ancestry for a short while, although I have been busy on my Family tree for 15 years, but I have to agree with most comments above. 1) Your facts page is so large that I have lost the immediacy with which I could view a person and their family – why the scrolling and scrolling? 2) Why do the sources occupy so much of the screen – you have made them more important than a persons “family” on the right of the screen. 3) where are the pics for each event in a person’s life? I could cry. All that work I did to put a picture for each event has disappeared and is now in a meaningless jumble in the gallery. I could immediately remember someone by looking at the pic of their house, or other event 3) Why can I no longer print from the Facts page? 4) Why are the colours so garish? 5) Why is the Lifestory so LARGE????? So much mousework! Your pages looks like a page out of a primary school workbook 6) Why is there now a complete overkill of the Hints? 90% of them are now completely useless and I shall not be using them as I used to. Many of them are completely irrelevant, and most are a waste of time. And finally? Why the dumbing down? Is Ancestry serving themselves or are they serving me? Are you paying me, or am I paying you for the service? If I buy a car that goes forward, do I want you to change it so that it reverses halfway through my ownership? And why don’t you have 2 websites that combine the information? One for Beginners, one for Advanced researchers.

  304. Caroline

    I would sign the petition to bring back the Classic site, but I do not want my details and email in the open on the Net.

  305. Dawn

    The option was to “TRY” the new ancestry. The definition of TRY is “To taste, sample, or otherwise test in order to determine strength, effect, worth, or desirability.” There was no mention of being trapped into such a horrible layout. A major case of misrepresentation.

  306. Dawn

    Just checking several of my ancestors life stories and whereas I had them born in the UK it now says “He died in 1951 in Norton County, Kansas, at the age of 83.” I have over three thousand people in my tree. DO I HAVE TO CHANGE THEM ALL MANUALLY? What are you going to do about this ancestry? You have made made errors on my tree.

  307. Bob

    Private Tree change to private you will have your tree, but no one will search or view your info PAYBACK to Ancestry
    This setting allows you to keep your tree “private” so that other users cannot view the contents of your tree.

    What does “private” mean?

    Limited information about deceased individuals in your tree (name, birth year, and birthplace) will still appear in Ancestry search results. However, no one can view your actual tree without your permission. If another member wants to view your tree, they can contact you anonymously through our Connection Service to request more information. Keep in mind that these individuals may also have helpful information to share with you.

    Also prevent your tree from being found in searches.

    Note: Although your privacy setting will change immediately to public or private, it usually takes about a month for this update to be reflected in the search index.

  308. John Paul

    I have posted this reply to the question asked about what was thought of the “New Ancestry” on the Who Do You Think You Are Facebook page.

    If this is going to be the “New Ancestry” and I am to be forced into using it when they cut the option to access the current, it will mean an end to my renewing the World Heritage Membership I currently have. It looks terrible. Its hard to navigate, There are entry’s on my family members profile pages that I cannot edit or remove. Relevant to births/deaths of relations of each person. As in Death of my Mother. This is taken direct from my profile page so is Very personal. “John Paul’s mother Angela Thornes passed away on November 1, 1996, in Scarborough, England, at the age of 57”. If i want this kind of entry on my page I will be the one to put it there and i will edit how it is worded. Every single person on my tree is subject to this abuse. All 4789 currently in my main tree. Photographs added to profile pages have been pushed off to a gallery page, this includes graveyard photos. I have spent thousands on hours researching and adding personal photos of the family and where possible there headstones to my tree and now all that effort is being taken over messed with and treated with what I feel is a huge amount of disrespect. While that may not be what was intended that is how it is received. For all the effort which every single current subscriber has put into Our Family Trees, and I put a Huge emphasis on “Our” this is a big step backwards. As i said in the beginning if this is what I will be forced to use I will go elsewhere. A shame there is not Dislike button on Facebook. I think Ancestry need to wake up and listen to its customers while it still has them. JP.

  309. Tom Malek

    Ancestry in the Uk allows it memnbers to switch back to the “Old Ancestry”. I think we should be afforded the same courtsey.

  310. Alan

    So apparently I’ve got to put an incorrect birthplace in for family members because New Ancestry doesn’t recognize the name of the town where they were born? What’s the point of doing the research and building your tree if the software requires you to input incorrect info?

  311. Joyce

    I have signed the petition as well. This is a known petition site and certain info is required to make sure folks don’t sign it twice. I have gone back to NEW many times, seeing if they have improved the crucial problems with it and they haven’t…time after time I go to NEW, try to accomplish a few things, test out more features and ALWAYS get so frustrated I immediately go back to OLD ancestry. I have been on ancestry since 2003 and know a LOT of researchers–I have YET to talk to ONE person who likes it–Ancestry should just admit this is a failed website, and either fix it to what we can do on the old website or at least continue to let us use the OLD site–NOTE they are not even letting new members SEE the old site—the old site is so much easier to use and things actually WORK on it—Many who have signed the petition have said they will leave ancestry if they don’t continue to offer OLD version and some have already left…how much complaining does ancestry need to hear before they finally realize they have made a HUGE mistake, and wasted OUR money —they would have been better served to improve searching and fixing all the awful transcription errors. ESPECIALLY in directories. If people cannot transcribe the printed word there is something wrong with who they are their transcribing to–I have heard it is China but don’t know for a fact BUT that would make sense given the nonsense I see in directory addresses. There was very little wrong with the OLD site—the NEW site is a dismal failure. Everything is either 3 times harder or cannot be done at all…IMPROVEMENT? …absolutely not –it is 100 steps backwards–they took GOOD improvements made over the years by people who actually understood genealogy and cared about their customers success with finding their ancestors. This company does not appear to care about US at all but they will care plenty when they lose a large portion of their customer base–and if WE understand research and still cannot figure out this dumb new site, how do they think NEW customers will be able to? They are going to be a flash in the pan as ancestry has made doing research TOO difficult in the NEW version.

  312. Joyce

    Caroline when you sign the petition nothing shows except the state you are from if you select the option to hide your name…your address etc is ONLY so the folks running the petition make sure folks are not “stuffing the ballot box”

  313. Paul

    I haven’t been paying much attention to the “try the new page” balloons; I probably should have as it appears the change is here and there’s no going back. The new pages seem to work OK but are a huge step backwards. Probably optimized for mobile devices but that’s not what I use when doing genealogy. The look and feel are all wrong on a PC with large monitors. I will no longer be recommending Ancestry to friends.

  314. Dawn

    Today I managed to change back to the old format, couldn’t change the other day and todayI had to refresh the page several times but mine is finally back to the good old layout. Might be worth everyone else having a try at changing back.

  315. Elhura

    The following is a post of today made to the Ancestry blog site linked to my tree. I am posting it here for those who may fail to see the other site. Please continue to let Ancestry know what you think:

    Thanks to Cindy Olive with Ancestry.com for responding promptly to my letter sent to Ancestry CEO Tim Sullivan regarding the serious concerns and lack of usability of the new Ancestry. She stressed that Ancestry is “listening”, that this input is “part of the overall plan” and that the product is “not done yet”. I am encouraged somewhat by this and by her urging that Ancestry users continue to be specific when they voice their concerns so that the issues can be specifically addressed. I was told a sure way for your concerns to be viewed was by scrolling to the bottom of the home page of your tree, clicking on ANCESTRY BLOG and opening the update about the new Ancestry that carries user comments at the bottom.

    I am still discouraged in that Ancestry seems to me to be forging ahead (my words only) with the new product and can give no feedback on whether or not Classic/Old Ancestry will even be kept as a viable option.

    In my letter, after specifying the visual problems, page clutter, distracting purple lines, layered moves for once simple functions, loss of data, including photo detail in the oval cropping, etc. I simply asked that Ancestry Classic/Old be kept as an option. I am still hoping for that, although I am aware others may be viewing my tree in the new format in which data may still be compromised. A “pretty” product is not necessarily a “usable” one.

    I personally believe the problems with the new product are so extensive that they will be unable to bring it up to the ease-of-use level of the Old. It is a totally new product with a few recognizable parts of the old well-hidden in its layers. This is more than just our adapting to change. It is losing a valued tool and being offered a less-than-adequate replacement. Thus the need to keep Classic/Old as a permanent option at least for serious working purposes.

    While I sincerely hope that Classic/Old will be kept permanently as a distinct option for old and new users alike, at the very least I would encourage Ancestry developers to keep the Profile Fact Page from Classic as a fourth working page (to find its place beside the tabs for Life Story, Fact and Gallery) for those of us who know we need it in order to continue our work. Perhaps it could be called “Work Profile” or “Profile Classic”. Of course, we will also need to continue to see our stories and photos as now arranged on the Classic/Old Profile Page. I do not want to switch to Family Tree Maker just because a once wonderful Ancestry.com is gone.

    Thanks again to Cindy Olive for caring to take the time to call and to all the Ancestry ears that I hope are listening. I will continue to try to evaluate the new for as long as I can visually stay on the site or can contain my frustration, and I do feel welcome to provide specific feedback. We should all continue to provide feedback whether specific or general. The specific helps with issues. The general reminds Ancestry a wide user population still has voluminous concerns. If we fail to keep our concerns out there, we can definitely lose all hope of keeping some form of a workable Ancestry that can still be used.

  316. Carmen

    Tommy, and others who want to switch back to the old site: Where you see your profile picture and username at the top of the page there is a drop-down menu, in it you will see “Old Ancestry.” Just click that and you’re back to the old site. 🙂

  317. Steve Bearden

    I’m legally blind and use high contrast mode in my browser in order to see the text. Unfortunately the new website is not compatible with my setup because it renders white backgrounds on many pages. Thes dazzle me to the point that i see spots.

    I called Ancestry today and was switched back to the old site, but was told it would only be temporary.

    Unless I can find a combination of software that allows me to use the new site, I guess my days of researching on Ancestry will be over.

    I can’t even be certain that I’ll be able to adapt to the new layout even if I get that problem solved. Complex graphics and colors are not friendly to the printer or the vision impaired.

    I don’t expect websites to be designed with my vision problems in mind. It’s just frustrating that after eight years of using a website, I have to scramble to find a way to continue to do so.

  318. Alan

    I still haven’t gor any of my media showing under the Gallery tab. It’s all showing under Media Gallery in Old Ancestry. Repeated requests for assistance to Ancestry go ignored. Guess you just lost another paying customer.

  319. Paul

    Hi I have been on the new and I though it would have chance the entire outlook of the old to the new but it not.
    Sorry Ancestry Try again until you get it right.

  320. Phyllis

    Is there a way to get back to the old interface? This new look is very awkward. I can no longer easily see the images right next to the event so don’t know if I am missing a document to support the event. I’ve been an Ancestry subscriber since the 1990’s and this change is the worst I’ve ever seen. I’m actually considering not using it any more for my tree.

  321. Chris

    Location, location, location: the New Website Feature Update: August 14, 2015 states that “if the place name is not fully mapped, it can cause a wrong detail to be displayed. We are working to fix this …. When a place name is ambiguous, we will simply omit it from the narrative.” On my tree, the new site is translating placenames like “Camberwell, London, England” to “London, London” – which is simply wrong. Ancestry’s solution: omit the placename entirely. Surely a better solution would be to retain the placename as entered by the author of the tree. As others have pointed out, sometimes there are good reasons for using placenames that cannot be readily translated to a modern address. For example, I have ancestors born in the 16th Century in towns that are now in France, but were in the County of Flanders (Habsburg/Spanish Netherlands –OUTSIDE FRANCE) – when they were born. I do not want the placenames I have recorded, after careful research, to be translated into 21st Century political geography, and I do not want them to be left out.

  322. Chris

    I clicked on a button inviting me to TRY the new website. Now I learn (from other posts) that it may be difficult or impossible to get back to the old website next time I log on. There should have bee a warning about this (“Try the new ancestry: many of our users hate it but you might like it. WARNING: IF YOU TRY IT, YOU WILL/MAY BE STUCK, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT”)

  323. Alan

    You’re so right Chris. Ancestry’s solution to their rubbish software? Just add incorrect information that complies with their incorrect and incomplete mapping. Who cares about the effort you’ve gone to to find facts. The mind boggles at how badly managed this entire exercise has been.

  324. Alan

    No response from Ancestry’s help lines and the user forums are now clogged by Ancestry shills censoring anything negative. Hopeless!

  325. mary

    Here are 3 examples of the offensive, juvenile, incorrect nonsense being added by Ancestry to MY carefully constructed historical display: My grandmother was born in India to American citizen missionaries. The way Ancestry tells it she “moved from India to the US at a time when immigrants were expected to quickly assimilate into American society,” This insightful gem is accompanied by a helpful photo of “huddled masses.”

    Uncle Henry went to “Bleeding Kansas” in 1855 because he was a Quaker and abolitionist. He rode with John Brown, was charged with treason, and eventually became a major in the Union Army. Ancestry implies, photo and all, that he was a homesteader in a covered wagon. They even added the now infamous HUGE shot of the #^$& grasshoppers!

    “James was one of many Irish living in NYC at a time when the Big Apple was experiencing a boom in Irish immigrants.” I suspect even many 12-year-olds would know that nobody called NYC the Big Apple in 1871. Who writes this crap?

    For Ancestry to respond that I may feel free to delete it is beyond the pale. Ancestry makes a mess and hands US a mop?

  326. Vince

    Ancestry’s focus on “fixing” location references, besides blithely eradicating appropriate historical and/or foreign place names as noted above in this post, ignores the larger and crucial matter that I and others have raised in other blogs. As commenter douggrf (August 14, 2015 at 6:54 pm, https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2015/08/14/the-new-ancestry-august-14th-feature-update/) asked: “What about initiating a member control feature of the tree owner to be able to shutdown all LifeStory operation in a tree that he/she owns.” The Ancestry Team that originated that blog post went to great lengths to explain how to use the Hide Family Events option in New Ancestry for “… those of you who don’t want the additional narrative in your LifeStory (at all) …”. Excuse me, but that somewhat patronizing “tip” ignores the real point that users have been making over and over: We don’t want the “LIFESTORY” to appear in our trees at all unless we choose to have it available.

    I have certainly hidden the redundant “Family Events” and the useless and often misleading “Historical Insights” in my view of my trees. But anyone else who happens to view my trees could turn those options on or off at will. That’s why my trees are currently private and unsearchable. I do not want anyone to be able to view “the inane inaccurate stories”, as douggrf appropriately described the cutesy “LIFESTORY” gambit that Ancestry wants to force onto the profile page of every person in every tree. Each tree owner should be able to set a switch on the Tree Settings page that prevents the “LIFESTORY” tab from appearing at all in trees that he or she owns. Better yet, the system default should be that the “LIFESTORY” tab is never displayed to anyone unless the tree owner chooses to have it displayed in an option on the Tree Settings page. As long as such an option for control by tree owners remains not available, my trees will remain private and unsearchable.

    Note also that “the inane inaccurate stories” are generated automatically in any tree that has adopted the details provided for individuals in someone else’s public tree. So, even if an option for tree owners to turn off “LIFESTORY” entirely in their trees existed, the misleading or outright false data could be displayed in other people’s trees. The mind boggles at the extent of garbage that results from this ill-conceived gambit.

  327. Vince

    Ancestry’s focus on “fixing” location references, besides blithely eradicating appropriate historical and/or foreign place names as noted above in this post, ignores the larger and crucial matter that I and others have raised in other blogs. As commenter douggrf (August 14, 2015 at 6:54 pm on the Announcing the New Ancestry Website blog, asked: “What about initiating a member control feature of the tree owner to be able to shutdown all LifeStory operation in a tree that he/she owns.” The Ancestry Team that originated that blog post went to great lengths to explain how to use the Hide Family Events option in New Ancestry for “… those of you who don’t want the additional narrative in your LifeStory (at all) …”. Excuse me, but that somewhat patronizing “tip” ignores the real point that users have been making over and over: We don’t want the “LIFESTORY” to appear in our trees at all unless we choose to have it available.

    I have certainly hidden the redundant “Family Events” and the useless and often misleading “Historical Insights” in my view of my trees. But anyone else who happens to view my trees could turn those options on or off at will. That’s why my trees are currently private and unsearchable. I do not want anyone to be able to view “the inane inaccurate stories”, as douggrf appropriately described the cutesy “LIFESTORY” gambit that Ancestry wants to force onto the profile page of every person in every tree. Each tree owner should be able to set a switch on the Tree Settings page that prevents the “LIFESTORY” tab from appearing at all in trees that he or she owns. Better yet, the system default should be that the “LIFESTORY” tab is never displayed to anyone unless the tree owner chooses to have it displayed in an option on the Tree Settings page. As long as such an option for control by tree owners remains not available, my trees will remain private and unsearchable.

    Note also that “the inane inaccurate stories” are generated automatically in any tree that has adopted the details provided for individuals in someone else’s public tree. So, even if an option for tree owners to turn off “LIFESTORY” entirely in their trees existed, the misleading or outright false data could be displayed in other people’s trees. The mind boggles at the extent of garbage that results from this ill-conceived gambit.

  328. Vince

    Please excuse the redundant post — I though the first one didn’t go through with the explicit link to another blog. . .

  329. Elhura

    In response to Mary’s concerns about the grossly incorrect inferences in Life Story, and knowing it is impossible for those of us with huge trees to manually delete the misleading information, I would suggest that Ancestry provide the option of blocking the Life Story from view for EVERYONE viewing the tree, IF the tree owner so choses. I would choose that in a heartbeat!

    Those of us with carefully done trees with in-depth data and analysis, and the ability to write our own explanations, DO NOT WANT Life Story. I never expect to look at it, but just knowing it is there with its inaccuracies is troubling for the reputation of my tree and for Ancestry.

    Another issue with Life Story are the locations not followed by USA, etc. If I understand correctly, without the country included, that information will not translate – at least omitting the confusion between Cairo, Egypt and Cairo, Ohio – but losing the valuable location data that was otherwise stored. I, for one, have never consistently included USA in my locations and can’t go back and correct now.

    My hope is the Classic/Old Ancestry will be kept in its current format (photos, stories, et. al) as a working option – perhaps included as a working tab along with Life Story (ugh!) – Fact – Gallery. At least then those who cannot work from the new can continue their research, and those who view the Profile / Fact page in either format will see the original data. I think that by offering that reassurance right away, only then will this clamor stop and Ancestry can get on with fixing what they can with the new.

  330. EBrady

    In the old version of site, suddenly it appears as though some of my tree comments are completely GONE. Even after clicking on the “see previous comments,” it appears some are not there AT ALL in the OLD VERSION of ancestry. IF this is true, then ancestry has edited my trees and pages WITHOUT CAUSE and with ZERO notice beforehand. I am beyond livid.

  331. georgina edwards

    What can i add, i do not like the new site, i find it awkward to use, and it doesn’t appear to be aimed at serious researchers, it like so many things is just dumbed down.

  332. Alan Thompson

    Interesting comments re locaions in Life Story. Here in Australia we were told the default location was the US. It appears from some of the above comments the dfefault is completely random. Just give us the choice to turn Life Story which is simply some programmers interpretation of events and not in any way related to the truth OFF FOR GOOD

  333. Leah

    We all deserve a monthly rebate for this new version idiocy you’re putting us thru – until everything is usable and all our data is accessible again!!

  334. Lyn

    The video on the new ancestry opens with the words: “Your Family Story. Reinvented. ” It sure has been.

  335. Mary

    I am finding this new viewer to be not very efficient, hard to navigate, difficult to understand, and not linear. It is making what was an enjoyable pastime, annoying.

  336. Dave D

    ATROCIOUS! A mess of icons and data everywhere, cluttered pages, fussy, you name it, this “new improved” version is a retrograde step. Trying it out just made me feel miserable and frustrated. I was absolutely LOST. I realise it’s easy to criticise without giving “change” a fair chance, but blimey, this new format really is THE PITS. I’ve immediately switched back to the “Old Ancestry”, and it’s like HEAVEN. This “new improved” feature is anything but, and, as I’ve commented directly to Ancestry, has probably been constructed by development team members trying to be just a little bit TOO clever. If they force this new version upon us, then I’m definitely off outa here!

  337. Jane

    I never thought it likely that I would lose interest in what has been an all-absorbing passion – however, the new version of ancestry with it’s over coloured, over sized, edited without my approval, altered beyond recognition load of flim flam is doing just that. How to kill off a serious researcher, or send them elsewhere, in one fell swoop! Disappointing Ancestry.

  338. Steve Bearden

    My initial problem with the new website was with the graphics and how my setup was rendering white backgrounds. I was hopeful that this problem could be addressed, and maybe it will be.

    However, after reading about the loss of features, my concern is that the new product may simply fail to meet my needs, even if I’m able to find a way to use it. I need a platform that will allow me to enter a place of birth that does not appear on their “drop down menu”.

    My mother was born in a community called Abner in Pike County, Arkansas. It ceased to exist in the 1940s when it was submerged 120 feet beneath the waters of Lake Greeson, which was created by the building of the Narrows Dam.

    I am one of the few sources, if not the only one, for her correct birth information since I’m the last living member of my immediate family. This a bit of family history that shouldn’t be discarded because it doesn’t fit the database of current place names.

    The worst part now is that I don’t know whether to continue my work until I know how this is going to be resolved. Until we know that, how are we to decide what to do?

    How long must we remain in limbo?

  339. Virginia

    I am so totally frustrated with this new format! I have been using Ancestry for over 10 years and NEVER have I had as many problems and frustrations as I have now. I’m so upset. Please, please bring back the old format.

  340. Herman

    Wish you had left things well enough alone – don’t care for new format at all. Very hard to maneuver – takes more time to add / delete information – LEAVE a good thing ALONE – stop trying to justify your job! !

  341. Herman

    One more thing – you must NOT want subscribers to reach you – NO WAY to contact Ancestry.com when have a question (to the best of my knowledge) ! !

  342. Lou Schmitt

    Please, please bring back the old format. I hate the new one. I want the old one back or I will cancel my account.

  343. Lou Schmitt

    You can switch back to the old. I called support and was told how to do it. I asked if it would stay in the old format and she said she was not sure. To switch back to the old format: Click on your name in the upper right hand corner and a screen will open, click on Old Ancestry and go from there.

  344. Pat

    Thank goodness, I found a way to go back to the old Ancestry. In the drop down menu (click the small arrow by your name or photo) then choose “Old Ancestry”. What a relief.

  345. Annelace

    I am very disappointed. It is user unfriendly. The profile page used to contain much more info without scrolling all over. I have to dig to find what was readily available. I definitely would love to go back to the old format. I cannot express how disappointed I am in this “new” version.

  346. WickedWitch

    I would advise people to save their breath for cooling their porridge. You have about as much chance of ACOM binning this new version as you have of Kim Kardashian disappearing from sight. ACOM is too big to need to take any notice of anything other than their own opinions and decisions. Look what happened years ago when Old Search was replaced by New Search. Did the complaining get anywhere then? No. Will it this time? No. Since the complaints are about the Family Trees, I would suggest buying a basic FT programme and keeping it on your own computer/device. Download your tree from ACOM, and keep it yourself. Source your information and download whatever documentation you can. By doing the “click and link” to source documentation on ACOM, you are forever tied to the company. It looks easy to do your tree like that, but you pay in the long run by having to continue expensive subs to be able to view your documents. If you want to upload it to ACOM (or any other site) you can, but by having a tree on your own computer, YOU are in control of it.

  347. Alan

    The home page opens with the words: “Your Family Story. Reinvented. ” It sure has been – Here was me thinking we lived in Australia and now I find I’ve been living in the US all along!

  348. Cynthia Coleman

    I have repeatedly told Ancestry.com, in both surveys and in switching back to Old Ancestry, that if not given a choice to remain with Old/Classic Ancestry I will stop my subscription.

    I am a professional historian with 20+ years of genealogical experience. I am confounded with the new Ancestry interface.

    My tree currently has 2695 people and I am nowhere near completion.

    I work with hard data and primary resources and will switch to a site that allows me to build a simple family tree that can be clearly seen and also add photos and documents with ease.

    If I can’t find such a site (though there are those out there) I will create my own.

  349. dhstclair

    The new format is absolutely HORRIBLE! You have not only take the option to write comments, the comments that were previously written on a profile are no longer available to view. You cannot write stories. I put many of my notes in the Stories so that others with whom I share my tree can view them. I have almost 29,000 people in my tree. In the Classic view I can see that I have a note on the profile page. On the new and “improved” format, I have to click on tools in order to see whether or not I have left a note. You have combined pictures, stories and records in the Gallery, which is a mess, when one has numerous photos and information on an ancestor’s profile. The new format is cumbersome, unnecessarily difficult to navigate, and requires much more looking, scrolling, and clicking to get through. The new format has WAY too much wasted space. Just because you make everything larger, does not mean that it is easier to navigate, or more practical. In fact it makes it more difficult, and practicality seems to have been thrown out the door with all of your “improvements.” I know that I am wasting my time and breath with these complaints because I am sure that you will eventually not allow the classic view to be an option. I just wish you had not wasted your time and energy, and my money, to wreck a format that was simple, organized, and easy to use. Apparently, your IT department has not used Ancestry.com to do any research for themselves for any length of time, or they wouldn’t have made such a complete mess out of things.

  350. wayne stumpf

    The new website is not what serious tree builders need and want. The old ancestry is a workhorse that did the job and was easy to use. The new ancestry is incomprehensible. Please start over. We are paying good money to be on this site. Yes we get access to a lot of good research sites, but if we can’t put it into a tree format that is simple, easy to navigate and find what you need, it is not worth our $$.

  351. Alan

    This weeks update is the same as last weeks. Why not just be honest and state “We’re not listening, we don’t care, take it or leave it”

  352. The search for a BioGeographical Tool that uses Biological information, like DNA, to predict one’s Geographical origin has occupied scientists for decades. Modern biogeographical algorithms employing DNA achieve an accuracy of 700 km in Europe but are highly inaccurate elsewhere. We developed an admixture-based Geographic Population Structure (GPS) tool that accurately infers the biogeography of worldwide individuals, in some cases, down to their village of origin. The remarkable accuracy and power of GPS underscore its premise for genetic genealogy. Click Here to know more details

  353. Elhura

    We CANNOT STOP! Classic will be gone by fall, if not before. I, too think a great external pressure is needed. But some more internal messages may help too.

    If it can be believed, the Ancestry telephone representatives are supposedly passing along each request to KEEP CLASSIC, and the numbers supposedly mean something. If true, we should make our request LOUD AND CLEAR in a brief call to Ancestry at 1-800-262-3787. You may have to wait a few minutes to reach a representative, but the call itself can be brief and the message plain – KEEP CLASSIC. Keep it brief and courteous (even though I’m so mad I could spit nails). Tell everyone you know who may not be seeing the blog sites. OUR NUMBERS ARE NEEDED NOW! Don’t be tempted to delay. I’ve made my call today – have you?

  354. Dave D

    @Elhura – thanks for your suggestion. I also called Ancestry today, but the representative I spoke to (a very polite and pleasant fellow) eventually advised me that the only real way of making our feelings known is to do so via Ancestry’s feedback procedure online (which I’d already done anyway). I’d encourage everybody to do this, because, as you correctly point out, Elhura, the more of us who make our feelings known, the more chance there is of Ancestry at least keeping their “Classic View” available to those of us who so detest the new format. I should point out that I live in the UK. Phoning in other parts of the world may achieve different results from mine today. The point is, everyone, never say die, and don’t give up!

  355. Pa

    To quote Robin from the 22 Aug Update,

    “I encourage you to share your story with the Provo Daily Herald, Monika. It has touched those of us who have read it – and I am sure would touch others who might read it if the newspaper would share it. And that kind of attention might be what it takes to make Ancestry (finally) pay attention to who its customers are and what we want.”

    I suggest everyone send an email to:

    Publisher Bob Williams
    Provo Daily Herald
    PO Box 717
    Provo, UT 84603-0717

    Good Luck!

  356. jekeith

    I cannot see that your new format is an improvement. I can probably learn how to use it, but the contrast is terrible. Too much brown. Have you ever heard he term “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.” You could have offered more vivid color, thus improving the graphics, but you have done the opposite. The darker background has to go, or at least make it optional.

Comments are closed.