Posted by Ancestry Team on June 5, 2015 in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Website

We’d like to thank all of you who have tried the New Ancestry website so far. We are hearing from many of you who are enjoying the enhanced storytelling features, streamlined Facts view, Historical Insights, and other elements of the new site.

We also sincerely thank you for all your feedback. As we transition from the classic site to the new Ancestry over the next couple of months, we are still working on a few final missing features, as well as making continued improvements to new features based on your feedback.

Below is an updated list of the features we are currently working on. For the latest list of features, you can always visit the Member Support Community here as we will be keeping that post updated in real-time.

Scheduled to be available in the next couple of weeks:

  • Web Links: quick links to web pages (completed June 19th)
  • Media Gallery features:
    • Save: Save photos to your family trees from the new media viewer (completed July 14th)
    • Edit:  change the description and details on a photo or story (completed July 14th)
    • Create/upload story: create and upload a new story in the media Gallery (completed July 14th)
    • Audio/video file support: view and listen to audio and video files (completed July 14th)

Planned to be available in about a month:

  • Profile picture cropping: edit/crop a profile photo to fit in the circular photo space
  • Quick Edit: edit vital information directly from the tree viewer (completed July 7th) 
  • Media Gallery sorting/filtering: sort and filter by media type, chronological order
  • FamilySearch integration: LDS Account holders can share information between their Ancestry tree and their Family Tree on FamilySearch

Exact Functionality/Timing still TBD:

  • Member Connect features:  Find other members researching a similar ancestor and save info from their family trees

Lower-priority features/not currently being addressed: These features have very low usage. We will evaluate these once we have taken care of the more important needs and features represented above.

  • Family Group Sheet: a family view of the tree data
  • Military Pages: tribute pages for ancestors who served in the military

Thank you for your patience during this transition period and for your feedback – please keep it coming! We are excited to be putting the finishing touches on the new Ancestry so that the site will be better for everyone.

490 Comments

  1. Debbie

    That new media viewer does not open up images to their full size. When I upload a document, I expect it to be readable. However, if a person opens it in a new tab, they bypass the media viewer and it is readable there. You need to fix that.

  2. DannieB

    Those of us who took to the time to create the Military Pages would not agree that they are not important.

  3. JANET KRUGER

    PLEASE GO BACK AND KEEP THE CLASSIC. THE NEW ONE IS SO DARNED CONFUSING. YOU DONT EVEN SHOW ALL FACTS IN THE TIME LINES. EX. MY GRANDPARENTS IMMIGRATION IT DOESNT SHOW IT ON THE TIME LINE. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE INFORMATION

  4. douggrf

    You should be including getting comments collected in an overview as was done prior to May 27, 2015 in the Classic. This was one of the very best features of your entire ancestry data system. Please put it back.

  5. Kathy

    Regarding the Media Gallery update ready in about a month: “Media Gallery sorting/filtering: sort and filter by media type, chronological order”–how is this any different from what is in New Ancestry now? The current tabs do filter Photos, Stories, Video, etc, and the media is listed in chronological order (most recent first).

    MY ISSUE IS THIS: We have lost the ability to be able to attach photos to multiple persons from an individual’s gallery (as we could in Old Ancestry). I know that I can go to the Media Gallery, find the photo, and attach to multiple people from there. However, therein lies the problem: I must first *find* the photo in the Media Gallery and then “Attach to another person.” I have over 2,000 photos. Trying to find the one I need means I have to click through 98 pages of photos! If I initially added the photo awhile ago, it might be on page 46–or page 97–and that will take a looong time to find it! If there is another way to do it, please tell me–or tell me that you recognize the issue and are planning to address it.

    Customers have been clamoring for a searchable Media Gallery for years.

  6. Something has to be done about the readability problems with the new designs. The fonts are often too small and even worse too low contrast (often a color issue – the blue needs to be darker) or too lightweight.

  7. Anne Scott Frankland

    I use the FAMILY GROUP SHEET every day! As you know — or maybe you don’t — it shows all the children, parents and grandparents birth, death, places and hints for most of them in one place.

    I’ll bet the FAMILY GROUP SHEET is used much more than you think. Low usage as your excuse for not including it on new ancestry is pathetic. You have no idea how many people use this feature every day.

    Changing the look is one thing, but not including ALL the tools and features we have and use in Classic is quite another.

  8. douggrf

    Getting thru the media gallery in either the individual profile view or the overall tree view is a task – there needs to be more tools to do this – attaching the specific media to more than one person should be just as easy as it is in classic view.
    I interpret the sorting by chronology feature to mean that just as now done in lifestory view – the media is sorted by the chronology of the event date. This would make the lifestory feature and the media gallery have the same semblance of an order.
    However as previous post mentioned the current order by default is chronology of media upload date and indeed maybe there needs to be a variable sort flag – say alphabetical title, media upload date, and event date.

  9. Amanda Cochran

    i like the look of the new ancestry so far, any word though on when member connect feature will be available? also, is there, or will there be in the future, a way to map our tree? it would be pretty cool to integrate tree with world map and get a broad picture of where everybody came from

  10. Janice

    I LOVE what you’ve done. There are complaints out there but I’m wondering what browsers folks are using and if that may be the issue. Using Google Chrome, I have no trouble whatsoever. It seems like I can do everything as before except add a story directly at a person’s profile page – but I noticed I can do that at the “tree overview” page. It would be good if you re-link “member connect” which is a useful feature. I do use the “family view” and that may be one thing I may miss – but not sure it is critical with the new story display. If I could ask one thing it would be to have a “print” and a “share” function/option for that story page. Would love to be able to print up a story or email to family. Thanks Ancestry!

  11. Marilyn

    After many years, I may have to leave Ancestry.com if I lose the ability to continue with the classic site. The new site adds facts and information not applicable to my tree. I lose too much control of what I’ve spent years building.

  12. Natalie

    New doesn’t mean improved. I hate the new site. When I go to view in tree I can’t even see half the tree. And I agree with DannieB, if I created a military page it was important to me, as that persons service was important to them but it’s not on your priority list. The new system is hard to follow and add what’s needed. Also where is the member connect? I liked to see who was working on the same lines I am. A good way to find family. I understand using a different browser may help some of my issues but I am not fond of Google chrome all the time.

  13. Denise

    I use ancestry to obtain records only and don’t use the family tree section yet – I do like the new changes that I see but, it takes along time to look in the trees for them to come up on my computer. But, I would like to know if the classic goes away will I be able to just look up records in the new ancestry site?. Can someone please answer my question – I would appreciate it. Thanks

  14. douggrf

    I think there is going to be a difference in the long -run between efforts at serious researching of facts (which the CLASSIC view was very capable) and the result of this change which is going to have some members spend less time on fact-finding and more on making the lifestory look good.
    Here is an example of the tweaking that is becoming necessary from the two vantage points. If you have attached the same photo to appear for more than one person in the tree and assigned it a date – the result may make it out of place for one person or the other in the lifestory timeline view. You can tweak this problem by uploading multiple copies of the same picture – but that is then forcing work to just make it look good, taking time away from solid research endeavors.

  15. Denise Rancour

    I just noticed today that something you might want to add perhaps on the Home tab page. I just put in much work on my newest tree and would like to be able to leave a comment on it. Also, a box to reply to my comment. So far the new ancestry seems ok. I didn’t even know it was changing.

  16. Tina

    It didn’t take long to get used to the new version. I could not find a way to get back to the Hints page, other than clicking on the shaky leaf at the top right of the screen. Similarly, the drop down Menu “Tree Pages” seems to have disappeared. I only use the Facts tab – I really miss the lack of ‘age of a person at the time of each event’, which is shown on the Classic but not the new. Please could you put this back?

  17. Steve

    I suppose I will adapt to the much more busy look of the new version, but I do not like the fact that only a tiny portion of the page shows up on my screen and that I have to scroll down through a lot of extraneous information to see what I want to see. Uploading photos to multiple persons seems to be an issue you are already dealing with.

  18. Diane

    This new format is not easy to navigate & hard to follow. Taking the military page away is disrespectful to those who served. Classic was a much better layout. May not renew membership after all these years due to cumbersome new site.

  19. Kevin

    The low contrast fonts are really frustrating. Hard to read. Also the useless gray background on the family tree page makes it very hard to see the connecting blue and pink lines. Please get some help from a professional disability-friendly website designer.

  20. I am very upset with your upgrade. Since it occured, the information on my ancestors has been trashed. It’s going to take days to correct it. Thank you very much!

  21. Brenda

    I have been using the beta site for several months and like it so far. I missed the notes section but see it is now there. Really want and need the family group page and the military page. The military page is very, very important to me. I know you are still working on the new site and the missing features will return but make those low priorities higher. Overall I like the new format and will continue with my membership.

  22. Shannon

    The new website is impossible to work with. Please let us know when the classic site will end. I have 4 trees to hard copy and save. I will also need to find site to replace Ancestry.

  23. Bev

    Right now I am just overwhelmed with the sheer volume of proofreading and editing due to all the errors that New Ancestry has inserted into my tree. Some of these errors, especially on map view and with duplicate spousal entries, seem impervious to all my attempts to edit them out. At least I found how to hide all the ridiculous Historical Insights on Story view. The New Ancestry is also takes far longer to scroll through, especially since I descend from some very large families with 12 to 18 children being nothing unusual. Printing out an individual ancestor profile takes far more ink and paper. The new color scheme is annoyingly unpleasant. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that I’m finding it very difficult to like the New Ancestry.

  24. Kathy

    I will be navigating through the new website today but I see that there is a charge on top of what I am paying for in order to view videos that could help me further? Come on….really???

  25. Lane Bresticker

    Very disappointed with the new changes. Loading the Gallery takes FOREVER; copying stories from other members trees is impossible; military pages I spent so much time compiling are gone; AND I’m paying for all this monthly!!! You should have worked out the kinks before bringing it to your loyal customers. I might not be so loyal in the near future.

  26. Barbara Wygren

    Do not like the new format at all. It is very difficult to read and would like the option to keep the old format. I hope it does not affect the way FTM appears or my tree will not be joined for long.

  27. toni

    This new change has made it so much easier for me to break the ancestry.com habit. Thinking of all the hours and money I spent making my trees and now they are filled with crap that isn’t true/doesn’t apply to that person and is redundant to what I’ve already entered, why would I stay here? I’ve already deleted 4 trees. New genealogical web sites are coming on line every week. It won’t be hard to find another one.

  28. mrnstar1

    I love what I am seeing!!! 🙂 BUT!!
    Will it work with the new Windows 10 Browser? How about FTM??

  29. John

    Things I like:
    1) Sources show which facts they support
    2) Historical events can be hidden
    3) Sources and facts can be added from main profile page
    4) Lifestory is easily ignored
    5) “Undecided” hint category
    6) One fewer click to view images from profile page
    7) Easy editing of relationship types
    8) Automatic showing relationship to “me”
    9) Note/comment editing without pop-up

    Things I don’t like:
    1) Dates beside dates of facts on profile page
    2) Lines and dots beside facts on profile page
    3) Color scheme
    4) Cropping of thumbnails in Gallery (on profiles)
    5) Lack of thumbnails on profiles
    6) Lack of continuity between pages (such as tool icon on profile page not being anywhere else)
    7) No way to navigate to other tree pages from profile (e.g. “All Hints”, “Media Gallery”, “Tree overview” and whatever the other useless links are)
    8) Extra page for adding sources
    9) Over-sized boxes, especially for “Add [source/person/fact]”
    10) Completely redundant boxes for source, person and fact (little “+Add” at top is enough)
    11) Splitting sources between “ANCESTRY sources” and “[Stupid] other shitty sources from not ANCESTRY” with giant needless spacer between – if anyone actually requested this “feature” and it’s not a blatant marketing ploy, suggest gear icon option to combine them
    12) Full-sized media images (no option for thumbnails) and unnecessary map on Lifestory
    13) No longer shows if there are notes
    14) No longer shows comments on profile page
    15) No “citation provides evidence for XYZ” text
    16) Every source listed separately (e.g. if two 1850 census records, both listed) – suggest a “+ 2 citations” that open/collapse to show each
    17) Notes/comments panel overlaps page footer
    18) Editing relationships is a pop-up

    Only used new version for ~an hour, so more sure to come.

    Things still missing:
    1) Still no management of sources
    2) Still no management of source citations
    3) Still no place management
    4) Still can’t add sources to multiple people
    5) Sources on main page still provide details, actually providing LESS information now (e.g. hover-over citation text or easy way to access other people linked to citation)
    3) Still no way to see notes on profile page
    4) Ancestry source citations still malformed, uninformative, misleading, and outright false claiming Ancestry published every record in database (rather than being “repository”)

  30. Don

    I notice an issue with uploading photos. When uploading photos if you wish to add them to more than one individual you must do so WHEN FIRST UPLOADING THE PHOTO.. There appears to be no option WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THIS UPLOADED PHOTO to add to other individuals as there is in the classic view.

  31. Don

    Love the feature where on the fact page when you click on a specific fact that a line appears connecting the fact to the source citation. The problem is that when the source citation is a scanned and/or uploaded document such as a marriage license or a death certificate (I have many of these) when you click on a specific fact such as marriage or death (where my documents are the source) that the line does NOT appear to connect the fact to the source. Nor does the document even appear on the fact page.

  32. Maria

    I am very disappointed in these changes. It makes it harder to update. It does not always accept changes / additions. PLEASE offer what is your last or “classic” version to work from.

  33. charolyn

    I have been with ancestry MANY years & have spent MUCH time building my tree. I would like to request the old view still be available as I am not finding the new one useable.
    Some specifics: compared to the old-the new view is barely viewable & therefore readable- as you used to be able to see much of the years without scrolling down. Now there is very little viewable with out scrolling & that is WAY too time consuming, plus I really need to see it on one page to be useful. Also I believe it is the new color you are using-black is much easier to physically read-more crisp.
    ***AND I echo comments above regarding the Family Group Sheet!!! This was VERY useful to print out and use to track families -an excellent overview to add facts as they were collected & compiled on one page. If it wasn’t used much, I believe it is because the access was really buried & even after using it many times, I had trouble finding it (may have changed too from how it was years ago when I first found it).
    I notice above you only have 26 Facebook likes-that seems to be a VERY low number!
    Please listen to the comments & don’t stick to what is not working.

  34. charolyn

    PS I see someone above commented on a searchable Media Gallery & I Agree!! Also I would love to be able to order the photos per person Chronologically. Although Now I am hard pressed to even view the photos as they are not on the person’s main page. Having to change pages constantly to see info that USED to all be on the same page is TOO time consuming. It still took plenty of time before & it is not even an option to use a new system that takes MORE time for me.

  35. Sonya

    I just renewed my subscription, & am regretting it! I really don’t like the new site. I think we should have the option to have the classic, if that is what we prefer. This is so confusing, & the question I have is not addressed in the Customer Service questions. What am I supposed to do with a new subscription I can’t use?

  36. justin time

    how is it possible for people to submit wrong information to Ancestry? Our family was horrified to see that you publish info that has not been verified. Our mother is 81 years old and in perfect health, yet Ancestry has published that she is deceased AND gives a date of 9/14/14 as the date of her “death”.We have tried to contact ancestry but no luck. Very disappointed in Ancestry – no info is verified. booo

  37. I have tried the “NEW Ancestry” and do NOT like it. Why force use in the future to have access to only it and not the “old” format? Quit fixing things that are not broken or do not need “fixing”.

  38. Janice M

    Please add back the ability to attach photos to your facts! Unless we can continue to use the old site, I will probably cancel my subscription.

  39. gina dennison

    I hate absolutely everything about the actual utility of the new site. The “lifestory” might be nice for sharing with others viewing the tree, but every single thing about trying to edit a profile is an absolute chore now. I, too, will cancel soon if things don’t improve.

  40. gina dennison

    I see maybe 2 out of 40 people who have commented on this post who actually like the new site. Clue maybe?

  41. Patricia

    Mourning the loss of the Family Sheet. Please bring it back. Are the place names going to be corrected? For every census I added without changing YOUR original transcription of St Louis (Independent City), # of Ward, and State, they are now in the “Life Story” as St Louis COUNTY, where clearly this is the City! 85% of my people lived in the City, from the 1850s to the 1920s. This change is not only grossly incorrect, but for the clickophiles, easily replicated, and will create a thunderous snowball effect. I’ve yet to go through most of my tree, but ran into the addition of Saint-Louis, Senegal added to a G-Aunt as her birthplace, yet she was born in the City of St Louis, Missouri. This is correct in the Classic view, and on the Facts page in the new version. Fancy that. The Life Story is certainly reinventing one’s life true story! The hidden notes and comments must be advertised in plain view, as before. Lastly, today I discovered a BIG glitch in the Pedigree view. It is not showing me the Pedigree of the profile I am on, but rather one, two or three people ago, or throwing me back to the Home Person!! I never had any problem getting into either Family or Pedigree on the ‘Classic”. As far as cosmetic changes, they make no difference to me, since I will adjust, but to lose functionality of what is important, is simply unacceptable. Deeply disappointed. Surely, there is a light at the end of this tunnel?

  42. kristen

    Let me make it very clear.

    1) I do NOT like the new version and actually when I upgraded and got the Beta version, I promptly called to cancel my subscription, but was thankfully told I could go back to classic. Classic needs to be a PERMANENT option.

    2) Please to NOT take away the search functions in the DNA match results. If you do, then Ancestry DNA becomes worthless to me and you will get no further business from me with DNA either.

    So right now, your “improvements” are going to cause you to lose members.

  43. Pat

    the new Ancestry looks pretty but has lost a lot of the functionality of the old Ancestry… was having problems this morning using the new ancestry media files.. and getting hung in edit mode.. and now I have lost my sync with FTM.. I really think you guys should have done a little more homework before attempting to role out something so different…

  44. Nancy L. Wright

    The only thing I like about the New Ancestry is the ease of the ability to switch between records and categories. I want to go back to the Classic view. I need the ability to look at the family as a whole – parents, siblings, spouse[s] and children. You have eliminated that. I want it back!

  45. Julie Parks

    I’ve been a world subscriber for 15 years, but this will be my last year if you do away with Classic. 99.9% of the time I use the Family Group Sheet — not having that function guarantees my leaving.

  46. June Byrne

    I am primarily doing DNA research. Not being able to search for surnames in my matches is the final straw. I just canceled my membership. I was already very unhappy because you give no information as to the size of match or the Chromosome Browser.

  47. Julie Wiser

    I can’t seem to find my relationship to someone when biting a family tree to which I’m a guest, editor, etc. while the new layout is attractive and contemporary in style, itt involves more steps to see the whole picture of someone. Also, it wasn’t a simple nor quick matter to learn all the tricks and techniques on the original version and I don’t relish the idea of having to learn a new one. Like most people, I want to spend more time DISCOVERING and LEARNING about my family, and less time having to figure out how to use and navigate ancestry.com.

  48. cheri

    I have been using the new site for a few days. My first impression was negative but with time it has grown on me. I am missing the “continue searching” feature most. I seem to be having issue with “save” and a pc and an android device. Clicking “save” doesn’t respond… If I refresh it does seem to be saving but if I don’t the old data stays on the page. Clicking edit shows the new data. So far these are my main issues.

  49. Slater

    Am quite dissatisfied with this new look. It is confusing and illogical. Please bring back the classic look or allow us to determine which we like.
    As an older person, the sharpness of the text is important. The lighter text is hard on the eyes. Allow us to determine the sharpness of the text or got back to black. Why are you changing this anyway? A storyline could have been done with out all the change by just using then events in the person page.
    I would suggest that you spend your money on finding and including more documents. There are tons of documents sitting in Kew, for example, that would be nice to have added to this site. Or perhaps you could scour Quebec for early records. Honestly, the documents are more essential then a pretty story page, which is not very pretty after all. I want the old page back.

  50. Linda Tuten

    I am really liking your new ancestry.com website. It is really great. It is so much better for me then it was before.

  51. Alan Whitman

    I joined Ancestry in order to use the DNA features. I was very pleased with the results, but now I understand that you have eliminated the DNA feature of greatest importance: being able to search matches for ancestors in common. Also, a chromosome browser is the only feature that I’ve found missing from the classic version. Please concentrate on upgrading the DNA search features, not reducing the functionality of existing ones.

  52. Betty

    Well, I am not happy with the new format! Not much good to say about it. I would like the option of going back to the classic format. I had my tree exactly the way I wanted it and now it is completely changed. What happened to the age of a person next to a fact? I’m already tired of pulling out my calculator to check ages! The whole thing is very difficult to use!

  53. Anne Gometz

    Unless you do something about the font and contrast problems, the rest of this is moot. I will have a huge headache every time I try to use the site. You might take a look at the average age of your designers and programmers. Are they all young with good eyesight? A suggestion: many websites offer a choice of fonts and sizes for users. Can that be done with the family trees? I find the heavy font now used there to be very readable.

  54. Laurel

    Dear Ancestry, please do not continue with this waste of your time, resources, and user loyalty. I would like for the Classic View to return. I feel as though this is a slap in the face to all of us who have paid so much money and put in so many hours to have a system of family history preservation that works for us. If you want a way to market to new users, figure out something else, please. I believe this is an example of a “New Coke,” marketing snafu. Thanks for your attention, Laurel Wheeling Farrar

  55. Paula

    I will start by saying I like that it is easier to add some records with one click – but have also found it doesn’t always quite work because some records appear not to add until I leave that person and then return. I also am unhappy that this process has been extended by adding more screens to click thru. Additionally, I really miss the utility of automatic repopulation of a space with info I have added before. I find the look of the new page way too cluttered and would reaaaally appreciate someone telling me how to get rid of those annoying and space-consuming story lines. They are not helpful. My sense is that you are trying to duplicate the mobile format – to that I can only say no thanks. I rarely use that format because I find it cumbersome to use. Please give us the option of keeping the classic style.

  56. Gail

    I don’t like this new format! Besides that, the ancestry search is very slow.
    Pictures have tops of heads and complete heads cut off. Other pictures are missing altogether. Why go to the round format now that so many pictures have been entered in a rectangular form? That shows no consideration to the effort so many members have made to provide pictures on your website. Go back to the classic style.

  57. Barb

    I would like the option of deleting all life story narratives, and hiding the story view and historical view for everyone in my tree with one setting. As it is, I have to open each person, delete the made up story, replace it with the word none or some other place holder, then save it. Then I have to click on hide history and hide story view. This would be a waste of time to do on each person.

  58. I use the Stories feature to record family anecdotes and memories. It is a great tool to personalize the profile. Please find a way to add paragraph breaks. For now I’m adding *** to denote a paragraph break.

    The profile photos in a circular frame look nice but there needs to be an extremely simple editing tool available. Please do not complicate that.

    The new site is very dumbed down but it can be managed. I hope you keep improving it. I still think I will stay here. Despite what others say, Ancestry has the market on accessibility to records.

    What you need to do now is make a better search engine.

  59. I have received a cancellation notice from Ancestry even though all I did was send feedback on the new site. I am not happy about some of the features but never said I wanted to cancel. This is a very bad response from your Customer service.

  60. Janis

    Wow. I paused for a moment, debating whether or not to renew for 6 months or just monthly. I had been a World member for six months, may have even renewed for another six, but then finances and other matters made me choose to allow my subscription to expire quite awhile ago. But now I’m active again, for a whole two hours, and I’ve already ended up here, in these comments. As I read through an alarming number of quite disgruntled, much more experienced users than I, I find myself glad that I chose the monthly US-only renewal. And I wish to add my voice of disappointment. Because it has been so long since I was an active user, I cannot recall in detail what my old experience was like, to make specific complaints as others have. However, I have no recollection whatsoever of being confused, lost, befuddled, irritated, etc. using ancestry.com. In fact, I was really happy with my experience, in all aspects, and told others about my “addiction,” spending so many satisfying hours building my tree. Although I cannot truthfully define specific complaints from my own experience on this new site, I would like to recommend that you pay close attention to these other members’ comments: It sounds to me as though your New Ancestry was released for Beta testing long before anyone should have been allowed to see it, and that now you are faced with cleaning up a mess which should never have been there in the first place. And the comments about mobile formatting design lurking behind this New Ancestry, the programming eyes being substantially younger than those of most members, the convoluted navigation, automated storyline generation causing issues, the loss of military and family group, etc. may have particular merit. Although I am grumpy at the moment, I will do my best over the next month to adjust to / learn the New version. But meanwhile, I add my voice to the many others and beg that access to the Old Ancestry remain open indefinitely OR until the New version generates more enthusiastic, 5-star quality user feedback. Thank you for doing this, please.

  61. Linda

    I like the new site and anything new always needs tweeting.
    All I ask is that buttons be able to show what they are (placing the cursor over the button) to tell you what it’s use is.
    Most important, have a button to be able to save a picture or document from another persons tree and that is a match to my own tree.

  62. Steven

    I have more than a few ancestors who were in the military but I must admit that I never created military pages for them. And as with all new things that Ancestry rolls out they do it proudly and want people to participate in the latest and greatest offering from the Ancestry think-tank. And so it was with the military pages. Come one, come all and honor your military family members.

    Some did but it sounds like it didn’t get the response you were looking for. So now Ancestry says, “Meh, never mind. Sorry we wasted your time.”

    But I have to ask what for me is an obvious question, if the military pages are underused (in your opinion) what harm is there in leaving them as they are? Will you save that much server space (or whatever) by removing them? Because if that is your intention then the time of Ancestry’s staff can be better spent by removing all the trash trees.

    People such as myself have been coming here for years, submitting hundreds and thousands of corrections to your records. We have added photos of loved ones and their headstones. We have, in many, many cases taken the time to crop those photos and now you want us to do it all over again. We have spent countless hours searching through your wholey inadequate search engine results for our families. We ask for simple things and you always leave us wanting. Life Story? You insult our intelligence at every turn.

    Your motto should be, “Sorry we wasted your time.”

  63. Photo Gallery Problem. I select the photo in the circular frame on the profile page. It opens in edit mode. I want to deselect it as the primary photo. Nothing happens when I click the checkbox. I’ve had to remove the photo because I do not want a death certificate as the primary photo! This should be fixed.

    also, you need to remember that some rectangular or square shaped photos will not crop well to fit the entire circular space. As a result I have deselected primary photos on almost all my profiles. Now there is a blank cameo silhouette in the circular frame. Whoever devised this is forcing everyone to spend time they do not have to conform to this. Some photos work out but even then they are too small. Too much trouble for a minor detail. I work for a software developer and we would NEVER release something so bug ridden to paying customers or anyone else for that matter. Shame on your arrogant development team.

  64. Jzach

    I do not like the new story telling format at all…I do not need it…is there a way to go back to the other format…so unnecessary to add all that drivel…and it gets repeated and repeated when researching…I do not need this fill in…it should be optional…this is extremely disappointing…what can be done???

  65. Jade

    Restore full place-names in the story narrative (poor truncation holdover from recent ‘story’ view): county names, provinces of Canada, etc. Do the same in the new narratives added to the facts list: cemetery names, County names, etc. just exactly as entered by the user/tree owner.

    You have made so much of this genealogically wrong and confusing.

  66. jade

    “Profile picture cropping: edit/crop a profile photo to fit in the circular photo space.”

    The circle is too small. Keep thumbnails of designated ~portrait~ as it is now. Your new viewer is going to be inadequate and frustrating.

  67. Amy

    I will add my voice to those saying please preserve the option for the Classic View. I see no benefits from the change, only problems. I hate the life story feature—stupid and unnecessary. I am worried about the missing Weblinks, the problems with syncing to FTM, the missing ages on the timeline, and the duplicate entries. Also, all those blank boxes are distracting and create clutter. I really hate this change. Do not take away our Classic View!

  68. margie

    ANCESTRY!!!!! HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS ‘NEW SITE’ WHEN 95 % OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE POSTED ON YOUR BLOGS HATE IT!!!!

    FOR PHOTOS!!!!! I DO NOT WANT A CIRCLE AROUND MY PHOTOS. I WANT THEM AS THEY ARE ORIGINALLY PUT IN ORIGINAL CONDITION. CIRCLES DO NOTHING BUT CUT OFF AND DEGRADE THE IMAGES!!!!!!

    I ALSO HAVE INPUT MANY OBITUARIES IN THE .JPG FORMAT, DUH, CAN’T SEE HALF OF THE INFORMATION NOW.

    OPEN YOUR EARS AND LISTEN TO WHAT THE MAJORITY OF YOUR SUBSCRIBERS ARE LOOKING FOR PLEASE!!!!

    IF YOU MADE ALL OF THESE CHANGES OPTIONAL, I’M SURE THAT 95% WOULD OPT OUT OF THEM.

    REMINDER, RESEARCHES LIKE CLEAN, SIMPLE AND EASY TO READ. NOT A LOT OF FLUFF AND COLOR.

  69. jade

    Bring back single “edit” button for editing vitals of person from ~any~ page, with tabs for editing types of events, like present layout. The new setup is much too clicky, since one source or aggregate of sources may present necessity to change several items at one time.

  70. jade

    I do not want to have to use the tree view to edit vitals. I hate the tree view (box chart) which does not show enough data anyway. Bring back the “edit” button and present tab grouping setup (with events such as census and military and custom ones) all on one page so I don’t have to click each box I wish to edit.

    End this incessant clickyness requirement.

  71. jade

    Put back thumbnails of uploaded documents to be exactly with the pertinent event, such as a marriage record with marriage event. Your central column is not informative, and adding stupid purple lines from citations is not at all helpful for this.

  72. jade

    Put back thumbnails of uploaded documents with the pertinent events on the “facts” page so I can tell what I have uploaded and what I haven’t without having to go to the “gallery” page that is so disconnected from the “facts” timeline.

    You have made this whole setup so much harder to use.

  73. MaryK

    Looking for links to what’s on my profile pages takes much more time in the new format. I have 11 sources for my grandfather’s death. In the old format I click the “Sources” link in the “Birth” box on the timeline and those 11 sources come up all at the same time in one compact box. In the new Ancestry I have to follow the purple lines to 11 separate “Sources” boxes in the center of the page. It takes a lot of scrolling just to follow the lines and a lot of time. Not an improvement, especially for large heavily-documented trees.

  74. Shannon

    I have been a ancestry customer for over 8 years I do not like the web site it is a mess. Please keep the classic site as an option. I will not be renewing my subscription.

  75. There is a problem with the way the vital records display. These are records I have scanned and uploaded. I always scan the front and back of death certificates. I also scan longer documents as part 1, part 2, etc. These have been saved as JPEGS. What is happening is that your system is picking up page 2 or page 5 of a series of documents uploaded and making that the primary image for the document. I want to be able to go in and select which file will display on the profile page. Meaning, page 1 of the death certificate or marriage certificate which is the front. Right now I have no way to do that.

    Another problem is that the thumbnails are ugly. Most of the photos are cut off in them, too.

    All you have done is made me want to delete more and more things and maybe put them up as PDF. This is the only format your changes haven’t messed up. But I don’t have time to do this for the many documents scanned as JPEG and already attached.

    None of you at Ancestry is considering the emotional capital invested in this work we do. We pay you for access to taxpayer supported government archives so we can access vital records, and then we pay for those copies to add to our profiles and all the time contributing to correcting errors in your database. Then you go and make these changes in the appearance of the website and yet have NOT done anything to improve the search engine results.

  76. Laurice Johnson

    First, I will admit I haven’t read through all of the comments, so maybe this is answered already. BUT, what happened to all of the stories and comments attached to my tree???? I cannot find them or any way to access them in the new ancestry and they are an integral part of the tree. Help.

  77. Laura Gilmore

    Where are the notes for an individual? No wonder I can’t find them, they aren’t there?

  78. eugenia cooper

    I am bewildered and confused! I have spent years compiling my family trees. Now when I want to see the focus person and his offspring I cannot. I can locate the focus person but cannot print his offspring along with the clever story about his life you have compiled for me. Nice, but your story omits the search that I have compiled to include his spouse or spouses and his children. Please help me connect to the searches I have compiled for the last 5 or so years.

  79. Anne

    I like the new timeline and am willing to give the update a chance but I am really unhappy about the loss of the weblinks. That was a very nice feature and I can’t imagine why it would be removed.

  80. Ellen Elliott

    Horrid! What were you thinking? did you even beta test this or do focus groups for people who have more than 10 people in their tree?! Font size is so huge it takes way too long to scroll down. And then all that low-interest information put up front (map?!) All that extraneous verbiage clogging up space. Why? This isn’t the Great American Novel. Its a database for facts. The ‘front page’ should be a quick, concise recap to see if there is information of interest. Hide the flowery stuff on secondary ‘pages’. The only reason I’ve stayed with FTM if for the ‘shaking leaves’ and easy access of other researchers’ trees simplified the search. Give us choices to create our own format. I have trouble believing this new layout serves serious genealogists who want to cut to the chase and not plod thru all the fluff.

  81. LaTrenda

    Would like to have a Printer-Friendly option on th Facts tab like we did in the old version.

  82. Arthur

    I HATE it. When I print I only get half of the sheet. I like the way the family was listed before.When I print the family member I don’t have all the information for the child ie. dead date. If you wish to make changes put in more reports like the ones in Family tree.
    Art

  83. Michelle

    I’ve participated in the Beta testing since February. I like where the new site is going. However, it appears that Ancestry has rolled it out before it is “ready for primetime”. Considering the long list of “To-do’s” it would seem a late summer roll out would have been more appropriate. It certainly would have negated many of the concerns expressed in the comments.

  84. Karen

    At first I did not like the new look but the more I have used it the more it is making sense and is easier to use… I still would love to have the ability when accepting sources to have the Description field open so that I can add additional information in one step instead of having to go back to the fact tab and clicking edit… I have also noticed that the edits you make don’t show without a screen refresh… This is another added step but just as sure as i don’t check it won’t have updated and I would lose the information I just found. I love the new undecided decision on the hints screen. Would love to be able to link items saved to shoebox to a particular person under the undecided hints… I sometimes cannot figure out who the saved items in my shoebox were for… Lots of people with similiar names or wildly misspelled by transcribers… Can’t wait for the Member Connect feature to return, I use this alot… I never accept hints from other trees but love to scan the members with the same person for possible missing records or hints on where to look…

  85. Rosemary

    WHY would you even consider cropping historical photos into circles? Not only does that crop out part of a person’s head and body, it crops out the background which is historically important. As both a genealogist and a scrapbooker, I find this to be a poor choice.

  86. Rosemary

    Too many changes, too fast. Serious researchers want to spend their time researching, not trying to figure out where everything is hidden. Please keep classic as an option for the many researchers who prefer it. Please don’t ignore your older researchers. We may not adapt to new formats intuitively, but we want to continue to bring a wealth of experience to our Ancestry trees. You really don’t want us to get frustrated and leave with our trees, because your product will suffer if we do.

  87. Robin

    I am so frustrated. Many many many hours research. Hundreds of dollars. All WASTED if you don’t let me have the choice to stay with the version you have now. If the new one becomes mandatory, my trees will be erased as well as the income I generated for you.

  88. Marilyn

    I absolutely hate the newest Ancestry attempt to change it’s format. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I will soon be in the process of moving my family trees to my own website or to another company and only using Ancestry for research since they seem to buy up all the information and the other research companies. I know it will be double duty but am not willing to go through yet another attempt by Ancestry to change functionality just to make things look pretty. They just needed to add an option to allow us to create a story from what we had entered for a particular person’s record. It is a working database for me and if I wanted a story I would upload my data to create a book. The timeline features are useless for me as I cull information from books and documents to add to a person’s record. If Ancestry does keep the old classic look and functionality I will stay as a customer. If not, I am moving elsewhere.

  89. Ann Thompson

    I miss information about parents and children on the new hint page. It helps eliminate some hints that are obviously wrong.

  90. Ann Thompson

    I miss the profile page. It was great for comparing to other sources. It also reflected very conspicuously errors in dates, spelling, etc. for family members.

  91. Ann Thompson

    I assume that the “maybe” category for hints was aimed at keeping errors out of public member trees. It would be nice though if such info appeared in my view of the person.
    Somehow more colorful seems less professional.

  92. Anne

    I am disturbed that this is being rolled out prematurely. It is obviously undertested and glitchy. Aside from that, there is too much wasted real estate. It is aesthetically nauseating (poor color choices just when I thought it could not get worse). The avatar-view of an ancestor pic is just annoying. I would rather have a spread of thumbnails of all images. Useful family group sheets should be a HIGH priority–they were previously so buried on the site that it was hard to find and even so, customization to one’s needs was impossible. Rather than such unnecessary changes that will ultimately IMPAIR site functionality, Ancestry needs to focus on improved accuracy of data in people’s trees. Make a simple checkbox option to label a fact or relationship as “unproven” or “speculative” and keep it out of the search engine/hint generator. There should also be a simple means for OTHER USERS to flag errors so that they are kept out of search engine/hints until such time as the tree owner can verify the information. (Leaving comments does not work.) If I lose any data at all due to this ridiculous and ugly overhaul, I am out.

  93. Mickie JE

    After a little testing, the page itself seems to work mostly like the old version, so I’m OK there. The trees are harder to read, though, Why are the boxes so dark? And PDFs should never change shape by default – many of them are documents – even some profile pics. Data entry should be as simple (just tab to the next field) as possible. I’d really like to see more data on the DNA matches if something is going to be upgraded – like chromosome detail. I shouldn’t have to upload to another vendor for that. Several others do this now.. Ease of use (including readability), for both newbies and veterans, should be the prime directive for the site, and more and better data should be the only other key focus. I’ve used Ancestry for almost 20 years, and subscribed as I could afford it. I’m now retired, on a fixed income, and my enhanced subscription is my largest monthly expense not related to basic living expenses, The timelines and photo frames are fine as optional tools, but the values I really need are good use of my time (fewer steps), ease of use (intuitive readable consistent screens), reliability (speed, upload/download and data integrity), and successful searches. I’ve been fairly happy with my Ancestry experience to date, but I wouldn’t mind being dazzled by substantive improvements!. I do think that one thing that would help generally is better proactive, ongoing coordination with the most popular platforms and browsers. I am on several FB User groups, where many functional reliability complaints vary from member to member. Windows or Mac versions and browser variances seem to be a large part of the problem. If you are targeting a large group of people, both Ancestry.com and FTM should comprehensively support at least the 3 or 4 most popular tools in each category. That’s my nickel so far!.

  94. Anne Scott Frankland

    Anne, your phrase “aesthetically nauseating” is perfect. I agree, the Family Group Sheet should be a high priority. I use it constantly.

  95. Tien Le

    I can’t find any of the comments I’ve attached to profiles. This was my research log and now it’s gone. I don’t even see ‘restoring comments’ on your list of things to do. This is very concerning.

  96. Carolyn

    I do NOT like anything about the changes. I am extremely frustrated with the information that is being corrupted and inserted in StoryView. Ancestry doesn’t even know what country, or even continent my family is from. I want the ease of the older version. I am curious whether you are analyzing your positive feedback with people with experience researching, or if you have just polled the young generation. Perhaps, they don’t even know what they are missing. The new version is not user friendly. It is slow and cumbersome. Many functions that I have enjoyed using are not even available now. I do not like the change in navigation at all. The previous version was more user friendly. I was excited to see new improvements, but I haven’t found any yet.

    I agree with Anne’s comments above:
    1. too much wasted real estate.
    2. The avatar-view of an ancestor pic is just annoying.
    3. Useful family group sheets should be a HIGH priority
    4. focus on improved accuracy of data in people’s trees.
    5. Make a simple checkbox option to label a fact or relationship as “unproven” or “speculative” and keep it out of the search engine/hint generator.
    6.simple means for OTHER USERS to flag errors so that they are kept out of search engine/hints until such time as the tree owner can verify the information.

  97. Richard Werbin

    I really like the new versions of the family tree.
    The new focus on the sources & related facts is useful. Visually it is terrific.

    There is a learning curve in figuring it out.
    Yes there should be videos on how to use it.

    I suspect most of the criticisms in the comments are coming from people who are not comfortable with change and are not skilled in locating the new features. Also, some of the complaints sound like they need a larger monitor and faster computer to take advantage of the new features.

    Example: there are comments saying that they have problems adding new uploaded photos to multiple people. Somehow they missed seeing the link to “add to another person”.

    I wonder if many of the reported problems are coming from people who have not put sources in for their facts. That is a real problem since most of the unsourced trees I have seen are also full of errors. Some of the other reported problems sound like they have duplicate people in their trees.

    Yes, there is room for improvement.
    For example, the media gallery looks like it is sorted only by the date a photo was added. Please add more sort features. By caption, by file name, etc. You also need a “search media” feature.

    I suspect that the feature set will be expanded over the next few months to fill in the gaps. Keep improving all the time.

  98. Richard Werbin

    I have another important suggestion.

    Add a sort by “number of hints” feature to the “all hints” view.

    Those are the people I want to put at the top of my list to research.

  99. Another problem I have, as a rural user that only has one choice for accessing the internet (satellite) is that the new version is resource-intensive (computer resources, i.e. memory, etc.) and thus slows down our computer considerably, to the point that sometimes pages freeze for a minute or more ‘loading’ or even refuse to finish loading, forcing reloads of pages, etc. It causes a very frustrating experience for those of us not on the faster broadband options. PLEASE KEEP CLASSIC ANCESTRY as an option for those of us who cannot use the new one, or we won’t be able to continue our memberships, which I would seriously miss. 🙁

  100. I – along with many others – have been suggesting in feedback like this for YEARS, that Ancestry allow uploading of EXISTING AUDIO and EXISTING VIDEO to individual profiles. Many of us have interviews done in years past of people that are now dead. These are valuable resources that should be allowed to be uploaded and attached to records. Currently, you can only record new interviews from your computer. That doesn’t do any good for people that are dead and we already have media recorded that need to be attached to records. ARE YOU LISTENING, Ancestry???????

  101. caith

    Well, duh, I have learned from this experience not to pay my membership 1 year in advance instead of 6 months. If you want to cancel, you DO NOT get a refund…..Well, duh, at 71 years old, it is not to late to learn.

  102. douggrf

    really miss having the comments in overview appear as a group. As I recall comments added to an individual by tree owner or editor could be deleted. When comments were added by some other paying member other than tree owner or editor of said tree – the comment could only be deleted by author or staff. Of course if the comments on the profile became a sort of bulletin board of exchanges – then staff could be called in and the offending members blocked from dropping comments anywhere on the destination tree or in messaging.

    But if the comments, the exchanges, and the notification were appropriate, then all would benefit. The evidence again for this was born out by the aggregate view of comments shown per tree overview.

    Comments on media is a relatively new feature that actually was more interactive for all members. A comment by a paying member on someone’s tree could be hidden from appearing by the tree owner or editor of the original upload of the media item. The reason being that the original upload owner should know best of what and how to manage information of the media they first shared. Then again if someone else had a better idea, they could “acquire” the media by download and separate its remarks from the original shared item.
    Comments on media can be very collaborative and it goes without saying that they should appear in the New Ancestry at both the individual gallery level as well as the tree gallery level. I have made a post about that approach as a suggestion today elsewhere in the New Ancestry forum level as well as calling support.

  103. Rosemary

    Tien Le, I don’t know if you’ll see this, but you can find all your comments by clicking on the tool icon in the upper right hand corner when you are on the ancestor’s page. It took me awhile to find it. I too use the comments heavily to remind myself and to inform others of additional or conflicting information that doesn’t quite fit the events fields. I often wondered, though, if anyone else really looks at these. I liked it better in Classic when the comments were at the bottom of the Overview page, so you couldn’t miss them when you scrolled through the events. I doubt many are going to search them out, which is too bad.

  104. Rosemary

    New Ancestry requires more scrolling and clicking. For one small example, when you look at a document you’ve added, and you want to see who else has added it to their tree, there is no longer a list of researchers on the side. Instead you have to click on each of their little profile pictures to read the names, one at a time. I frequently look at these to see who else is researching my family, so this added step is one of many small nuisances. Change for the sake of change, rather than for added functionality.

  105. Lindsay Hale

    I HATE the new Ancestry! It’s terrible! TOO much space, font is terrible, this is not for researchers at ALL! I can not tell you how disappointed I am with ancestry.com right now. Every day I switch it to the “new” look ….. and I just can not stand the way it looks. I tried adding people, researching people, ect…It is just AWFUL! the classic site was FINE!!!!!!!!! Why did you change the core look. It’s unusable

  106. Nan

    You do not appreciate the feedback, why do you even ASK? Seems to me from reading the comments no one else likes these awful changes, This is certainly not progress for the better to users of Ancestry. When I cannot pull up a town jn a county and state, without putting in a persons name, in the census records without the boxes of other pages taking up the whole bottom half of the census maybe you are doing something wrong. I have found many ancestors by going page by page, because of the errors in spelling. Now I can’t do that any more thanks to your so called improvements NOT

  107. I know at this point you are looking at optimizing yourvnew site. 2 comments-when hovering over a source, give thre choice to view or edit. View will protect the data from a Miss click or a hand swiped across your screen destroying your data. Make other options a available under a single well placed button. Can’t wait to see the enhanced gallery experience.

  108. Linda MacArthur

    Ancestry.com – Good luck on your implementation. You could do a better job if you would (1) involve your subscribers and (2) employ capable programmers.

  109. A New Issue
    It keeps getting worse instead of better.

    I attempted to invite a member to my tree using his USERNAME. I clicked on the Send Invite button. When the confirmation screen opens it says that ZERO (0) invites have been sent.

    When I sent the invite from the Classic View, the invite was sent and the acknowledgement stated that one (1) invite had been sent.

  110. I am unable to send invites to my tree when I am in the new website. I used the User Name. The confirmation states that (0) invites had been sent.

    I sent the invite the same way from Classic Mode and the confirmation said (1) invite was sent.

  111. p2stanton2

    Well……………..
    I have said it before, and I will have to say it again:
    “IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT”
    This is truely the most awful ‘improvement’ that Ancestry has done so far – but do they ever listen to us – NO, they carry on regardless in their blasé manner. We complained when they decided to get rid of the WONDERFUL OLD SEARCH – the sliding function does not work – period, but they did not listen to us.
    This new look is so cluttered with non-essential information – why does the birth of a child need to be in the timeline? This could clearly be seen in the panel on the right hand side!!!
    And I agree with the comment above by Nan: “You do not appreciate the feedback, why do you even ASK? Seems to me from reading the comments no one else likes these awful changes”.

    Please, Ancsetry do not continue with this – Thank You.

  112. Regena

    I loved the look but when I saw my photo’s were no longer on there and my husbands brother was NOT even on the tree anymore I was becoming irritated. The changes are not helping at all.

  113. Betty

    Well, I thought, after using the new format, that I had voiced all my complaints but another has cropped up. I have a source title “Lancashire Parish Clerk Project” which I use for all the Birth, marriage and Death documentation. It has suddenly disappeared from my source list entirely and the profile pages now just say “LDS Film” This is NOT what I want the source to look like. I have replaced the correct title on my Source list but does Ancestry.com have ANY idea how many years it will take me to correct the damage on thousands of Profile pages?!! This new format has been a disaster. Not much good to say about it. I think the designer has never had a family tree of Ancestry.com himself or herself!

  114. Carol

    Don’t mind the format, but dislike the dull,
    depressing shades of gray on the tree. It’s
    hard to look at for any period of time. Wish
    you would replace it with something brighter and more cheerful.

  115. Jim M.

    My database (2000) is mostly in DE. When I end an address with DE it names the fact with an address of Germany. DE is also the name For Deutchland DE. Is there a way to add USA to all without doing all by hand.

  116. Paula

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but the option to add a child of unknown gender is missing. Kindly restore this feature as it is important. I also find the list of sources in the middle of the page rather unsightly as I have many non-Ancestry sources that fill the middle of the person page with nothing but unattractive placeholders that add an incredible amount of clutter. Do not find this a desirable feature.

  117. Carol

    I was trying to have a positive attitude about the changes, but I find that I agree with all the negative comments that have been posted. I love the old version where it is easy to see everything without constantly turning your head from side to side on the screen and scrolling up and down to find basic facts on the timeline. I had added many notes creating my own timelines, which have disappeared. I had added many web links which have disappeared. It’s the kind of thing that will make me just throw up my hands and give up on genealogy, and it has been a wonderful hobby for me for many years. I need the classic (old) format to remain. It’s very user friendly and visually readable and the new format is very unuser friendly in many ways. Maybe there will be a few good comments, but I doubt you will get them from “heavy-duty” long time users like me. For those who don’t know, you can get the old version back by clicking the down arrow by your user name and selecting “classic site”. When I left the site, there was an option for comments, I could not find this option before then. There was also a pop-up showing that the only option will be the new site when the full roll out occurs in a few months.

  118. Lynn Wartinger

    I hate the new format. It’s clumsy and not at all intuitive, and very hard to navigate. Why don’t you make this new version a completely separate product for those who want cutesy timelines with photos that have nothing to do with their families, and leave the classic format site for those of us who are serious about this and want facts, information, and documentation. In the new preview, I couldn’t get to my great-grandmother’s siblings without looking them up individually in a list of members; only direct line relatives (parents, grandparents, etc.) were visible in the tree, and no links or expansion to click on the person to get a drop down box to expand to siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. I am so disappointed that you would ruin this service by trying to turn it into a Facebook clone. Please make the new fluff pages extras for those who want them and leave the classic, more professional structure for those of us who have spent decades gathering family history and want content, data, substance, documentation, and information.

  119. Rosemary

    I never even knew there was a military page until others here lamented its loss in the New Ancestry. I never noticed it, because it didn’t have its own tab, but was hidden in a drop-down menu. Lesson for New Ancestry – don’t hide options, such as you’re doing with comments. As for the military page, it’s an insult to our past and present servicemen and women to take this page away once it’s been an option, no matter how few people used it. Like me, many other researchers probably never even knew it was there.

  120. judy miller

    I have been trying to adapt to this new version. I think it was rolled out WAY too soon! Where is the Web link from the profile page? I do not like the look of the profile page, or how it prints out; what a waste of paper and you can’t seen everything that should be there. I too am questioning continuing my membership when it is time to renew.

  121. Cheryl

    One thing, there is a BUG when you try to change a photo from primary to not primary…IT CAN’T BE DONE! With something this small, no wonder the rest of New ACOM is such a fricking MESS!!!

  122. Carol

    I tried the new site but went back to Classic site. The new one is too cumbersome and is missing a lot of things I like. I also wonder what all these changes will do to my backup in Family Tree Maker…will we all have to purchase a new version? I just spent $300 on renewal and am more than a little apprehensive.

  123. Peter

    Where are the comments and transcriptions? on the lifestory. View only readers cannot see transcriptions. Swedish birthcertificates have little meaning with out the transcriptions!

  124. Peter

    Where are the comments and transcriptions? on the lifestory. View only readers cannot see transcriptions. Swedish birth certificates have little meaning with out the transcriptions!

  125. Carol

    Where has the Comments section gone?? If that has been eliminated, after all the important facts and information I’ve put in over the years, I’m quitting Ancestry. I’m not liking the new colors. Plain and simple is best. In my opinion, the old system was close to perfect. Not a happy camper.

  126. douggrf

    Comments that could be seen in aggregate from tree overview has been pulled from Classic on May 27, 2015 in anticipation of the new site rollout. In New Ancestry the comments are only visible when in an individual profile. Also in New version the Individual Gallery does not allow comments – you must return to Classic or use the Master Media Gallery to enter such comments.

  127. patsy38

    I’m confused and frustrated. Difficult to read and navigate. I definitely want a family group sheet! I want messages from others to come to me in ancestry and not my email. So easy to get lost! Put back a “notes” section for individual entries and where are the notes I’ve already saved?
    on and on and on — please don’t pull all the classic for sake of “what?”

  128. Kurt Moser

    Wow. I just tried the “New” Ancestry. All I can say is “WHAT A MESS”. It is simply a horrible attempt to making things look new. It has so much crap crammed on to the screen that it is unreadable. The eye candy is distracting. I could go on, but if you get the idea that I hate it, you are correct. Please, Please, Please keep the old Ancestry. If this New one becomes the only one available – I’m gone

  129. Rosemary

    Carol, you can find your old comments by clicking on the tool icon in the upper right hand corner when you are on the ancestor’s page. Well hidden. I too use the comments heavily to remind myself and to inform others of additional or conflicting information that doesn’t quite fit the events fields. I liked it better in Classic when the comments were at the bottom of the Overview page, so you couldn’t miss them when you scrolled down the events. Classic’s tools are hidden under New’s flashy presentation. Too bad for serious researchers.

  130. Rosemary

    Has anyone found a way to reduce the font size on that silly LifeStory page? So wasteful of space.

  131. caith

    I may become unpopular when I say this, but if Ancestry is willing to also keep the Classic, I would be willing to pay additionally for it. This would be an added income stream for them, and a win-win. I know we do not want an added expense, but it is better than losing Classic altogether. Many of us are definitely leaving when they withdraw the Classic, because it is not user-friendly; the new Ancestry is considerably more Time Intensive, and all that CLICKING is ridiculous!!!! My time is very valuable …………

    We deserve a choice. I hope Ancestry is listening.
    Just thoughts from a 70-ish woman.

  132. douggrf

    Caith post of June 13 above – your post makes an interesting proposal. Let’s say Ancestry would offer, creating the LifeStory as an extra subscription bonus above and beyond using Classic view. That might be of value to some people. But like Canvas has proved in the past, the expenses are not met by an appropriate level of income. I am sure they would have to bag the LifeStory altogether.

  133. rickglanvill

    I attempted to use the family trees section on the new site on my iPad and it was frankly a waste of time. I could not open a specific tree – what opened up was random, either a different tree or ‘start new tree’ option – so I have given up for the time being. I do hope you correct the basic funcitionality errors before launching just to add the commercial ‘lifestyle’ features.

  134. Carol Harris

    After reading user feedback about the current upgrade, I will NOT make this upgrade. I beg you to keep Ancestry (at least as an option) as it is before the upgrade you are offering. Please don’t “mess with” the trees I have created.

  135. jeanvirginia

    The Ancestry Team posted the following on June 5, 2015: “We’d like to thank all of you who have tried the New Ancestry website so far. We are hearing from many of you who are enjoying the enhanced storytelling features, streamlined Facts view, Historical Insights, and other elements of the new site.”
    Many of you? I see very few indeed. Surely you are not missing the fact that most of us who have commented are unhappy to the extreme with most of the changes.
    The Classic Version is easy to use and to view – it’s compact with conveniently-located and clearly-identified tools. It has all the features necessary for research and for building a tree.
    I have enjoyed using Ancestry in its present form for many years. I have a carefully-researched large tree with over 2000 people and over 1200 photos with many more yet to add.
    If you are hoping that the new format will result in gaining you a larger membership, I think it can be clearly seen from many of the comments that the opposite will be the case.
    Why not continue the Classic Version as it is and then just ADD features that you think will make it even better?
    Please pay attention to what most of us are telling you.

  136. Kathy

    Think I should have read this blog before I did what I did today. I can’t even find the print profile button nor can I find the member connect. I’m not the greatest researcher and I use the member connect button when all else fails. The profile page is very messy and when I will try to print there goes my ink. I haven’t tried much of anything not sure where to go. So far the only thing I like, is it shows when their child was born on their profile. Thru the member connect feature I have located 2 direct cousins and 1 indirect cousin that I am communicating with, Just 2 weeks ago thru the comment section I received notice of a name spelled in error. That person turned out to be a direct cousin to my husband along with a grandson to his direct Aunt. I haven’t tried to look at my pictures or stories as yet not sure how to get there. Something tells me I’m not going to like it. I’ve been reading in the above comments about having to crop pictures to fit on your site. Don’t think so.

  137. Kathleen Miller

    I find the new Ancestry to be very hard to use. The background color makes it hard to see other features. Not impressed. Keep the classic view. Will probably cancel subscription if Classic View is taken away.

  138. ginny

    I’m with the majority of the DISLIKE for the new, HA HA, Ancestry. Bring back the Classic Ancestry, Please. This new one is the absolute worst change ever made! The family group sheet is so terrible I don’t even want to look at it – it’s ugly – too spread out with not much information and some of it is WRONG. The past Ancestry group page was small, but had a ton of info on it – NOT NOW and after almost 18 years with ancestry I Will NOT renew. Sad day. Why you people don’t listen to users instead of programmers is beyond belief.

  139. 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.
    I experienced the beta version several months back when it suddenly appeared. Shocked was my immediate reaction. If I wanted a scrapbook I would not have used Ancestry for the past 10 years. You have to wonder if we can do a class-action suit for a “switch&bait” maneuver by Ancestry. 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.
    It may be that Permira Advisers LLC is attempting to attract a buyer interested in “Scrapbook Ancestry” by rolling out these new changes. So despite all their talk about appreciating our feedback, we all know they could care less. When I called to ask what happened to the comments section, the customer rep was clueless and was not aware that Ancestry was up for auction–according to Reuters.
    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 is accuracy and data sources. What is important is fast, easy entry in an uncluttered format. CHEESY is what they have devised in the many months of revamping the site.
    Ancestry uses all of our trees to tout to new users the ease of creating their family history. 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 they cannot give our hard-earned research away, those new users will not want to do their own research. They want it ready made. A PRIVATE tree will speak for itself.
    All of our lamenting is falling on deaf ears. Our only hope is that FamilySearch will create a haven for our trees. They at least have demonstrated the importance of respecting the research.

  140. BobL

    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.

  141. completely unusable – just trying to even move around on the page my tree so I can look across and it won’t budge. SOOO SLOW This is absolutely not a hardware or internet speed issue. Can’t open profiles – takes me to a dead internet page.

  142. Diann

    Add me to the negative list! “Unusable, NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME, CHEESY, DISLIKE, hard to use, not impressed, unhappy, WHAT A MESS, hate, cannot use, terrible”, and on & on and I agree 100%. This new improved version is 100 steps backwards. I can’t believe that you believe that your clients do not use the Family Group Sheet. I consider myself a fairly serious & productive researcher and New Ancestry will set me back years. This version is somewhat similar to the Ancestry.com app I have on my iPad which is useful ONLY for casual information. It is most certainly useless for serious work and I am afraid this is exactly what this New Ancestry is headed for.

  143. I HATE THE NEW FORMAT… THE STORIES ARE ALL MESSED UP WITH MALES/FEMALE MISTAKES AND I WANT THE OLD STYLE BACK NOW! I HATE THIS ONE. I HAVE OVER 40,000 NAMES AND IT’S HARD ENOUGH TO KEEP THEM WITHOUT ALL THE FLUFF . THE NEW VERSION HURTS MY TREE… IT DOES NOT HELP IT.

  144. Jade

    Restore full place-names as user-entered.

    Restore single “edit” button for persons.

    Restore image thumbnails to “facts” timeline where they have been uploaded.

    This is horrible.

    Note: not one staff reply to any of this feedback.

  145. I accidentally opened a download from a cousin who was complaining about the new format. She apparently wanted me to compare….I had classic until that download, then I found I couldn’t get rid of the new version….logged out 4 times, deleted the email and attachments but when I opened my Microsoft Docs. file and found icons of unrelated files changed….that was it !Ancestry had invaded my hard-drive ! The Family Tree/Pedigree page doesn’t give me heartburn….don’t like the dark background and it’s hard to read but, everything beyond that stinks ! the profile page is confused and disorganized, the source/document page lacks the existing tree data at the top….I want to compare what I have with a new source/hint to make a decision. Often the information in a new hint is incomplete and/or incorrect.
    In short, I like little or nothing about the new format…it’s change for the sake of change. We have far to much of that in the world today….I pay for this site, every month and I reserve the right to reject Ancestry’s “changes”.

  146. Robert Pavlick

    I am very unhappy with the new format. The old format had valuable qualities like the ability to combine duplicate family members’ information into one record. Now, I cannot do that and end up with all kinds of duplicate records. Also, I liked having the media or pictures of birth certificates or draft cards right next to the entry. Now all media is separate in the Media File. And the Family Stories are all screwed up now and I have to go into each of them and edit them to make them correct.

    I am SO glad that I did most of my data input prior to this change, because the new format has made it very difficult for me to add new data without creating a lot of duplicate records which I have to then go in and carefully erase.

  147. I notice that those “against” far outnumber those “for” the new format….Ancestry should note this and act accordingly. Changes/fixes can be effected without destroying the entire site experience. The classic is fine….leave it alone.

  148. All of the above who don’t like the changes we’ve been discussing should consider WorldConnect…maybe if we move our data to that sight we can make it more user-friendly….that’s the only reason I came to Ancestry. There are other sites that would benefit from competent users.

  149. rlahistory

    “We are pleased to announce that the new Ancestry site is now generally available to everyone. As part of this transition, the beta feedback and the messaging system was closed on Friday, June 5th. We will continue to accept feedback via the opt-out page as well as through Customer Support.”
    “OPT-OUT PAGE” — OK, where is this located? Let me go on record to state that the only person who can determine what is better for me, is myself. I am a long-time user of the “classic” version of Ancestry. This is the version I am currently paying for–glitches and inaccuracies notwithstanding.
    If Ancestry chooses to diminish the product I have contracted for and replace it with a lesser product it is without my consent or approval. “Classic” is what I am paying for and is what I expect to receive. I am not interested in converting my research into a scrapbook, please opt me out.

  150. rlahistory

    Let me clarify in the event that what other commenters have stated is true in regards to having their subscriptions cancelled by Ancestry as retaliation for posted comments. I am opting-out of changes to the current version of Ancestry which I have paid for. I have no interest in having my research altered by the beta version.

  151. ancestry_daig

    Not a happy customer…. I have now been totally bumped off ancestry.com and am now unable to log back in at all. PLEASE FIX IMMEDIATELY. I am right in the middle of a major breakthrough on my family tree!

  152. Rosemary

    Rlahistory, I believe by OPT-OUT page, they mean when you are in New Ancestry and switch back over to Classic by clicking on your icon in the upper right hand corner. Before you leave New, you are presented with a page asking why you are going back to Classic, with a place for comments. That’s probably the Opt Out page.

  153. Deann

    Please think twice about the new ancestry, you say there are a lot of good comments how about all of us that DO NOT LIKE IT, Please if you are going to change so much why don’t you do a little at a time, this is to much to fast. I am one that does not like it, I have been trying to adjust but it’s just to much, you have not included things and from what I see there are things that we use that you might not put back, give us our family group sheets. Please stop trying to fix things that are not broken, update OK, but stop tinkering with something good.

  154. Deanna Lackaff

    Cumbersome and cluttered and missing useful features such as calculated ages on the profile timeline. Very time-consuming to navigate. I DO NOT NEED the story view. I DO NEED to be able to delete and/or move media images. Classic view was streamlined and efficient, much easier to manipulate.

  155. Hollie

    If people would list names by surname and maiden name not married name that would help me better!!

  156. Margaret

    I do not like the new site, either. It’s confusing and has more information spread out that I don’t like. I like the simplicity of the old profile page. I don’t need the story view.

  157. For the record, it turns out Ancestry sent a cancellation notice on the same day I posted numerous complaints about issues on the new site. I called and verified with Customer Relations. It went out because the renewal of my membership was a few days late. So no, I didn’t get that notice because of my feedback.

    I’ve de-selected all photos that were once profile photos. Now the tree has the default cameos and no personality at all. I’ve deleted all the family stories that were attached to profiles. These are now in Notepad as TXT files. I will upload again as either TXT or PDF. The problem now is that viewers will have to download to open and read.

    The story view interests non-members whom I show the tree to. But even they asked why an event like the 1937 New England Storm is attached to my Mom’s profile. She was born in Brooklyn in 1931. New York weather might have been affected but who cares? It has nothing to do with the community my Mom grew up in.

  158. For those of you who wish to “opt out”, regain Classic and comment on the new format….log on to ancestry, click “Home” in the upper corner, the address bar will read something like “home.ancestry.com”, ADD ” /newancestry/leave ” and click “enter”. You should go to the opt out page which will boxes for your objections and a comment section.

  159. Joy Warren

    I hate this. Want to keep many of the so-called classic features, like comments, stories, zoom, etc. etc. etc. Why must we lose features in order to gain new features? Why can’t they all be options we can select if we want? I will not go for this new version Will keep classic version. Or I will cancel my long lasting membership and locate a new resource. No stories, no comments, no zoom, now Military Page? You will lose me.

  160. I am so frustrated I don’t even know where to start. When I look at the profile page for my relative, so many important Facts from the Facts page don’t show up in the Life Story. Like Graduations and Occupations. How do I add them? Why do I have to when it was fine before. What do I do about errors on the Ancestry Historical additions. For example saying that someone lived in a particular town during the Cuban missile crisis when the town listed is completely wrong?
    Also military facts are in the wrong order. How do I change them? I want to stay with the Classic version!

  161. Margaret

    Wow!! I, too, dislike the new format. Ancestry,com has been my time to relax and have fun with family history and relatives. Well, the new format has done away with the fun. The new format is “pretty”. It is, however, very user unfriendly, cumbersome, and much harder to navigate. If we don’t have a choice to stay with the classic, I will not renew my membership and that makes me sad. I’ve spent a lot of money and time on the website and I will miss being a member.

  162. Gayle

    I have been off Ancestry for some time due to medical problems and did not know that there was a new format until now. There are some features that appear to be a good idea, such as the timeline and story; however, it appears that some facts have disappeared. I haven’t had much time to look things over. How can I get back to the Classic format. Also, Member Connect, Family Group Sheet, thumbnail images with facts are extremely important to me. Please reconsider them! In addition, the New Ancestry requires a lot of scrolling due to information being spread out and takes up a lot of space – classic was easier to read. Perhaps you could keep both the classic and New and allow switching back and forth between them? Or offer new features as options in the Classic? There are probably other things that I would find with more time to try out the New Ancestry. Thank you.

  163. Barb

    The “new” presentation of family trees is unhelpful. The list of individuals is lost; you can search, but there are lots of ways people enter names so you don’t know if you have the right tree. Also, when you click on pedigree, it brings you to the pedigree of the home person, not who you are researching so you can’t figure out how your person may fit into the tree. Many names are the same and the ancestry hints are not always your family. Classic view for this purpose works a lot better. Please continue to give us this option.

  164. Danelle

    I saw the beta when I paid for 6 months extension of my subscription…the format was completely unusable for me – for all the reasons everyone else has already stated. Complete WASTE of money. I called to get a refund, and they showed me how to get back to classic view. I now have grudgingly bought the limited software for the mac, downloaded my trees, and am trying like mad to finish up the research before I get forced over into an unreadable version. The new layout is NOT for researchers, it’s for people who watch reality tv and want to make their 3 generations of family research look pretty. I hardly think they are going to be members for 10+ years. Short sighted and stupid. There are plenty of other sites out there. Loyalty is gone.

  165. Norwood Shelton

    Until ancestry.com provides the very handy “quick edit” feature now in the classic ancestry.com, I shall continue to use the classic version until it is no longer available. Shame on ancestry.com for omitting such a handy feature when “improving” their site. This is progress??

  166. CH

    Got an email regarding new (!) site. I didn’t think it could get worse than it was. Ancestry proved me wrong. Ugly, unprofessional, inconvenient, and all the negative comments from above.
    I need a drink….a BIG drink!

  167. caith

    Hopefully, for all of us who do not plant to renew, they will give us a 1-week trial subscription in 6-12 months, so we can go back and give it a try. By then, perhaps, it will be ready for “prime time.”

  168. Mildrilyn

    After reading these comments I decided to take a look. When I attempted to switch back to the Classic site and was asked to explain why, I wrote a summary of my thoughts. I guess it was too long, because it wouldn’t transmit. So I am submitting my comments here instead:
    1) As I feared, the Life Story feature does nothing to provide relevant context for the African American experience.
    2) The “Facts” page is not particularly useful– just seems to turn some of what was already there into sentences. (But ignores user content such as “born in slavery” or “purchased freedom,” or the fact that a marriage record represented a post-slavery Freedman’s Bureau legalization of a decades-earlier slave “marriage.” Also ignores Ancestry record of USCT military service of the ancestor I reviewed.)
    3) The “Facts” page format also strikes me as a “child-friendly” version instead of a “just the facts” page more suitable for serious researchers.
    3) The new format adds useless and distracting clutter to the previously streamlined and easy to use format. And some of the clutter is “insensitive by omission”– if you’re going to show me something about cotton being king and a photo of slaves, don’t omit the role of African Americans as related to this! In order to address this concern in a way that would be sensitive to users of various backgrounds, I think you would need a customizable menu where users could select one or more sets of “contextual themes” for their trees. There’s no “one size fits all” for this; so if you can’t make it customizable for all (including persons with multiple heritages), PLEASE JUST DON’T DO IT!
    4) Although it may be there somewhere, it wasn’t immediately obvious how to add a marriage to the list of facts when the info came from an uploaded document rather than an Ancestry record.
    5) Overall, this detracts from, rather than enhances the current experience. I encourage you to keep the Classic version, at least as an option.
    6) I don’t like the fact that many of my photos will have to be re-cropped. Why make extra work for your subscribers?
    6) Just to be sure I’ve made myself clear– I don’t like this at all!

  169. Beverly

    Go back!!!!. This new site is terrible. Hard to read, navigation sucks. I don’t like YOUR story lines.

  170. Beverly

    I cannot believe that you released a new site that is about half finished.
    Scheduled to be available in the next couple of weeks:
    Web Links: quick links to web pages (why did they go away?)
    Media Gallery features:Save: Save photos to your family trees from the new media viewer
    Edit: change the description and details on a photo or story (was there before)
    Create/upload story: create and upload a new story in the media Gallery
    Audio/video file support: view and listen to audio and video files

    Planned to be available in about a month:
    Profile picture cropping: edit/crop a profile photo to fit in the circular photo space WHY A CIRCULAR PHOTO?????
    Quick Edit: edit an ancestor’s vital information directly from the tree viewer
    Media Gallery sorting/filtering: sort and filter by media type, chronological order
    FamilySearch integration: LDS Account holders can share information between their Ancestry tree and their Family Tree on FamilySearch

    Exact Functionality/Timing still TBD:
    Member Connect features: Find other members researching a similar ancestor and save info from their family trees

  171. I do NOT like the new site. It has changed information that I have DOCUMENTED, it has left out information that I added to census records that I felt was important (other family members who were living with relatives, etc.), it takes FOREVER to load, my tree was already arranged in time lines and documented….and you add things like “a brother was born, a sister was born, …..”, I think the historical information YOU add is not helpful. I have loved Ancestry for YEARS. I may drop Ancestry if you do not retain the old system. I worked too hard on my research and documentation to have it rewritten by this new version.

  172. I do NOT like the new site. The new site does not transfer over that a person died in one place and was buried in another; this is VERY misleading to other researchers. I have found this more than once (my father, my grandmother, etc.) It has changed information that I have DOCUMENTED, it has left out information that I added to census records that I felt was important (other family members who were living with relatives, etc.), it takes FOREVER to load, my tree was already arranged in time lines and documented….and YOU add things like “a brother was born, a sister was born, …..”, I think the historical information YOU add is not helpful. I have loved Ancestry for YEARS. I may drop Ancestry if you do not retain the old system. I worked too hard on my research and documentation to have it rewritten by this new version.

  173. Richard Richardson

    I too do NOT like the new format. I am disappointed that the family group sheets are such a low priority ( if a priority at all. I use these resources each time I use Ancestry. Also the font is difficult. I hope that the classic format remains an option. If not, then I will also make a change- I too will not renew my membership. Very disappointed.

  174. Barbara

    I am so discouraged and disgusted with the “New Ancestry”. If this NEW version was it, I would never have paid for a subscription. It is not what I paid for, nor is is anything that an experienced genealogist wants to work with. I hope that those at Ancestry.com who can make the important decisions are listening to their loyal long time subscribers. Why can’t two formats be offered…the Old Class and the New? Then they can see who continues to pay for their subscriptions. Have you ever received a Survey from Ancestry.com? I have. After you respond to a few questions and state that you are a long time user and are in a certain age group, they came back and said that they had enough information. They apparently are not interested in keeping their loyal subscribers, who I imagine are generally 60+ yrs. old.

    Can anyone offer any other companies that all of us dissatisfied customers can switch to? I don’t want to leave Ancestry.com, but if Ancestry.com changes to this New format, then they obviously aren’t interested in keeping me as a customer anymore.

  175. VASMD

    Barbara — I totally agree with you. I am ready to “jump ship” to another company if Ancestry insists on keeping this new format — and I’ve been an Ancestry member for almost 15 years!

  176. Pat

    Family tree display is horrible. We don’t need color coding. We need the old one back. Quit changing things and making them worse.

  177. Judy Buck-Glenn

    I have just scrolled through and read comment after comment that expressed deep dissatisfaction and anger at the changes. There were a handful of positive ones. You “appreciate” the feedback, but we don’t just want you to “appreciate” it. We–or most of us!–want you to respond to it by preserving Ancestry Classic.It is clear you have no intention of doing so, however. What unmitigated arrogance!

  178. I cannot use the new site because I am told to change my settings re private Browsing and cookies. So far as I know I do not use private Browsing and I have no idea how to change my settings. Please restore the old site long enough for me to move somewhere else.

  179. Carol

    General concept ok…I use “write a story”often and it is not functioning. I don’t like not being able to see if I have media attached to facts. thee storyline needs to be refined.

  180. Roanna

    We need all of the old functionality back. I’ve been on deluxe ancestry since 2008 and had no particular issues until now. You’re getting rid of my military pages – really? The media gallery is hosed, the ages at each life event are gone (this was a great tool – they were back last night and gone again today!), searchability and lists are completely useless, and everything everyone has already said above. The feel of the new software is modern and in keeping with other new software on the market (i.e. Windows 7 vs Windows 8 sort of leap) and that does not bother me, but the rest is a real time waster. I think enhancing one’s product is always commendable, but completely replacing it with an inferior product just for the sake of change was unnecessary.

  181. Pat

    I hate the new trees so bad I deleted mine. My renewal is up this month; thank goodness. I will do my research on other sites and save my money.

  182. Kay

    I do not like the new format. I have used Classic for many years. In all that time, I couldn’t think of anything I would have changed to make it more user friendly. Now you are trying to switch us to something less user friendly. I don’t call that progress so please listen to us. Please give us the choice of to use the version we like best–don’t delete Classic!

  183. caith

    Pat, please tell us the best other sites where we can do our research and any other ideas for the future.

  184. Patti

    I absolutely LOVE the new Ancestry. It’s fantastic- I literally can not understand what all the complaining is about. Nice job, Ancestry!

  185. Margaret

    If you look at one of the blogs in Feb 2015, you will see the same complaints that customers are posting on here. Ancestry obviously ignored those customers, also. On the ancestry Facebook page, ancestry basically stated that most of the negative responses on there were members who didn’t like any changes.

  186. caith

    In addition to trying to bring in a new and younger market of people with the changes, they will obviously now raise the membership fees to justify their “new and improved features”. Big business does not spend money unless they plan get a return on their dollar. Common sense.

  187. Kristie

    I understand that the code running ‘classic’ Ancestry is old and needs updating. Replacing it with an inaccurate, inferior beta not-ready-for-prime-time product is not the way to go. ‘New’ ancestry isn’t just about terrible little porthole photos or the ugly look, but for what doesn’t work. And while we’re on the looks – little white font on a gray background is a known problem for eyes – it’s eye catching for a quick ad, but not for studying and researching facts – kind of the point of your site.
    The relationship calculator doesn’t work, the map is bizarrely wrong, the media gallery takes forever to load, functions people use are gone, and everything takes two or three clicks to accomplish. Example – to remove one media item takes removing it from a person, then attempting to wade through all the media to find it, and remove it from the tree. Navigating this new site is not intuitive or even smart. Ancestry says, “Edit what you want, or don’t look at the LifeStory”. Here’s why that doesn’t work. I don’t have the time or interest to edit thousands of profile pages of gibberish junk I didn’t even write. As for not looking at the LifeStory page, others will, both other Ancestry subscribers and family I invited to my tree. I made trees for older family members who enjoy looking at the new treasures I have researched for them. It brings them joy, gets them to use a computer, and brings up memories that have brought family members closer together. This truly has been the best gift I could give – and I hate to see it end, but this is the last straw. Besides the font being too small, the errors will upset them (seeing a cousin as a step-uncle? Or a wedding photo with the bride’s head cut off?) – I can’t force viewers to stay away from certain pages. I have no choice but to stay on Classic for as long as possible, and then print out a final family tree for everyone and call it a day if ‘new’ ancestry is the only choice. Ancestry, I know you interpret things ‘quieting down’ as proof the complainers are done, but no, it’s just us getting busy printing and downloading everything before it’s too late. I would love to hear how your marketing department explains the new increased customer acquisition costs. You’ve geared this to a younger crowd, but they’re not loyal. Other companies have learned that – the hard way.

  188. caith

    Yes, the younger crowd is not loyal because they flit from one thing to the next. That is the normal nature of their growing process. They will not permanently pay for a membership they do not have the time nor inclination to use. They will take a membership for 6 months as a new toy, and then toss it, and go on to the next big thing.

    Wonder if Ancestry did a Market Feasibility Study for their prospect of capturing this young new market?

    I wonder if the programers and designers for this New look have ever had any hands-on experience at researching and building a tree?

  189. Tripp Fezler

    This new change is terrible – I notice that you are not picking up my comments I made when I changed back to Classic. You “forced” me to comment but none of those are picked up. My comments were many and substantial. Please go back and capture those as well. I wish your programmers had worked on the Beta more before throwing it at us. I guess you have not picked up the many many more comments from others who have requested to change back to Classic. By the way, you are not being very sincere when your blog headline states that many are happy with this change – just go back and count the yeses and the nos in this blog comment list. One more thing – I and others also posted on your facebook page – where are those comments. Are you capturing those as well.

  190. Betty

    I’m not sure I brought up this problem with the new format but here goes: Many of the “relationship” which come up under the name on the profile page is incorrect. When you click on it, the correct relationship shows but it is never corrected on the profile page. FIX THIS PLEASE!!!

  191. I understand the need to move forward, use new technologies, and allow for new functionality. However, it is very important to stay true to the needs of researchers. I want to provide some very specific feedback on the new site. 1) I can no longer tell on a person’s profile if there are gallery items without clicking the link Gallery. Can we get this functionality back? 2) Drawing lines to the sources is cute, but not very useful to me and it would be much more effective to have them pop-up rather than drawn and I have to scroll to find them as I have some people with many historical records. 3) Data presentation. Having the sources in the middle of the page makes the page busy and difficult to read. Likewise, having everything in a box makes the page busy and difficult to read. I know Microsoft started this and everyone is doing it, but with large amounts of data it is just very, very busy. Use some of the techniques that you use for the search to hide/allow to be hidden what is not needed. I also suggest the books by Tufte on data visualization. 4) I am not sure I like that the census records are added to the gallery because they add clutter. I realize that some people make photos of them and this will help stop that, but it is difficult to weed out what someone has added independent of ancestry created media. Maybe these could be categorized and organized. Perhaps that is what the comments about future capabilities will allow. 5) Is there any possibility that ancestry will be adding the ability to customize the user’s experience? Possibilities include: site-wide preferences, ability to show small indicator for historical insights that you can expand, ability to collapse sections and re-arrange the page (e.g. collapse sources when I don’t need them), and ability to collapse entire timeline of events into one line statements per event with a button for sources and to expand (allows me to see more of their life at one time and scan for issues/changes without scrolling.

  192. Kathy

    Can some body Please tell me now how to print out a page of a family member I’m working on. Can not find a print page button. Went up to my tool bar hit print It spit out 4 pages to the classic one. did not print the souces , the children, the parents. Today now the search button is missing For crying out loud someone is smoking too much of something

  193. Pa

    I really don’t like how Ancestry.com added the phrase they
    RE-INVENTED MY FAMILY STORY!

    Sorry, but they don’t know anything about my family or yours.

    Who do they think they are kidding with this massive change, and funny business of telling everyone they know their life story when in fact unless you enter information they don’t know nothing. They might as well be Sgt Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes, “I no nothing!’

    That is why the ancestry tech developers keep trying to dazzle us, and all the new users with these fancy bells and whistles that you really don’t need.

    I am not one who is going to click the button “TRY the NEW ANCESTRY”
    I tried it, and I switched back to “Classic”.

    I think NEW ancestry.com is pretty bad, point blank, end of story. There is no going back (in the minds of ancestry know it all execs who don’t actually don’t have a clue as to the tons of complaints, bad reviews, and endless rants over this).

    I have been a firm advocate of using ancestry.com for the past three years, but with the changes leaning towards NEW ancestry.com; they still have quite a few issues.

    1.Circles cut off heads on photos of ancestors. Most if not any photo appears as if the heads are cut off of people.

    2.Records that you once attached to an ancestor and you could previously view, you can no longer view if you are no longer a subscriber.

    3.If you paid for it once, you should still be able to view a record that you paid for when you were an ancestry subscriber and attached to an ancestor. (Just a thought, you don’t need ancestry.com to access all the census records!)

    4.Once a simple task of editing, now takes more clicks than necessary. (reminds me of the commercial of “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop!”) The quick edit pop-up is gone!!

    5. Ancestry execs have no clue to the numerous complaints, bad reviews, and endless rants over this change to NEW ancestry.

    6. The color schematics are the worst with the gray backround. Vision impaired users should not have to seek out add on extensions to be able to use the Ancestry program in question.

    7. How is New Ancestry going to affect those with older versions of Family Tree Maker? Example of using pre-212 Family Tree Maker.

    These are just some fine examples of the mess that NEW ancestry has created.

    I am just being facetious in my contempt and dislike of the changes. End of story is that no matter how hard you try to explain to any ancestry exec. (including the owner or current owners) who apparently are not listening nor are they reading the endless complaints, bad reviews, or rants over this…). They don’t care. They just see the dollar signs.

    Just scroll through the endless postings from user’s to ancestry’s main page https://www.facebook.com/AncestryUS?fref=ts

    I have read days and days of bad comments, and all you see from ancestry.com is apologetic answers. No clue what so ever.

    I have tried NEW ancestry several times, and I keep switching back. Sorry, ancestry.com you lose. You should have just launched a new site and new name such as Ancestry II, and let people use the site they prefer to use. Just a bunch of dumb execs who probably don’t even use the program itself.

    “The other million users don’t comment because they are” NOT on facebook! And have no clues to any videos here or on YouTube!

  194. caith

    Ancestry should, and should be required, to keep the Classic for those of us who are handicapped – visually impaired. One size does not fit all.

    The tool which is essential for me is the Quick Edit from the tree page as others have mentioned.

  195. Julie Lodygowski

    Is there a way to go back to the classic view for my family trees? I really really do not like the new version. I find it confusing and irritating. One cannot see who’s tree is attached to someone else’s. I really would hate to discontinue my service but this new set up is just plain bad.

  196. Carol

    Julie, You can go back to the old version by clicking the down arrow by your user name and selecting “classic site”. When you do that there is a note that says “classic” won’t be available in a few months when they convert to the new version. I hate the new version, and hate is a word I usually avoid!

  197. Ann Lee

    Over all, I like the new version, but I hope some of the concerns others have brought up will be addressed. Of course there’s a learning curve, and I have only been using Ancestry on a regular basis for about six months.

  198. Please don’t do away with the classic site as you now apprently plan!! I have the 2 latest versions of FTM. Because their screen is so busy (much like your new Ancestry) and cumberson with info I very seldom use them. Instead I most often use your now classic version and use the link to update. Now I read you will be doing away with the classic version of Ancestryt–this makes me very very sad! If I don’t feel comfortable using it and you drop the classic version I will cancell my Ancestry.com subscription which I have had for probably 10+ years. Because the FTM page is crammed with way to much info and is very hard to navigate, I don’t use it and I don’t plan on ever buying another version. You need to follow the KISS (keep it simple silly/stupid) principal! I hope this doesn’t fall on deaf ears as so many other people’s suggestions to you have in the past. For example your search engine of several-many years ago was far superior to the common user than the current one.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the features of the new Ancestry but I want to have access to the old version even if you have to charge more $$.

  199. Bob W

    The Hints page is missing an “ignore” button. All hints can either be saved or left on the page, which will always show a hint, even though it should be deleted.

  200. Cindy

    The gallery is extremely slow to open. The “classic” website was much easier to deal with in general. Now there are more clicks to just about anything. I agree with Bob P that said “Keep it simple..!! ” I like the life story to look at the details of an individual but pdf media & doc media do not show up there. Improvements could have been implemented without a complete change of the entire way things were done.

  201. caith

    Bob P, yes, I am also willing to pay extra to continue using the Classic. Some of us are vision-impaired and we need the Classic………They should keep the Classic for an added fee in order to ascertain whether they can generate enough revenue to justify keeping the Classic.

  202. mary abrams

    This is in regard to the travesty you are calling “new ancestry.” I have been an Ancestry member for over 9 years. I have several large trees and administer 4 DNA accounts. There have been many practical improvements or fixes needed on your website for some time. I and many others have pointed them out to you over and over.. Very little or nothing happens. We get canned answers which amount to “Thank you; we’re throwing this in the trash (called “appropriate department” or “relevant team”).

    Ancestry appears to be headed in a “dumbing down” direction with its products. It is becoming obvious that Ancestry doesn’t even give a damn what its customer base thinks. So, whose 12-year-old son or nephew thought up the “new ancestry” design? Genealogy is not a game for me; it is a serious avocation into which I put blood, sweat, tears and money. I have paid Ancestry a lot of money for world membership over the years while I was building my tree. Much of my research material was found (and PAID FOR) elsewhere. I laboriously entered the data to my Ancestry trees and now it’s either GONE or USELESS. I view this as a BREACH OF CONTRACT and sincerely hope this matter winds up as a class action suit which I would support wholeheartedly..

    The “New Ancestry” is so dysfunctional that it defies description. It is clear that nobody on the design/programming end has the slightest clue how genealogists work. It should never have been released and you should be ashamed and embarrassed at the corporate level. All it’s going to take is one competitor who has an interest in genealogy and pleasing customers over the age of 12 – and you’re finished.

    I am looking for a better product and Would even pay more to get away from this disgraceful mess you’ve made. GO BACK TO THE CLASSIC UNTIL YOU GET IT RIGHT!!!!

  203. Christina

    How can I change the gender of an individual in the new ancestry? I have someone as unknown, and would like to change them to the correct gender.

    In general – regarding this new site. I do not like change. I hate having to re-learn how to do something that I already knew how to do. I have to admit, I like some of the features. HOWEVER…. I would rather have the old ancestry back. Unfortunately, I highly doubt that ancestry will listen to its customers (some of whom have been using this site for YEARS AND YEARS), and revert back to the old version. I’m sure that when this new version rolls out in full, we are all stuck with no options.

    I don’t think they should charge more for the classic version. Charge more to the people that want the new features.

    Thanks,

  204. Christina

    haha! I found out how to change the gender. That’s what I’m talking about. Having to search for something that was so simple before. I wonder who actually tested this new version? Like I said above, I like some of the new features, but in general, it was much better before. More facts and data, less fluff.

  205. Tripp

    Cannot print or save LifeStory. I used to be able to do this with the Story in Classic. Why have LifeStory at all if no one can see it. I need a way to get it out.

  206. Tripp

    In addition – I just went back to Classic to check on StoryView for one of my entries. I had entered so much more into the Classic Story View that DID NOT come across in the new LifeStory. Why did you drop all my info I put in. Why can’t you just bring ALL the information across. And Yes – I can print out Story View – NO I CANNOT print out Life Story in the new format. Please – you have got to fix this.

  207. Bob W

    How do you send invtations to people from the new site? I have tried to add new facts, such as places visited, and they did not take. What’s the problem. Seems as though you are having a lot of problems. Why was the classic site taken down before the new was up and running?

  208. I do not like the New Ancestry..it is to cluttered, hard to read, cannot invite guest, can’t add photos to multiple people, not all my information transferred, etc,etc. please let those that want to stay with Classic. A long and loyal customer may have to leave

  209. Cheryl

    Using disgusting New. Having problem getting the spouses in correct order. Fellow married first wife in 1974 and second in 1975. The time line on the facts page shows everything correct; however, to the far right the two wives are out of order. Went back to Classic and there the wives are in correct order. Is this another bug among many in New?

  210. Patricia

    My main complaints – searched yesterday for the 1870 census for my G-Grandfather. Because the PLACE names are no longer accurate, the searches do not pull up the desired City (St Louis). This is nuts! Your own transcription of StL (Independent City) has been replaced by StL Independent Cities and no longer matches! The only other option is St Louis County which is BOGUS!!! (Yes, I’m upset) I have to go the long way around and search under the main Census category, even though I narrowed down his name to only ‘Jos*” (and tried Joseph) exact 1870 and exact Missouri. NO hits, when searching from his profile – ONLY when I took the lonnnnnnnng road around, outside of his profile. Really unacceptable.

    No Family Group Sheet. Really? The only way we can see an entire family, siblings and parents in once concise document? This I cannot understand.

    Is there a way to report historical “facts” in a certain LifeStory which is off by 40 years?! (This same) GG-Grand is on the 1870 FED census and attached to his facts, yet the “fact” pic says he came to America in a wave of French immigrants in the 1910s. Not even close. These are as bad as the real hints, sorry to say.

    Also last evening, I clicked into a “Historical photo” to review the more. MY FIRST TIME, MIND YOU. It was for the 1927 Mississippi River flood. I strongly felt it was from a much earlier time. I ‘googled’ the credit you had for the photo. I was right about one thing. The year was incorrect. The credit clearly states the photo you are using is from 1920 – not 1927. I’m actually appalled at this gross error. If you all make such a terrible mistake on ‘history’, only reveals to me your lack of concern for your subscribers and putting their best interests at heart. This program, with ALL it’s foibles — many others have stated them better – is NOT ready for prime time.

    I am also upset that my profile pics are being squashed into a box with white space on either side – for those which are not face oriented pictures. They are also now showing in my FTM, as such. I am disappointed with what used to be a joyous experience.

    NO. Not ready for primetime.

  211. Jeff

    – Rather than post the typical “I hate the new site!” post I’m going to specify what I don’t like about it, and why. My overall impression is that you’re going for a prettier, flashier look at the expense of functionality and usability. I’m not impressed with the changes, in the end it seems to accomplish little more than wasting vast expanses of screen real estate. The page layout is an incredible waste of space. The birth, death, marriage, draft registrations and census info section on the left is 2-3 times (or more) than the sources and family sections on the right, half the page is blank and empty. The page sections with content use up far too much space with larger than necessary padding and margins, making it even worse. I can’t recall ever seeing a website present so little content in so large a space.
    – This may be unrelated to the new format, but I’m not fond of the removal of the “Pin” function when searching. Previously, when clicking the search link from an ancestor’s profile page, the box containing your ancestor’s vital stats, parents, spouse and children could be pinned to the top of the page thereby remaining visible at all times. Now you have to scroll scroll scroll scroll up and down the page repeatedly to check search result summaries with your ancestor’s info, or open multiple results and wait for those pages to load then flip back and forth between tabs to compare them.
    – Now I see you’re basically putting the Family Group Sheet out to pasture. The single most informative page presenting birth and death date info for your ancestor and their parents, your ancestor’s spouse and their parents, and all of your ancestor’s children in an uncluttered, easy to read format no longer exists. You state it doesn’t get used much. I wonder how much of that is because people simply don’t know it’s there, the only reference to it is hidden in a pulldown menu. I really wish that stayed, and you’d have finally created a print friendly version, which brings me to my next issue.
    – There are now no print friendly pages. Zero. Not a single “Print” link anywhere to be seen. Anything printed now wastes ink and paper to print headers, menus, footers, unnecessary and unwanted nav links and other tools, and your ad at the bottom, not to mention the huge expanses of wasted, empty space. Not exactly something I’d want to print out and place in a binder for presentation.
    – Then there’s the new Hints page, with no more “View Family Members” capability for comparison. Even without that I could, in theory, center click the Facts link to open that page in another tab, then flip back and forth between the two tabs to compare info but even that doesn’t work because center clicking the four main page links (Lifestory, Facts, Gallery, Hints) does nothing. Why?
    – The Notes and Comments tools appear as if they were given zero thought on the new site. There’s no indication at all that anyone in your tree has a note or comment on their profile page unless you scroll to the top of the page and click open the Tools menu. Even then there is still no indication of whether or not there’s a Note, you have to click through that option as well to open the notes just to see if there is one. Really? With all the empty space on every profile page you couldn’t find a place to put the comments or notes?
    – What’s the point of the “Show Research Tools” option, anyway? All it does is add a couple of the previously existing but now missing tools back to the profile page, and one of the two links it adds, namely Notes, is just a repeat and serves no real purpose. Adding them also increases the size of the personcard area of the header, as if it weren’t already big enough with too much wasted, empty space in it. How about using that space and returning the missing tools?
    – I’m extremely disappointed with these changes. I now feel like I am getting far less website for more money. Given the 22% price increase you hit me with when I renewed last year I should be getting more functionality and better tools, not less and worse. For new members, it’s even worse. Now the best you offer is a 6 month subscription costing even more than the yearly rate even at the “special” price.
    – Speaking of renewals, how did you manage to process a credit card transaction with a completely incorrect address on file? Is that industry standard and accepted practice?
    – I’m about to the point of cancelling, then buying one month per quarter to work on my tree. I’d be far less frustrated and have an extra hundred dollars in my pocket at the end of the year, what’s not to like?

  212. Patricia

    Forgot one more… I finally took a good look at the Life Story for both my parents. To see the full top-to-bottom “Life Story” for my Mom took 58 clicks of my scroll, but that was peanuts when it came to my Dad. 80! No, that’s not a mistake. 80 times I had to click the space bar in my scroll to get to the bottom of the page. I have added dozens of pictures because when it comes time to print out their REAL life story, I can pick and choose what I need. What I do not need is for myself or anyone else having to scroll down, taking away half a day out of their life. Yes, an exaggeration, but this really stinks.

  213. I AGREE COMPLETELY with all of the NEGATIVE COMPLAINTS about this NEW ANCESTRY. Whoever put this together should be FIRED!!!!

    I have most of the monarchs of England, France and Germany on my tree. I have spent countless hours developing interesting Profile Pages and Timelines for all of these ancestors AND their families, for my families LEGACY, and to share with other members, since my tree is PUBLIC. Visit my tree and check them out. Then view them on NEW ANCESTRY and you will find GARBAGE!!!!

    The CLASSIC VIEW was appropriately named and should be PRESERVED as a membership option.

    ENOUGH SAID!!!!

    Bill Gaulocher

  214. Jeff

    – To add a couple I forgot, I submit the following:

    – The Gallery. You have to go there to see if there’s anything in it. That’s as ridiculous as having to open the Notes to see if there is one.
    – Facts vs Life Story. Keep only the facts on the Facts page, leave the extras, like historical references, childbirths, parents’ deaths, etc.. on the Life Story page where it belongs.
    – You modified Facts display by removing the image thumbnails from facts and hiding them all, with no indication that they even exist, on the Gallery page. I don’t know, but maybe some indication that there’s media to be viewed would be a good thing?
    – It’s obvious you’ve redesigned the site to appeal more to the general public than to the researchers who actually use it. Oooooo it’s pretty, and the purple lines sure are nifty but whoopdefreakindoo, everything I do now requires double the clicks and ridiculous amounts of scrolling up and down the page. What few useful tools you’ve left us with are hidden, nonfunctional, or pointless.

  215. Carole Rice

    please work on the Member Connect feature. I turned off Tree hints years ago because I really don’t want to link to every tree out there as many have mistakes that have been copied over and over and facts are not validated with actual records. I use the member connect feature to link to other trees that are researching the same person. The feature makes it easier to weed out the tree with multiple mistakes.

  216. Caith

    Working on my tree has always been the “Agony and the Ecstasy” and a labor of love. Without the Classic version, it would only be only the “Agony”.

    Jeff, the above idea, using a subscription one month per quarter, has great merit. That would greatly minimize the “Agony”. Thanks for the suggestion.

  217. Jo

    The new changes are horrible! I don’t have time to spend on researching videos on how to navigate a new design that already has proven to be awful in look AND function. loved the classic simple design before. the white background. I loved bing able to simply click on stories, facts, photos and also very easily see parents, spouses, children but ALSO siblings. Where in the world did the siblings go on your new layout? I can’t seem to access them from someone’s home page. Where did it go and why doesn’t it pop up along with spouses and children? My stories and photos seem to be missing entirely. Where are they? My gallery pages won’t open. The larger print and bigger pages per person make it feel cluttered. The awful grey background is very depressing. What a dreadful color. I hate every single thing about the new layout, If I can find a way to gather all my years of research, I will most likely leave. There are thousands of names in my tree and it is much harder to see an overview now. It was so easy before. I feel so disappointed. This was always a fun website to spend time on. Not now. If you don’t continue to offer a classic version, you are basically saying you don’t care about the customers who have made your site possible. You’ve completely ruined a good thing. It wasn’t broken, It didn’t need fixed.

  218. Bruce Boyd

    I don’t have a list of issues with the new Ancestry, but I can sum up my opinion as disappointed. I have been a subscriber for about 11 years and I am seriously considering not renewing this year and looking at alternatives to Ancestry. As a former systems and software engineer, I can say that the recent rollout of the new site was premature and apparently did not fully consider the feedback given by the beta test community. The rush to meet the deadline outweighed the need to deliver a quality product. The lost goodwill among the user community may well be the downfall of Ancestry, especially if viable alternatives begin to emerge.

  219. Roberta

    It’s mainly fluff and I dislike it immensely. Rethinking what to do with my renewal coming up next month if this change is crammed down out throats.

  220. Elaine

    I have had a terrible time. Been reconfiguring what I had already set up. Terrible. It is even more difficult on my iPhone now. I can’t update certain items there. PLEASE – I BEG YOU – please change it back. I’m not able to configure profile pictures easily. All of the features that you thought we’d like aren’t very good. A few are (sorry I don’t have much time to write – my apologies). If I could simply type, change, and modify something without having to look for it over and over and over…. I am sitting in a genealogy library trying to change a profile picture… I know someone here knows how. I used to be able to click and change it. NOPE. Awful. Sorry.

  221. Katharine

    I use Ancestry a LOT, and I appreciate most of the features, but I HATE the new Family View and I don’t understand why we’re being forced to change. Instead of fussing with new color schemes, what I’d really like fixed is the synching with FTM. I’ve taken to doing it multiple times an hour since I’ve had several instances of having to delete and upload my tree again when something goes wrong. That wouldn’t be quite so bad if it didn’t generate HUNDREDS of “hints” that I’d already ignored. It would also be nice if we could ignore classes of hints — like all foreign ones, or all census ones.

  222. Tripp

    I had to take another look at LifeStory in the NEW version for one of my people. What a mess it makes of this person’s life. It did NOT bring across what I had painstakingly entered in Story View in Classic. It did NOT bring over the extra words I put in. It did NOT bring over the extra pictures I put in. What a terrible waste of my time. This new version is NOT helpful and has gone backwards!! AND just to check again – I cannot print or export this LifeStory at all. Totally went backwards on this one.

  223. Margaret

    For those of you who won’t be able to post comments on this blog after today: You can also post any public complaints or kudos regarding new format at Ancestry’s Facebook page.

  224. Jeff

    And yet another issue, missed in my previous two posts, affects Hints.
    Why is there no way to ignore a hint without opening it? I have international hints. I do not have a World subscription therefore I can not open those hints meaning that I also can not ignore them. Now my Hints page for the tree is full of hints I can neither view nor remove from the list.
    I’d love to know the criteria you used when selecting your beta test group. There are so many nonfunctional and/or dysfunctional tools and features in this rollout that it looks like it wasn’t tested at all

  225. Karen

    Jeff, please don’t blame the Beta testers. I, for one, have been leaving the same feedback, over & over, since I since I started as a Beta tester. I certainly have not gotten any value from my World subscription in the last few months. I have been paying Ancestry to test the new site. I absolutely agree with you that, ” there are so many nonfunctional and/or dysfunctional tools and features in this rollout that it looks like it wasn’t tested at all.”

  226. Patricia

    Thanks Karen. I made that same mistake on the boards. I appreciate your efforts to keep Ancestry informed, along with the other beta testers. I remember us going through a rough period of change a few years ago, but I’ve never seen so many valid point complaints, before now. Thank you.

  227. Daniel

    The “view relationship to me” doesn’t seem to work past the 3rd generation. Any plans for a fix?

  228. mrstkdsd

    I wish Ancestry would have waited to release this new version until it was actually ready to go. Too many things were not working at the release. I really hope the quick edit comes back because having to scroll facts just to make a change is tedious. I also prefer to have the gallery where I can see it. AND something really horrible is how the pictures for the ancestors are cut off and don’t fit the image box/circle. The silly phone app colors for the tree are atrocious. Most people working on their trees are probably not children. I am wondering if Ancestry hired the same people that built the health insurance exchange websites. They didn’t work either.

  229. mrstkdsd

    Look at that list of things currently being “worked on.” That is just ridiculous to launched a website (that was functioning in the classic version) and have all those tools not available and/or working. Shameful to do this to paying customers.

  230. Jeff

    OK, I found the new methodology for deleting hints I am unable to open because I don’t have a World subscription.
    Instead of deleting them directly from an ancestor’s Hints page you must instead do it from the “All Hints” page for your entire tree. Select the “Records” category on page left. As you endlessly click and scroll through page after page of displayed hints each individual record will have an “ignore” link below it.
    Because hey, why do in one click what you can do in seven with half a dozen page loads thrown in for good measure, right?

  231. Adriene Brookes

    I tried the new ancestry when it first went live and really did not like it, I went back a few days ago, and see that a lot of things have been improved and fixed. I look forward to the “how does this person relate to me” being fixed, mine does not work, and I really dislike the colors, the grey is muddy and very difficult for me to see. Other than that I like the fact page. It is well laid out and very helpful. I am getting used to a different way of doing things, I don’t see any problems or issues other than the color scheme and what is not functioning. I do think the life story and the current event hints are stupid, but easy enough NOT to use, for them to be a bother. Overall it is a step forward.

  232. Jean Innerarity

    Well, you will be happy to know I have no complaints about the new fancy pages because I don’t use them. What I would like is that you quit making new fancy pages all together and spend the money on obtaining more actual records and data. That is why I subscribe. I don’t need you to give me a history lesson, make me a timeline or make things pretty. It is all FLUFF!

  233. Brenda

    I’m almost in tears.If you want to improve Ancestry.com, fine. But please don’t change it just to be making changes. Anyone who has a smattering of knowledge about genealogy research will become frustrated with the new version. Please consider going back to the old version while improvements are made with input from long-time users.

  234. Joni

    You really need to bring back the military page. Also, the gallery edit feature is missing some things, such as the ability to attach a photo to multiple profiles after it has been added to the gallery. The Facebook sync doesn’t work correctly, and tries to get you to link FB pages to profiles that are already linked. In addition, I have a sibling who’s death does not appear on my LifeStory page, and I can’t get it back no matter what I do. Other than these things, I’ve been enjoying the new site greatly. I love the colors, and enjoy the LifeStory feature. I would like to be able to filter my facts (show only preferred facts, for example), but I like the way it is now organized. I love that the notes feature returned and hope you will do the same for the military pages. Thanks.

  235. Barbara Taylor

    I used the new format for about an hour before I got to a place where it would not work so went back to the classic format. I like the addition of children to the timeline and had asked for that before as it is on geni.com, which I also have. The historical events is sometimes interesting though not all of them. The font and background colors I couldn’t override as I do with classic so that I can see them. I couldn’t find a family group sheet. Some place names were changed to ridiculously inaccurate places. Overall, the page is very confusing. I didn’t get to try all the features because I had real work to do and I’m not being paid to test buggy software.

  236. Floie

    To prepare myself for the inevitable I spent some time on the Ancestry YouTube channel looking at introductions to the new site. I noticed, switching between videos, a discrepancy in colors. In one video the colors were good, soft muted background colors, although, the header color did look “muddy”. In the next video the backgrounds were, mostly, blazing white…with the same “muddy: looking header. I already use an add-on to change the Ancestry signature flat white to softer colors so I don’t go to bed each night with an eyestrain headache. I was hoping I wouldn’t have to do this with the new site.

    My other concern is images. Most display so small on the Facts page I couldn’t see them except for the circle frame in the header which appears to have no method to adjust the image inside to display better. Some of the images I saw were cut off by the frame that was supposed to emphasize the image, but instead, mangled it. I like using images, when I have them, to give the subject life, substance.

    The functions of the new site seem ok to me. There’s a better use of space on the pages and settings to turn some functions on or off. The big concern, for me, is display. If, in using the new layout, I’m faced with a larger expanse of flat white, that can only be described as staring into the sun, I will be, again, faced with wasted time figuring out how to replace it with something more pleasant and inviting. In a perfect world there would be Ancestry “themes”.

  237. Steve Murray

    On the original Ancestry I had several family stories attached to ancestors. So far as I can figure out these have all been deleted. Having explored the new version a bit, I much prefer the old.

  238. Gail

    Oh, pleeze! May I assume the same group of rocket scientists made MAJOR feature, function and appearance changes to Ancestry as also unilaterally decided to axe My Canvas last year? Instead of surveying a large audience or transitioning changes gradually, you’ve once again assaulted long-term users with monumentally changes. One example: While local historical happenings are sometimes nice, I definitely don’t want or need them for most people. Example 2: While it is sometimes interesting to note death details on one’s parents, to have it embedded for everybody (include the age that they died) is massive overkill. Example 3: What happened to “COMMENTS”? Those comments included crucial information. Removing COMMENTS has essentially discredited the efforts of those who painstakingly created them.

  239. Kathy

    All I want and Need right now on this new site is to find the print your families profile. I’m ready to print this family now and I can’t find the ******button

  240. Cas

    Poor, poor, poor new format. What happened to COMMENTS? Why are you imposing maps and historical background on locations? I should be able to see such things only when I want them. What prompted such dramatic changes?

  241. rhodyvisitor1

    I use the family view and not the pedigree view when first viewing my tree on ancestry.com. as a matter of fact several times I’m pushed over to the pedegree view and have to keep clicking on the family view of the tree I’m trying to view and work with. If you don’t carry the family view oaver to the new ancestry…. I’ll be so confused and it will take more time to view and go thru individules in my tree. Of wich I have very little time to b messing around. Any time saver I’m for. Also, would any1 be interested in Color Coding?? your tree??? I would like them to add color coding to the square around the individual/picture/ silhouette of an individual. I have several branches that intermarried and would like to Use Any Color I wish, to show me that branch. I find when studying, It is helpful to have things Color coded. I thought that if they have that tool available, it would cut down on trying to print out/ use paper and ink and the time to use highlighter on the printouts, when I’m right here on ancestry and with a click or 2 have the things already highlighted here…. then I could print out the Already color coded tree chart.boom. done. That would be so nice. And Ancestry…. KEEP the Family View…. not just the Ancestor view of the trees…. please?

  242. Nancy

    I use Ancestry on my iPad mini and it seems to be broken with the new update (6/10/15). I can no longer scroll to ancestors or descendents with the new version. The only way I’ve found to see ancestors is using the ‘new button’ to see their tree, but you can’t go back. Please fix this!!! I spend a lot of time using my iPad and now it’s nearly useless.

  243. Cheryl

    An unwelcome “update” in New Ancestry in reference to the family column on the right-hand side of the profile page concerning spouses is confirmed by an Ancestry Facebook response. . .”Hi Cheryl, we apologize for any frustration. In the Family column on the right hand side of a profile page, multiple spouses should be listed in reverse chronological order (with the most recent marriage at the top). If the spouses are not listed in this order, please send us a private message including your Ancestry username, and we will be happy to take a closer look at your account.” What is going on here? Why on earth would this be done? Some need to shake the crap out of Ancestry!

  244. Cheryl

    Posted to me by Ancesty facebook. . .”Hi Cheryl, we apologize for any frustration. In the Family column on the right hand side of a profile page, multiple spouses should be listed in reverse chronological order (with the most recent marriage at the top). If the spouses are not listed in this order, please send us a private message including your Ancestry username, and we will be happy to take a closer look at your account.” What????

  245. Jeff

    Regarding my previous posts relating to deleting hints from the Hints page for any specific person, I’ve found the cause of the problem. There is an actual ignore button for each hint, it’s just hidden unless you have the window maximized to full screen size, or close to it.
    This is likely a CSS error, actually several of them. Opposite of what SHOULD happen, reducing the window size actually INCREASES the width of the leftmost column. At full screen on my 17″ monitor,
    “U.S. and International Marriage
    Records, 1560-1900″
    appears on two lines, as shown above. However, should I reduce the width of the window 3/4″ to 1” the line break goes away and it becomes
    “U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900” all on one line. At this point the Add and Ignore buttons vanish. There is no scroll bar, and center clicking then moving the mouse won’t drag the content back either so there’s zero way to access the buttons.
    No idea why ancestry thinks that making columns wider when the window gets smaller is the proper display method.
    I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the task of performing a major redesign of the site has been assigned to people who don’t even use it.

  246. PM Uhlig

    Please explain to me how Ancestry can make such drastic changes in their format while ignoring the problems it has created? New and/or infrequent users may not realize what this change has done, but I assure you loyal long-time users and researchers are very angry. The only way you can avoid a mass exodus is to make the “Classic” view a permanent option. Another thing you can do to alleviate this issue is to actually respond to problems and suggestions that users encounter instead of enabling software designers to unilaterally implementing a “new look” and format, and completely ignore years of time and by users to create their famIly genealogies. These long-time users are the people who have contributed in major ways to the popularity and growth of this site and generating its financial success. I urge you not to follow the lemming race other major corporations have joined in throwing products over the cliff by decimating the original benefits of their usefulness and service with little or no regard for customers.

  247. Kristie

    Hi. I know it’s rough when you work hard, and your baby gets such negative reviews. But admit it. This is bad. I recognize the Google Plus Material design elements (who talked you into that for this site?). I know what you tried to do – but all I can say is wow – in a bad way. As a subscriber, relative ‘with it’ techie and someone who will tell you the truth, please contact me for help out of this PR nightmare. You have my e-mail.

  248. Johannes Husum

    Keep classic view as an option !!! The new one is too fancy for me as an old Norwegian. Was afraid something like this was going to happen.

  249. I hate the new Ancestry, too hard and confuing to an 83 year old Ive worked very hard building my family trees for 15 years, now it is all mumble jumble to me. . Please ,let us choose which version we want. Thank you

  250. Alan Whiteman

    I also hate the new Ancesty.com. It is NOT easier to use. Please provide a mechanism for a classic view.

  251. Kevin R

    I also dislike the “New” Ancestry site.
    Please provide an option for the “Classic” view.
    I would appreciate a response to this request.

  252. Monicarol

    I’ve only tried to use the new site a few times and there is so much basic functionality missing that it simply isn’t usable. Is there any way we can use the classic view?
    I am a human factors professional and am so disappointed that Ancestry didn’t at least keep basic functionality with the new version. The classic view had a sophisticated look that clearly differentiated it from the competition- the new view looks cartoonish and unprofessional with too much white space and not enough content.
    Just off the top of my head, here are a few major problems: What happened to the quick edit boxes? These were so useful! After searching for 10 minutes I could not find a way to change a person from living to dead, and had to delete the person and put them back in. Who cares about fluffy storylines when you don’t have basic functionality? This is an old issue of very basic Windows functionality, but we still cannot select text in the tree view or pop-up boxes for copying.
    If someone who has used the site for years can’t figure out how to do very basic functions, you know the developers have not done their homework.

    No doubt I would find other major problems with usability and functionality, but for now the site is so useless that I will have to resort to using FTM, which means I have to be home to do ancestry work.
    I think Ancestry needs to pull this pre-Beta version and wait until it is a whole lot more mature before presenting it again. Sorry, Ancestry, I love you to pieces but I need to be able to actually use your site.

  253. Monicarol

    Ah, I figured out how to go back to the classic site, so I’m a happy camper again. Just switch back, guys!

  254. Can you please remove the cutesy icons over the map pointers? For example, my Great Grandparents were married in Agropoli. When the map pointer appears above the town there is a little heart above it. I click and get the date of their marriage. This is so unnecessary. I would prefer a better search engine. The current one sux.

  255. Diane

    I have been a PAYING member of Ancestry since May of 2001. THAT is a lot of money over the years. AND NOW, I MAY HAVE TO LEAVE. Taking my 7 trees and thousands of hours of hard work with me. I DO NOT LIKE THE NEW SITE. It looks like a child’s book. It is unprofessional looking and adds pictures I don’t want, and hides pictures I spent hours scanning and uploading. I PAY YOU…WHY CAN’T I KEEP WHAT I WANT??? This is stupidity and poor business. IF you do not continue to offer the OLD site along with the new site indefinitely , you will be loosing TONS of customers , and some of your oldest and best customers like me………

  256. barb

    Why will the new Ancestry never work for me? I would have to think I’m not the only person who works hard to tell a story with pictures on their timeline. Case in point, here’s what you did to my sweet Mom: I painstakingly created a 28 event timeline memorializing events most important to me, accompanied by my most precious pictures. The text for each event refers to and/or describes the picture. You now come along and create a whole new timeline– Lifestory– using only 10 of those events in a very impersonal way. Your text and event description is huge, and my personal comments are tiny. So OK, I go to the Facts story line to see what happened to the other 18 events that matter so much to ME, and apparently not to you at all, and there are all my events and their comments– WITH NO PICTURES!! So every single thing I have written about my Mom in reference to those pictures makes no sense at all., because the picture I’m talking about is not there! And the worst thing you did to her is how you ended her life in such an in-your-face way. On my timeline I tried to end it gently with a loving comment about her place of rest. You have uncaringly decided, for her Lifestory, to write about the location of her cemetery plot directly under her profile picture. I will never forgive you for that. I also want to choose whether to mention how many people in my family member’s life died along the way, and would NEVER want your historical facts on anyone’s timeline. Case in point that you don’t have a clue: when our rectangular pictures didn’t fit your circles, instead of realizing you are wrong and doing away with the circles, you made our pictures smaller to fit what YOU think our site should look like. Please. Stop.

  257. JudyD

    I’ve been switching back & forth between “New” and “Classic”–sometimes just to compare and sometimes because I need to get something done with a function that either doesn’t work or takes 3x as many steps to do in the new site. I add a few comments each time I leave the new version.
    Some things are getting “fixed”, but I agree with other users; the new site is not “ready” for prime time.
    From the beginning, it appeared to have been created by someone unfamiliar with genealogical research or–most importantly–unfamiliar with Ancestry.com and how it works. Many of the useful functions were simply left out, and many new ones are just plain “clunky”. Most have been mentioned here.
    One thing that still looks odd (and annoying) is the lack of controlled word wrap in most of the text boxes. I have never seen a web site or a document that lets words break in random places–such as in the middle of a syllable or just after the first letter. In the document programs I’ve used, correct breaks are the default. So I looked this aberration up online.
    The first explanation that came up: It’s a problem with “Microsoft documents that originate in Asia”. Fixing it involves some fiddling with language versions. (Asia? Hmmm…)
    Another possibility (techie stuff): The word-wrap “value” has not been defined in CSS (if they’re using it). There’s a solution for that here:
    http://coursesweb.net/css/css3-text-shadow-word-wrap-text-overflow_t
    Please…PLEASE!
    Don’t shut down the functional version until these things are working smoothly in the new one.

  258. Jeani12338

    I haven’t had much time using the new ancestry site. However, I have used it enough to not like it very much, and agree with most of the comments here. A thought comes to mind, i.e., someone commented that they pay ancestry for the information they garner and set their tree the way they like it. I had also made that comment a couple of years ago when Ancestry last changed their web site! That’s it! Ancestry keeps changing their web site, especially forcing users to re-enter and/or change information they have already entered into their tree(s) on ancestry, some for many years (as have I) … that is their intent! to make sure subscribers have to continue to pay for their subscriptions, ad infinitum! Something similar (changes) occurred about two (2) years ago, and I quit Ancestry for a while. However, I had so much time and money and research, etc. invested in Ancestry, that I re-subscribed monthly!
    Clean this mess up, Ancestry. FYI … there are a few other sites that are slowly but surely catching up with you! a couple of which I am a subscriber. I do like the hints, family group sheet, ease of attaching a picture to multiple persons in a tree, etc. If these options are no longer available to me, then what is the option? Ancestry then becomes useless.

  259. Carol

    The new Ancestry makes me angry as I use it. I don’t like the look of it, first of all. I have to edit everything one by one.. could we not have the page back where you can edit name, birth, death etc all in one place? Everything takes so long.. why do you have to click the Hints button twice before anything shows up, and why is it so darn slow? My anger builds and builds with each of these frustrating things as I use them. My big worry is about the Comments section.. ARE WE GETTING IT BACK? I have a lot of important information in the Comments and would hate to lose them.. I’d be devastated. I’d quit Ancestry and just use my Family Tree Maker from then on.

  260. Connie

    Don’t use the family tree bit much but really wish I could get rid of all the leaves. I already have that information!

  261. Connie

    Biggest gripe is light gray on a white background. I’m visually impaired so it makes items, information, etc VERY difficult to even see, let alone read! Please improve the contrast.

  262. cmdavie

    I absolutely hate the new design. It seems as though it takes 2 clicks to get back to a saved fact like a census to look at the actual image. It is too much like the Ancestry App which is useless unless you want to show your family or friends your tree. You can’t search for anyone who is not already on your tree.

    PLEASE bring back the classic/old/not this version!! I pay way too much money for this website to have to spend another month learning what your designers felt like was a great idea.

  263. Karen

    For those of you who are missing “Comments”, they have been returned, but are now hidden. On a person’s overview/profile/fact page click on “Tools” in the upper right hand corner. You will see “Comments” as an option. You can also reach them by clicking on “Notes” under a person’s name, birth, death info. You will have a choice of Notes or Comments. Unfortunately, unless you go looking, you have no idea that there are comments on an individual. I fail to understand the reasoning for this.

  264. mary

    I want, at a minimum, the option to COMPLETELY DISABLE the disastrous “Lifestory” for my trees. AND I want that to happen without losing any of the fact page content I put on there myself such as photos, stories, and my own correct historical insights..

  265. Roger

    As a long time member and subscriber with extensive work within Ancestry.com personal trees, please revert and go back to the theme used for the past five years.

    This new theme reminds me of a young child designing something really cool looking, but forgetting something cool looking is likely useless for real work!

    With your new theme, past intuitive features are now obviously completely neglected, causing significant obvious complaints.

  266. Sheila Surber

    I thought I was going to like the new Ancestry until I started seeing erroneous information that has somehow merged onto my tree in the form of “lifestory”. I can’t figure out how to correct it without deleting the person and then resubmitting their correct information and photos. I don’t have time to learn the new system and rework my entire tree. I want the old Ancestry back. Otherwise, I will not be renewing.

  267. Lfox614

    I several way tried to find a message board discussing the upcoming changes but all I got was links to 10 year old articles…….I would really like to see comments from other members about a few specific changes that I don’t care for instead of reading through random comments here.

    Honestly I do not care for the New site format very much so far. The Home page and Search form ok, but the Tree view is not pleasing to the eye at all and Profile pages are just way to busy. The Classic version is more condensed and easier to take in the overall picture for someone. One final thing so far that I am quite unhappy about is the change to these picture circles on the Profiles. I do not want to crop the pictures I’ve currently set to be the primary photo for my tree members. I could probably adjust to most other things over time…..but the photo circles I really really do not like.

  268. Elhura

    I am sick! Five years of hard work, careful research and praising Ancestry Classic for its search engine, helpful hints, ease of documentation and its repository for my own stories and narratives that best describe my family – all gone!

    With the new Ancestry I have totally lost control of my tree. Cumbersome, flat data is robotically inserted into the flow of a tree that before new Ancestry could be captured in a one-page glance. My carefully prepared family stories are totally lost, sacrificed to “progress”. My stories analyzing “mixed-up” families by sorting through similar names, copied trees, varied data and timeline comparisons – all lost! And this was to have been my contribution to those who come after me!

    In Life Story, photos contributed by me – or any Ancestry member – no longer credit the contributor – a feature that many times has enabled further communication and sharing. Never mind if they are credited elsewhere, they should be credited on the Life Story feature as well. Blocks of narrative lifted from my tree’s “Facts” should also be credited to its author. And what about my stories previously downloaded by other trees – will portions now be inserted into Life Story in another tree without its original author being recognized?

    Photos – uninvited – have been inserted by Ancestry as relevant when in reality, they are just the opposite. My g-grandfather did live in GA in 1850, but his family never owned slaves. How relevant were the people and slave quarters of a plantation with the caption stating my g-grandfather lived in GA in 1850? How relevant was the Civil War photo of a city’s destruction, when he lived in a remote rural area not pillaged and destroyed?

    The gallery, once so easily viewed at a glance, must be accessed through yet another cumbersome page – and then up and down rather than the eye-friendly side-to-side. And how do I add those photos to multiple family members without the pain of searching the entire gallery again?

    I have read the reviews that appear here and find little comfort in knowing I am not alone. In fact, I see few members who have cared enough to respond who aren’t totally displeased. And perhaps that’s the key – those of us who do care and whose careful research has helped make Ancestry.com what it is – should be respectfully heard.

    I ask that you please give those of us who have labored so long and care so passionately the opportunity to retain our contributed stories and to omit the offensive irrelevant photos and the unwelcome born-died additions to our profile pages – or better yet – to retain our option for Ancestry Classic. It and your members who love it have helped make Ancestry.com what it is! Without its Classic Masterpiece, Ancestry.com will never be the same!

  269. R

    It would be great if you can add back the “save as profile picture” to each picture’s edit feature. The New Ancestry only allows to you to save as a profile picture when uploading, not when viewing a previously saved photo. Thanks!

  270. Bonnie

    Thanks for helping me decide that I will no longer use Ancestry for recording information, I’m sticking with my offline program, Roots Magic and just using ancestry for searching. Time is to precious to waste learning a new interface because some punk programmers are bored

  271. I am slowly beginning to get used to the new look and freaking out a lot less often about it.

    I think the biggest problem with this new interface is that a lot of features people need/want are now in unexpected or unintuitive places. You will need to have a tour or orientation feature, perhaps a whole FAQ page, to show users where their favorite features have gone.

    The interface really needs mouseover tooltips.

    I like that the relationship to the home person on profile pages is now automatic.

    I like the clean streamlined look of the new interface, but the gray color scheme is murky and depressing. Fine light colored text on a dark background is hard to see for many people.

    The tiny little icon for “Find Person in Tree” on the profile pages is too small and easily missed. Make it a search box like the old one and put it under the name of the current tree.

    I don’t care for the circular “porthole” look of the profile image frames. It will be hard to make many images look good in this format. I like the way Fold3.com handles profile page images. They’re rectangular and the edit screen has a resizable built-in crop tool that’s very helpful.

    On the family tree view, the list of people I have worked with in this tree (not sure what else to call it) is now across the bottom of the page instead of the top. This means that it is often at least partially obscured by Firefox’s status messages (what server is being contacted, waited for, etc.). There may be a Firefox option to deal with this, but since everybody is used to seeing this thing at the top of the page it would probably be better just to put it back there.

    I just noticed that going back into a census or document from the image gallery page offers the multi-function save button which I thought had been removed. If this is how you’ve got it working now, I can live with it (as long as it’s accessible SOMEWHERE), but this is NOT obvious and you need to put clear information somewhere that explains how this is going to work now. A lot of your users will probably just assume that it’s been completely removed.

    Please put an explanation somewhere of exactly what the difference is between Yes No and Maybe on the document viewer. This is far from obvious as they all seem to do the same thing. Are they setting a flag somewhere? Will this affect the way something displays somewhere else? I’m not at all clear on what this is meant to do.

    Many revisions ago there was a Member Connect feature on the document viewer under Related Content. I could see links to all the other public trees that the selected person had been added to and visit them to see if other users had additional information on that person that I might be interested in. I would like to see this feature put back if it’s possible to do that.

    I like that I can directly edit facts now from the profile page instead of having to go to a whole different page and through a list of tabs. Another user posted on a blog that she liked the old interface for the ability to edit and save several facts simultanously. It would be nice to be able to do this, but I’m not sure how it could be implemented from the current setup.

    The map on the story page is still a bit wonky. I have someone in one of my trees who lived in Ottawa Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. This showed up on the facts page as “Ottawa, Ottawa, Michigan, USA”, but the map insisted on placing it in Ottawa, Canada until I edited the fact to show as “Ottawa County, Michigan, USA”. I think this could be fixed if the software looked at the last 1 or 2 elements of the location instead of the beginning of the string.

    I couldn’t care less about the military pages. I use Fold3.com for that because I never liked the way the military pages were handled on Ancestry. If you’re going to keep the military pages, make it more obvious that there is one for that person (a BIG noticeable button on the profile page) and make the search function more useful – better filters or something – because it never seemed to work right for me. No matter what filter(s) I set, I got back an immense list of people that was much too big to look through to see if there were any results that I was interested in.

  272. Debbie

    Hahaha, yeah right. I attached a ton of photos to my pages and cannot see ONE SINGLE photo as the “Gallery” will never open. Thanks so very much Ancestry for wasting my time. Think I’ll be going back to Family Tree Maker for doing any “real” genealogy work with anything but searching for information.

  273. Betty Wynne

    As a very long-time ancestry.com user, I hate hate hate hate hate these changes. It seems you have equated updated LOOKS with updated EASE of ACCESS. Not so! I do intense research every single day, and this new view is so difficult to maneuver.
    Overall – the biggest issues I have are the constant scrolling to find things, especially since now the computer view is usually spread over 1 or more screens (same thing about the last change you made, but this one is even worse), and the lack of consolidation of information so you can just click in one place.
    Look. I know you have worked hard on these changes. In my previous job, one of my tasks was to update the user end of information and make them easier to use. But it is important to remember that changes need to be made for the ease, and not for the beauty or updated look. Ancestry has always been the easiest genealogical site to use – everything right in front of you, easy to find.
    I hope you will take the problems I have had on your site and work on them. I am on ancestry.com daily, usually have it open in 3 or 4 screens on my laptop, and I quickly find and make changes due to the ease of your site. These changes have really mucked up my daily work.
    Thanks,
    Betty H. Wynne (rwynne6)

  274. Betty Wynne

    I am laughing at the statement you make at the very beginning about persons who love the new enhanced features. Where on earth did that come from?
    I am already looking for a way to get all my information – years and years worth – off of the many trees I have established.
    This is the worst thing I have ever seen.

  275. kathbeth

    For some reason when I started my tree over again because I wanted to do it a different after I had found out more info and finally realized that you had updated it.
    My PROBLEM is the view relationship to me does not appear anymore and that was the best feature of all. This new version I’m not very happy with and why can’t you just leave things the way there were? Stop updating and fix the problems/bugs that members are telling you about instead of adding or dropping features. I’ve been Ancestry for many years and I love the site. I only have the basic package for right now but please stop upgrading! Reading the posts and fix the bugs that members are complaining about, thank you!!!!!

  276. Maria

    I hate the new website. But more important than that, you have taken my family away from me. I have spent hours and thousands of dollars creating my family tree only to find that it now resides in a new format that is completely unusable and unfamiliar to me. You have broken my heart.

  277. Roger Gellenbeck

    Feedback, indeed! It will be interesting to see if Ancestry is wise enough to see that the new website is not well-liked.

    I have been a member for almost 10 years, and family researcher for a dozen more. I feel parts of the “old design” could use improvement; but the “new website” does more harm than “real” improvement for my needs.

    The “feedback” I read here seems to lean toward that finding, too.

    I have over 30 years professional experience in organizational design, and revision of automated systems. That experience leads me to believe that you are heavily invested in changes favored by your younger staff and their IT subcontractors.

    I feel too, that your outreach for customer feedback is to seek areas to “fine tune” your design. However, my experience tells me that your investment in change will “throw the baby out with the bathwater”; and you will screw up, rather than improve, what is not now a bad thing.

    You may be better served by considering your customer base. You will probably find that: (1) they are older persons, (2) many are on fixed or limited retirement incomes, (3) they tend to be resistant to change, and (4) are unwilling to reinvest in re-learning a system, that has taken years to gain a comfort level. They may also experience challenges to their vision an computer skills.

    I think you will find that the younger elements of your customer demographic contain many short-term customers, that do a little sloppy work, then disappear. Many other younger members pay their dues, and become proficient, and eventually join that older group of customer cadre.

    I suspect that your redesign team may not focus on the real needs of your aging customer base; that is, introducing new intuitive research tools, and easy-to-view and understand data organization designs.

    I realize that I demonstrate a bias regarding younger staff and users, but that is because I believe they do not truly understand older users needs; and consequently, tend to trivialize them.

    But then, …who knows? Because of my age, I am part of that resistance to change, …unless I’m convinced of the benefits of those changes.

    So far, I am not.

    Respectfully submitted.

  278. LuckyOne

    I have tried to keep an open mind about the “new” Ancestry.com, so I’ve waited a few weeks before submitting this comment. Unfortunately, the “new” Ancestry.com has not grown on me, and I cannot say I like it, even a little bit. Here are a few reasons:

    1. The new look is dark (Dark Gray! Ugg!) and cluttered. Also, I really hate how a person’s name is now centered on the page (the name is now harder to find, not easier), and how the main photo for a person is in the shape of an egg. I mean, really, how many photos are shaped that way? Now a photo just appears weirdly cropped and does not fill out the space. Please bring back the rectangle!!

    2.) It is now impossible to tell if there are stories or photos attached to a person’s page unless you click on Gallery. That was not an improvement. It just makes things more difficult and tedious for your users.

    3.) I hate the added “facts” that Ancestry.com now inserts on all my pages. Now I have silly facts like “John Smith’s mother died on January 1, 1898,” or “John Smith’s son Johnny Smith was born on January 2, 1898.” These are facts I could easily find on the old Ancestry.com just by glancing at a person’s relatives. I don’t want these needless facts on my page and would like to get rid of them. Please go back to letting your users decide what facts they want on their pages. Allow more customization, please, not less.

    I just don’t understand why Ancestry.com made these changes. Were they necessary?

    I also have this nagging feeling that a lot of money went into making this “new” Ancestry.com. However, I WOULD PREFER MY MEMBERSHIP MONEY GO TOWARD OBTAINING RECORDS AND IMPROVING ANCESTRY.COM’S SEARCH FEATURES.

    Thanks for listening.

  279. Sharon Harris

    Who are you kidding? Just where are all of the complementary comments from all of the people that like the new changes? 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.It is confusing and illogical.
    The sharpness of the text is important. The lighter text is hard on the eyes. Allow us to determine the sharpness of the text or got back to black. Spend your money on finding and including more documents. I do not need extraneous items placed in my tree by someone that has no clue what my own family was doing or where they were located. If you really want to add something like that, then do it as a thumbnail and off to the side, perhaps? Come on. Isn’t our well paid money and loyalty to the Ancestry site worth anything to you?

  280. jec7725

    Almost all of the comments on here are negative towards the new version. I do not care to experience the learning curve associated with what sounds like a completely new and more cumbersome site. Once “classic” is no longer available I will be dropping my subscription. No one else in my family, including any of the younger generation, are even remotely interested in the history of our family, at this time at least. As time passes, I had hoped, and still do, that one of them would show interest and I could pass the Ancestry tree on to them, along with all the ongoing research. Your new version makes that impossible as I doubt I’d ever be able to explain how it works if they were interested.
    Is there any way to keep the “classic” version available with the only updating from your side being to allow new records as they become available? existing “

  281. MarykM

    I don’t like it for all the reasons stated above. I do wish someone would tell me how the new Facts page is more “streamlined” than the Profile page in the Classic format. The new Facts page is wider, longer, and contains unnecessary Ancestry-added narrative that can’t be deleted. I have to follow purple lines to open sources that used to be conveniently placed in the Facts boxes. In many cases, I can’t see the whole Facts page at one time–have to keep scrolling up-and-down. Ancestry subscribers paid money to build and research trees over which they now have little control. Doesn’t make any sense!!!

  282. Elhura

    I have spent time today really trying to work with the new Ancestry. The only way I can return to Classic is by leaving a comment which I have done twice – but am not sure either reached their destination due to difficulties signing off. I am repeating both efforts here in the hope they can be constuctive:

    Am trying to give it a fair shake since the change is inevitable. Just hope you keep listening and fix more of the flaws.

    (1) The FIND A PERSON IN THIS TREE should be readily visible and accessible from the FACTS page – not obscured under a layer at the top left corner. I regularly move back and forth among non-household individuals while working, as I am sure others do;

    (2) COMMENTS should be clearly marked from the FACTS page as well. I need to know at a glance if there have been comments by others. I am not going to go through the layers to find it just to see IF a comment is there. Perhaps a COMMENT ALERT BUTTON would suffice. Comments are a valuable tool to those of us who do more than copy other’s trees;

    (3) Why can’t I add a MARRIAGE FACT without first creating a source? Without an Ancestry-transcribed source already saved, I could not get the marriage block to add without creating another reference to the 1930 Census (i. e. I often cite in the narrative section that “marriage year is approximate and based on first-married age/s in 1930 Federal Census”;

    (4) I have found how to remove the Historical Highlights (photos too, I hope) that you have inserted on the LIFE STORY page. Also found how to do this for family events. I DO NOT WANT THE PHOTOS YOU INSERT. I can accept the FAMILY EVENTS on LIFE STORY, but NOT ON THE FACTS page. Am thinking your present tools allow this selective removal from both. WILL THIS TRANSFER – UNTIL I CHANGE IT – TO ALL PERSONS IN MY TREE?

    (5) And please don’t lose my submitted stories (i. e. Where is MARRIAGES IN THE JOHN W. WRIGHT HOUSE that was supposedly attached to John W. Wright (1804-1891) and Frances Emaline Parker Wright (1835-1936) in my JOHN W. WRIGHT TREE? Those of us who write, value our stories, often with Ancestry as our sole repository. We, incidently, have no use for your LIFE STORY option except to make sure it is not too misleading;

    (7) Please keep re-evaluating the time-consuming layers we must go through to search, view or add data. It is still somewhat confusing and does seem to be much more convoluted than before;

    (8) Please remain alert to the colors and shading in the page. When I viewed the FACTS page a few days ago, it seemed blue and gray, very hard on older eyes. Today – whatever the change to the off-white background and olive – is so much better. Thought I would be unable to continue my work at first. That change has made a big difference. And lastly,

    (9) I like what you have done about the RELATIONSHIP TO ME on the FACTS page. It is much easier to access by clicking on the line – not the miniscule tool icon. The connections by name have always been important to those of us exchanging information and answering the first question often posed via MEMBER CONNECT, “How are you related to me?”. And where is MEMBER CONNECT now? Can’t find it.

    The creators of ANCESTRY CLASSIC are to have been commended. Thanks for listening and for the changes already made. I still fear the changes are too drastic for some long-time users and may end their work – thus the case for keeping ANCESTRY CLASSIC as an option. And let’s hope the new generation of designers take the valuable lessons from ANCESTRY CLASSIC into the new form.

  283. Louis Leurig

    I have to join most of the others for not being able to use the new as well as the “classic”. One problem today was printing a form and at the top was an “ad” for trying the new look. ruins the PDF.
    What was wrong with the old that required a new look?
    Bring it back or scale back on all of the changes and address those really needed

  284. Chris

    I really do like the new ancestry. There are some great new features, and some that could use improvement.

    1. Streamline adding new sources, new source descriptors and the facts they create. When I add a new source, I can link it to existing facts and vice versa. However, if I have a new source that creates a new fact, I have to create both separately and link them, and then go back and forth to make sure everything is correct and that I didn’t miss anything. Often times you are essentially using the same information for much of it.
    2. Also, please use the source descriptor on the facts page and on the media page. My family data collection/individual records have no visible links to events on the facts page, no pictures on the facts page, and no descriptors. They all say “family data collection – individual records”. Technically, your family data isn’t often a verifiable fact, but one would think that there would be a way to easily determine that there is a wedding picture associated with a wedding date, etc., and be able to find it with ease.
    3. Please listen to the users who have made suggestions regarding the three following changes. They really are important for ease of use.
    a. The hints: If you have a huge tree, they can be overwhelming. Prioritizing by nearest relatives or direct descendants is important. I also like the new “undecided”. If we click on a leaf and choose “undecided,” could we have the option of making a note or two? For example, “marriage dates vary”.
    c. The historical events: Please let us opt in or opt out. If you turn them off for the tree, you could still opt in for a few people on the tree. Or vice versa.
    c: The oval picture. Please let us choose if we want to mess with that. I have a huge family and I don’t have time to fix the pictures that are already there, let alone the pictures I am going to enter. I already have some other things I need to fix. For example, I kept all of the alternate names on the censuses, and now they are all on my timeline. And there are a few other things I need to fix. Those of us with big trees would really appreciate your flexibility in those matters.
    And speaking of flexibility, thank you for letting us “try” this, rather than making sweeping unilateral changes without asking for feedback.
    We appreciate it.

  285. Larry Hughes

    Awful! Awful! Awful!

    What were you thinking? As a retired computer person, there was obviously no baseline testing prior to release. Since paying for 23andme and their new tree site is up and working, I’ll probably switch over completely.

  286. How much are you willing to allow me? I’ve got TWO pages – NOT satisfied! Are you willing to read them? * The pencil-pushers have DISTORTED my Documented information AGAIN.

  287. Elhura

    This is adding to my comments of June 28. I stayed on the site as long as my eyes could take it. Sadly, I can tell my future work will be curtailed if some visual changes are not made.

    I hope you will continue to hear the concerns and are able to make the improvements.

    (1) The FACT page is already way too busy with color and data arrangement to include the visually distracting purple lines. Citation links as they once were (inside the right top corner of the fact block) did the job well without the hunt and search now required. The purple lines leading to them are “blinding” and distracting. I have found I can avoid them sometimes by immediately clicking on the GENDER block once a source has been connected. That doesn’t work, however, as I maneuver the page. The worse than pesky lines come up anyway. The idea was a bad one, very elementary and one that adds to the clutter of the page. Hope you can return the citation/source link to the more efficient spot it once claimed.

    (2) The individual’s age-by-year that appears to the far left of each fact block is way too light and small to be seen;

    (3) The font size, or perhaps the font style, for information in the data blocks on the FACTS page is also not as readable as it once was and is very hard on the eyes. If you want to serve your older subscribers well, you might consult a vision specialist for tips on font and color, and amount of “free” page space;

    (4) What has happened to the ability to add birth and death data via the EDIT THIS PERSON screen just by clicking on the person’s name? I now have to EDIT the birth and death blocks separately and must type the detail into each narrative block. Previously, we had the convenience of the drop-down list of previously entered data. I could swiftly show birth and death data that came from “Find-a-Grave Tombstone Photo”, etc. by just starting to type in the field and pronto, the drop down list for DESCRIPTION would appear – enabling me to add & reference both sets of information in 2-3 seconds;

    (5) It would also be nice once again to be able to create the source citation AFTER you have created the data block on the FACTS page. I find I must create in a cumbersome way a citation from extraneous sources – then ADD a fact block – and then move back to the source to link it. Previously, we could click on the SOURCE in the data block top corner AFTER the data block was complete. Some of us do pack a lot of detail into our citations which was another great “storage” feature of Ancestry Classic. The difficulty of locating and maneuvering within the new process is a deterrent to this type of data preservation.

    Pardon my reference to the old, but Ancestry Classic was the gem of brilliant design. You had a product no one could surpass. In trying to surpass yourself, you have hurt yourself and all whose comments appear on this page.

    Perhaps you could compromise and let us keep the FACTS/PROFILE page appearance and method of data entry as it was and keep the LIFE STORY page for yourself and those who like it. The GALLERY could be an added addition we both could learn to love.

    Please make every effort to have a truly workable and appreciated product in the new design!

  288. Steve

    It has been a month, that Ancestry came out with the new format. I have not seen any changes, or corrections to all the problems, they created. They should go back to the drawing board, and start over again, or just go back to the classic, which everyone loved.
    No one likes the round pictures, and we don’t want to have to crop our pictures, just to fit.
    I like using the Facts page, but want to see the thumbnail pic’s back in the events, where I put them.
    The Story Tail (Life Story) page, they only used a few events, that I added, they didn’t even put in the burial event.
    All of the negative comments on this site, can’t be wrong.

  289. Steve

    In the latest Crista Cowan video, for Ancestry, about Genealogical Standards, the date should be written dd MMM yyyy, but in the new format, they write it MMM dd yyyy, that surely proves the creators of this new format, are NOT genealogist…

  290. Madelyne

    So unhappy about all of the details I lost when they got rid of the military page and the stories features. Like many other people, I put a lot of time into those. There’s no easy and efficient way to list specific military services or battles they fought in. For a family history site I feel this is a horrible flaw.

  291. Mavis

    I can’t believe the Family Group Sheet and printing of that isn’t widely used. Perhaps the majority of your users are not that skilled, or your web app makes the family group sheet too hard for them to find? Printing a family group sheet to send to others is something I do all the time. When looking at another’s tree using the family group sheet to SEARCH on a person in their tree is the only way to instigate a search that is populated with facts in their tree. This saves tremendous time in DNA research as well as other research. It is also well accepted knowledge from a photography point of view that most photos don’t work well cropped as circles. Heck, scrapbookers know that too!

  292. Russell

    This new format is so bad. It takes forever to open the gallery. The gallery used to be automatically visible in the profile. Now you have to wait until your hair turns gray to open it up. The other problem is when you go to do work on hints, it does not let you go immediately back to the profile. There is no direct link back. You have to go back to the tree and circle back to the profile you are working on. If you feel that you are so much smarter and know so much better than your customers, then make this insane change. If you care anything at all about your loyal customer, at the very least give us a choice between the old and the new. 99% of your current customer will chose the old. In this case, older is better.

  293. caith

    Yes, life is about choices and we should have the choice of keeping the old, the Classic.

    In the end, most of us know Ancestry’s net-net will be in the negative. They will lose many more LOYAL customers than gain new ones, who will be here today, and gone tomorrow. I had always planned to keep a membership, whether or not I used it, because of my loyalty and respect for Ancestry, but no more. My warm cozy feeling is gone.

    In good business terms, the Customer is always right!

    It is hoped they will Do The Right Thing and keep the Classic as an Option.

  294. vegas vega

    First old search goes away and now this … (words fail me to adequately describe it).

    I would like to see the exact number of subscribers that “are enjoying the enhanced storytelling features, streamlined Facts view, Historical Insights, and other elements of the new site.” Because I spent 10 minutes on the new site and promptly wanted to pull my hair out.

    Why don’t you spend the money on *useful* enhancements, like better indexing or transcriptions (really, a relative was a METH DEALER in 1900, when the image clearly shows milk dealer?), more contemporary records, etc.

    Good thing my subscription runs out before the end of the year so I don’t have to use this so-called “improved” site.

  295. Allen

    Many times when I use Ancestry the site is as slow as molasses. Reason is there are too many clicks needed to get where you want to go. Now this NEW Ancestry requires even more clicks because features that once were visible have to be found elsewhere. Very disappointing process. ONE of those features is the Media Gallery, you could see immediately in the OLD version if there was media attached, now you must click to see. Of the 50,000 people I have in my trees, I am very upset I will need to click 50,000 times to find media. And this will slow down your already poor system performance. I think money would have been better spent improving your system than creating something that adds to the problem!

  296. Jeannette

    Earlier I had commented on the new changes Ancestry is making, and I wasn’t too happy with the changes (again). Today, however, I did extensive research, and find that I do like the new storyline, etc. It is easier to edit and merge from these pages. They are colorful, and large enough read. They DO take a little getting used to; for me, it is a learning curve, and even at my old age of 77 1/2 years, I still like to learn. One earlier comment/complaint that I see is not changed nor rectified: a copy of a story copied from a 2nd cousin’s Ancestry tree, and synced earlier – did not carry over to this new iteration of Ancestry! I had to re-copy it to my tree! Also, this persons father’s obituary (which I had originally attached to my tree), was no longer in my tree. Once again, I had to reattach it to my tree on Ancestry! This problem is a bit disconcerting; as I have over 4,000 persons in my tree(s) and do not feel like reinventing the wheel. If you noticed my age above, you can assume that my eyesight is failing … fast. Please, I hope you read this message, and fix this problem which seems to be occurring whenever Ancestry makes upgrades, etc. I have been getting the message that Ancestry is making changes and there might be some problems because of it. This message has been at the top of my Ancestry page for quite some time now. Hope it will be fixed soon.

  297. Jeannette

    Yes … I too miss the Family Group Sheet. That is the one sheet I have been using extensively when sharing information with my family and when incorporating this info. in a 3-ring binder. Please, bring this wonderful feature back. I find it infinitely more useful than a large family ‘tree’.

  298. Frederick Kruse

    Who ever designed this new format is not a frequent user! Is terrible, no timeline for the important immigration dates, the fonts hard to read, the color scheme should have a user setting, the names on the right side are all smashed. I could make a better more easily readable and friendly version in about a day. The little circle for the photo is hideous. Too much space for header, too little space for important right side info that is all squeezed. The “Classic” is so much cleaner visually and user friendly. Someone in management should be fired.

  299. douggrf

    Has anyone seen any improvements since the implementation of Web Links almost a month ago? Has development ground to a halt?

  300. Neil

    Dear Ancestry.com team,

    I hope it is clear from the above comments that a large number of people want you to CONTINUE TO OFFER CLASSIC ANCESTRY AS AN OPTION. While we understand that you want to create a new look and add mobile-friendly features, many of us STRONGLY prefer the older interface. I am a World Subscriber who chose Ancestry over all the other services–despite your higher price tag–because you had the cleanest and most efficient interface by far. If you mess that up, you will undoubtedly lose me and many others as customers.

    Please….Have your fun and create your new interface if you think it will attract new customers…but keep the classic interface for the existing customers who want it!

    Thanks,
    Neil

  301. jemgold1

    After many years with Ancestry, this may be my last. I don’t like the new look – the parts left off like comments and Military pages are very important to the researcher. Ancestry is now like I story book -I don’t want a storybook- not user friendly!

  302. Mary

    Someone commented earlier that they figured out how to switch back to classic–HOW? I can’t find any way to do it. The most annoying problem for me has been changing the primary photograph for someone in my tree. I have to upload the same photo over and over; there’s no other way to do it. I end up with many copies of the same picture in my gallery.

  303. David Holmes

    Not happy at all with the ‘new’ view. I don’t need nor want any info in my tree clogging up my profiles with history refernces that I already know or don’t care about! Also, the Gallery in some of my profiles takes FOREVER to load. What is going on with Ancestry????

  304. John Kelly

    Get a warning about Private Browsing and/or cookies. I am not in Private mode and all cookies (including 3rd party) are enabled. Old site works fine. New site does not work at all. Not at all. In tree view, I can’t scroll to navigate. It just selects text.

    What the heck is the new site looking for? Firefox 39.0

  305. Diane

    Sadly, as with all changes in the past (latest being search), ancestry won’t listen and will go ahead and force this change on us. For those of us interested in doing our research and documenting our trees, without a lot of needless fluff and clutter, please preserve the option of using the classic version. I know we asked for this when you changed search, and it did no good. All we can do is try and ask, and then look for other options when you fail to listen to us once again.

  306. karen

    The statement above says you really do appreciate our feedback. If this is true PLEASE PLEASE listen. I am so disgusted with the new change to ancestry Why are you not truly interested in customer service. ? I have spent hundreds of hard earned dollars subscribing to ancestry every year, not to mention obtaining records etc, that cant be found on ancestry. I am not interested in making a teenage family scrap book. I could have done that alone without ancestry. I am interested in doing family research and documenting the truth about my families history. I also think it is shameful about the military page. Its difficult to read and confusing and what the heck? MY pictures have dumb circles around them. The integrity of the picture has been lost. I don’t know how to explain how exasperating this is to me, just opening up my tree and things aren’t in the same place. What was wrong with the old classic version? Each day I give the new version a try and after about ten minutes or so I am about to scream. I hate this. There were other options and Ancestry was the most pricey but I chose to spend my money with you..ancestry has the best interface with the classic version . Please Ancestry don’t force this new version on me! This is not an improvement. You will be losing me as a customer and when I go so will my family trees. Many subscribers including myself have only helped the ancestry site by adding corrections to the records etc. PLEASE DONT DO THIS!

  307. Karen

    the integrity of my tree has been destroyed! Who gave ancestry permission to chop my photos and put them in a stupid little circle? The beauty of my picture is cut off. If ancestry truly appreciates our feedback then I beg of you to keep our classic format that is user friendly and looks nice as well. I’m not interested in the historical information that ancestry has implemented into my tree. If I wanted that information there I would do it myself and where is the family group sheet and the sources in the middle? Seriously it isn’t broken so leave this alone. I’m so sad this is painfully sad. It’s as if someone has come into my personal home and stolen my family Please preserve the classic which is so much more convienent for the user. Life is about choices and if I remember I did not choose this new format . I just am asking to keep the classic . I have been a loyal customer for many years and had always planned to keep my subscription active But now I’m so sick of this intrusion I’m seriously thinking of leaving If you care at all about your loyal customers please please re consider continuing the classic. Respectfully Karen W.

  308. Steven Guy

    Please give us the option to use the Classic site (“old Ancestry”). Your new site is not an improvement. The great majority of the comments posted here support this view.

  309. Martha Hennagin Cieglo

    The font and background colors are not at all user friendly to senior eyes or those of us with a vision disability. Creating eye strain and headaches.
    Also it appears you are ‘dumbing down’ ancestry.

  310. Jim

    Please do not discontinue the “Military Page” on individual profiles. Yes, you say it has “low usage”, but there are many of us who are proud of our ancestors service to their country and have spent a great deal of time creating these tributes. I have several direct line ancestors who served in the Revolutionary War and fought to create this great nation. My wife’s father was awarded 3 Purple Hearts for his service during World War II in some of the most brutal and bloody conflicts of the war (including Anzio where he was critically wounded). The Military Pages mean a great deal to my family when they access our account to proudly show others, as I am sure many other members are also proud of their ancestor’s military contributions. Please do not discontinue this feature and I respectfully ask that it be restored to the profile page.

  311. greg

    Sorry I resubscribed, the new ancestry is clumsy, wasteful of time and effort, making our efforts even more difficult. If it was your purpose to extend the time you could get paid, then you have succeeded. Family group sheets are the backbone of research for a huge number of your subscribers, that you just blow off. Story view is just a restatement of facts with no useful research purposes, the most useless function of ancestry. I feel defrauded, ripped off, muggied. But since I have already paid, I will be trying to make something of this corporate bungle (and they wonder what is wrong with American business) but do not look for another cent after that. Best wishes for your continuted finacial success, but since you have goobled up free genealogy sites, produced appealing (but untruthful) commericals and worship the almighty dollar with a singlar passion, I’m sure you’re will not need it.

  312. SueD

    Ancestry… you have missed the mark with this “upgrade”. With the classic interface, you really had a valuable tool. I have spent countless hours building my family trees and have been paying for a World Explorer Plus Membership. I even purchased the Family Tree Maker which is not very usable. Did you do any analysis with your user community before launching the new interface to determine what features folks valued the most. Why would you publish an unfinished, untested interface, knowing what your customers have invested in your company. In the case that you didn’t ask let me explain. Your customers investment doesn’t only represent $$$ but their time. They have taken the time to correct records and build and share their family histories, that makes your services more valuable. Don’t you think you own your customers more than a feature update list? Couldn’t you have provided a better transition? I don’t know what to suggest at this point. The new facts page is oversized. I think I’m reading here that most folks preferred the smaller flexibility of the classic. The story page is OK. All of the other functionality that classic had and the new format gave up….should have resulted in a no go decision on your part to publish. My guess is that there was some back end version issue that painted you into a corner and forced your timeline. If that is the case, come clean and say that instead of making it sound like the new site is a benefit to the customers.
    At this point you need to get serious about starting a users group comprised of customers. You need to post at least weekly your progress reports to replace functionality. Rather that listing Low Priority/Not currently being addressed due to low usage you create a matrix of every feature with a date that it will be addressed and request input from customers rather than rely on your analytics.

  313. SueD

    BTW…I did find where I can go back to the classic for now. I’ll continue using that until I can’t anymore

  314. 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?

  315. Bailey

    The new site does nothing more than create chaos. I don’t need a story line for everyone and if I want a story line I will create my own. What about the comments? I use that constantly as well. Why is that removed? And, how dare you say the military page is a low priority? Many of our ancestors served and some died for their country. How could that be a low priority? And the family group fact sheet – I use it constantly. Maybe others don’t but that doesn’t mean you should make it a low priority – which adversely affects those of us who do use it. What you are saying is we don’t count. Seems to me that some hot shot IT guy wanting to make a name for himself at Ancestry has pushed this entire thing along thinking he will get a promotion. Well, he should be fired. My tree in Classic is fabulous, but things get lost or changed in the new Ancestry and creates headaches And I do not like to pay for world subscription just to have to redo what I have spent years already doing. You willingly take our money but have no desire to listen to us. Do you realize if you stepped up and said, hey, we were wrong. The new Ancestry isn’t a good idea and we will offer it to those who really want to use it and the rest can stay with Classic you would create far more loyalty and new members. I agree with Kristine as well as LuckyOne. Interesting how Ancestry also says how they want the site to be better for everyone. If that is the case, then do not force this new “update” on us. I hope you get the message – it isn’t better and we don’t like it!

  316. DbqSmitty

    This new version is a disaster. I can’t even figure out how to do easy tasks like deleting someone’s spouse. Really what the heck have you people done?

  317. Bailey

    to add to my post above, we are here for the data, the records and the research. Remember that Ancestry. We are not here for the esthetics or what you think we need. Spend the money on search engines and acquiring more records. Go back to your roots.

  318. ctfberg

    I have been studying my family history since the 1990’s. The new format is not user friendly. I do not care about a STORY. It takes forever to get anything done. I am looking for facts. This is my work not ancestry’s. Please do not take away the old version.

  319. caith

    It was my understanding that we as Customers own our trees. Why would Ancestry have the right (without our permission) to change so much as a comma in our trees. This I cannot grasp. They should have our written permission to change or add anything in our trees. They are trespassing……….They added some man as a husband for my Mother, who was not her husband and could not have ever been her husband. Is this to say I have to go through my tree of 14,000 people to see if they have added additional erroneous information. I do not have the time, nor the inclination. What is happening is very shocking! What are they possibly thinking? Or have they really thought it through? Curious what kind of legal team they have at the ready………

  320. LinJ47

    Could someone please explain if the Ancestry Blog comments are closed on the attached thread? The comments are still being posted but under the comment box Ancestry states, “Commenting is open until Friday, 19 June 2015”. Does that mean all the comments posted after 19 June are not being read by Ancestry? I am confused.

  321. Don

    Very sad forcing customers into the new format. I’ve spent years formating my tree the way I want it. I won’t be renewing.

  322. Paul

    There is NOTHING I like about the new format. Circles that cut off picture features, Stupid tripe about storytelling and historical insights that cannot be globally disabled. With this and the recent new privacy statement that says you sell our information from public trees whether we like it or not – my membership has been cancelled and my trees are now all private. Bad decisions from bad leaders – members protect your data and vote with your $ – do not fund this type of tripe.

  323. 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 an audience for your new “pretty” version, make it an option for those people.

  324. Linda J Barnes

    I have been a long time user if not devoted fan of Ancestry. I also admit I was a self appointed promoter of the site because I really appreciated all that it had to offer subscribers, especially the easy way to transfer research from the website to the FTM program. Now all that has changed and it’s such a disaster! At first I was mad about the change but now that I have had time to absorb the changes I am so very sad. Actually I am angry at myself for being so trusting that Ancestry would have our best interests at heart in keeping our ancestors’ precious histories intact not only for myself but for generations to come. Instead of giving us better searching possibilities-which is what we true genealogists would wish for–they gave us a jumbled up mess of graphics plus deleted the features that were so helpful to genealogists world over. What were they thinking when they did all this damage to what was working so well? I feel my 15+ years of gen research work has been violated. I could go on and on about the specifics of this drastic change but others on this blog have done a much better job than I ever could! Suffice it to say that my time will now be spent in “damage control” and “mop up” while I try to salvage what I had gained over these past years. Shame on you, Ancestry, you had a good thing going not only for you but for your devoted fans and you threw it all away. This is so heartbreaking. (PS I still am wondering if Ancestry will even read this since they have a note below the comment box stating, “Commenting is open until Friday, 19 June 2015”. So again I ask, does that mean Ancestry is no longer interested in taking our comments. Seriously? They gave Ancestry users 19 days from June 1st to 19th to let our voices be heard?

  325. Kelly Harrell

    I honor all my relatives that I know are veterans by putting a national flag of the correct era on their profile sites. With the OLD we had a Media Gallery that would show up to 5 pictures in the gallery. Could you add that to the NEW? I would like for folks visiting my tree’s profile pages to see the flag when they go there like I can with the OLD.

  326. Mary

    My subscription has been cancelled. Your user submitted trees were of dubious use anyway, the colors large circles added event lines made them totally useless. Familysearch, has many probate records, Nationally deeds from the earliest times are becoming available. Other free sites have photos of original records not the cards copied to the states in 1906, or indexes from those cards. For what we pay we do not need an upgrade that downgrades your site.

  327. Joan C

    Just posted this to your FB page in the hope of getting a response from someone. After trying the “new” Ancestry and returning to “classic” none of my profile photos completely fill out the rectangle/square photo area. A few never did as they had to be cropped or were undersized to begin with, but most were full size photos that did fill out the entire photo area.Has anyone else encountered this situation?

  328. Marge

    I have been a paid subscriber to ancestry for over 12 years now. If you permanently switch to the new format I will no longer subscribe. It is horrible. Leave things just as they were.

  329. Diane

    Just gave the new site a try again today as I am working on my tree. Let me say, the new look is a waste of space. I do not like that one person is now four pages. One for the wasted life story, one for the profile page, one for the photo gallery and then the hints page. I do not like that I cannot see the photos I have attached on the profile page. Only one shows, and I have to go to another page to see anything else attached. The first page, the life story, is a total waste. I am not interested in seeing what happened in the world some time during this person’s life. I am only interested in things directly related to them. Overall, the look is too cluttered and overwhelming. It’s hard to navigate and make sense of what you are looking at. The classic page is clean, clearly spelled out and not overwhelmed by bells and whistles. I will hope that the classic version can be kept for people like me that use the trees to keep track of records and photos.

  330. I don’t see where the New Ancestry helps anything about the individuals in my tree. In fact, the clarifying comments that used to be part of the Profiles are completely gone (unless I’m blind to the fine print where they are located now). Why not drop the new version? It’s more show than substance.

  331. Elhura

    A note to all who find the new Ancestry badly designed and a poor choice for further genealogical research and storage of our data. We must keep letting Ancestry.com know how the serious researchers feel. Tell every Ancestry user you know to take a good look at the new site and to use some avenue to let Ancestry know – good or bad – what they think. I am amazed how many people I have contacted who were either unaware of the changes or had not taken the time to express how they feel. Most tell me they are appalled. Ancestry needs honest feedback if they are to continue to offer us a product that will continue to serve its members well. I personally plead to keep Classic Ancestry as a permanent viable option (with clear instructions how to do that). Would be interesting to see how many long-time, regular users of Ancestry would retain the Classic option. I understand brand new subscribers, however, are only given the new option – unless they ask to be switched. Will be interesting to see the retention rate of new subscribers a year or two from now!

  332. Judy

    Sue D commented on July 4 that she figured out how to go back to classic. Sue, if you’re here, how did you do it? Does anyone else know how to go back? I’ve been gone for awhile, and I’m totally confused. 🙁 I can’t even figure out how to get a new photo to show up on the tree…it used to give the option to “use this photo as primary” or something like that…I’m soooooooo lost….

  333. mary

    Elhura – Many of us who use the site daily have already expressed our concerns, But I have many, many younger contacts who had no idea about this mess.. Because of work responsibilities, they use the site less frequently but are serious researchers. They are reacting to my “head’s up” with great concern and outrage. This is far from over from a user perspective

  334. Elhura

    To Judy. You can switch back to Classic via the drop down list that appears when you sign off Ancestry. Click on CLASSIC and respond to their questionnaire. SUBMIT and wait a few seconds for it to link. Go to the tab in the top left corner of your page and ‘X” out to sign off. When you reopen Ancestry, you should be on CLASSIC. If this no longer works, call them at 1-800-262-3787 and they can switch you back manually. You might also want to consider saving your tree to Family Tree Maker. I am told the 2012 and 2014 versions automatically sync with changes you make to your tree via Ancestry, and vice versa, and that the format is a bit different, but still easier see and to maneuver than the new Ancestry.

  335. The New Profile ‘Facts’ page is driving me nuts I have over 5,000 people in my tree Are we expected to check every profile for the Excess Facts and Sources that have appeared .I have a James Guy b 1835 on the Old Profile as follows 1 Birth ,1 Baptism , 1 each of the census 1841 to 1901 , 1 marriage ,1 death . But On the New profile ‘Facts page on the left hand side Facts I have 7 name Alternate , 8 Birth Alternate ,1 baptism [yay] , i each of the census 1841 to 1901 ,1 marriage , 3 death indexes also some other facts such as children born died and wifes death . Now on the right hand Source side I have 2 1841 census ,2 1851 census ,1 each of 1861 & 1871 , 3 1881 ,2 1891,2 1901 , 1 marriage & 2 death indexes ……………….. So on the Old I have in total 10 Ancestry Sources on the New I have 17 ? . On the New timeline I have 37 Facts ? and on the Old Timeline I have 11 Facts .On the Old Media gallery I have 2 items a marriage and a birth attached to the Timeline of course these do not show on the New Ancestry they are elsewhere. Spelling mistakes are many as are places randomly change in the Lifestory View and which are correct in my Classic Tree ,Example I have a few ancestors living in Wales ,UK but the algorithm is having trouble with the correct spellings ,Barry has become Barri . Ystrad has an extra letter … Y Ystrad then there is the problem of the full place names missing or others added .My dad was in WW2 and had a spell in Military Hopsital but where the place Chile came from is boggling as I have written 1943 Hospital ……. I reckon that an hour per profile is needed to Tidy up and remove /delete the hogwash added and to re add items /place names So 5,635 people in my ONE TREE alone times one hour equals 235 days but of course I can not work 24 / 7 I have to sleep ,eat and do other important things .So an average of 5 per day leaving out weekends so working on a 5 day week that would mean 47 days ………that is going to take me 10 weeks at least for this one tree, where as I should be looking for and adding New relations not going to get much done in that research project am I ……………And this is just what I have noticed on a brief Visit to New Ancestry this day or so but why should I be responsible putting my tree to rights when there is nothing wrong with it in the Classic View .

  336. John Manning

    We pay for a research tool We do not pay for incorrect information, poor geographical information and other non pertinent rubbish to put into our trees which have often taken years of research to compile. Please remove this rubbish

  337. Michele

    The new ancestry.com trees are a nightmare of epic proportions (no exaggeration.) I’d go into detail as to why they are so horrendous but that would take a book.

    For now, I simply want to know how the heck I can switch back to the classic tree view? (Please tell me we can! Please!!!!)

  338. Jill

    I totally agree with just about every negative comment about the new site. I’ve tried it 3 times so far, I’m using a fairly large monitor & Google Chrome. Yet I find the new site hard on the eyes (low contrast- give me black & white text please!), when looking at a person’s info page, everything is difficult to see and read and I have to scroll up & down way too much. Small fonts, colors I don’t need, info I don’t need…and seemingly all for the purpose of making it look “pretty” in someone’s opinion. I haven’t found anything I particularly like about it. And the whole life story thing…that info is already in the timeline, just not written out in “paragraph” style. I’d much much prefer the current layout with the tabs to view facts/sources, rather than have them forced on me to the detriment of viewing the family members properly. I use the overview tab the most (and the hint tab), which keeps those facts/sources and media gallery tucked out of my way unless I need it. Blah to this new site!

  339. LinJ47

    12 July 2015 – 23 days PAST the last day of open comments on Friday, 19 June 2015. 23 days past this cut off date and people are still leaving their comments and concerns. What is the percentage of happy campers commenting here to UNhappy campers?

    Can’t Ancestry see how dissatisfied subscribers are with this new site? We genies want to go on our Ancestry pages and instantly get into our research not spend hours, days, weeks, trying to do damage control of these ridiculous glitches not to mention all the senseless new features that no one wants and actually interferes with our research and our family trees. How hard is this for Ancestry to fathom that we are not liking this new site at all? As I have said before — sooner rather than later another gen site is going to come along and offer us dissatisfied Ancestry users a good alternative. What a shame that who we thought of as friends at Ancestry are ignoring our pleas and not giving their loyal customers what they want and need. It is so very sad.

  340. Dianna Apoadaca

    I have read the comments for over an hour tonight. I myself like everyone else was so disappointed at the new version. I work in a government setting and ‘daily’ we get different programs we have to learn. I’m not good with changes but after 20 years I realized I have to change but things are not going back to the old way. I generally worked everyday when I came home from work on my tree. I’m new on ancestry (1 yr) but I wanted to do everything with perfection from the beginning. I watched all Cristin’s youtube video’s and learned so much. I do have to agree at first the new colors were an eye sore. I must say after the past couple weeks I truly, truly love the new version. I am the type that has to find a way to make all the changes work for me. I sight all my sources and I find this so much easier with the new version. I’ve become so addicted with the new version that I find myself not wanting to take a break from it. I work my weekends now from dawn till late night. It doesn’t matter if you have 800 or 8,000 on your tree. What matters is what you have connected belongs on your tree and I find this new version easy to work with after I gave it a couple weeks and some long hours. I would be very upset to see it go back to the old version. I actually feel the family members come to life in a different & better way then before. I do have to agree with some of the ‘cons’ such as having to go to your gallery to add multiple people. I was VERY upset when I got up to work on my tree and the ‘how is this person related to me’ has been removed. This really saved me a lot of ‘brain work’. This needs to be restored. I’ve even adjusted to the color and as I said before I generally don’t take changes easily and feel I’ve adapted to the colors now and if it changed again this would just be another adjustment we would have to get used to. I TRULY love the new version. Keep up the good, hard work Ancestry but please put back the feature ‘how this person is related to me’. Thank you.

  341. Monica

    First, why are there are missing elements on the new interface? I hovered over a blank area and my cursor lit to follow a hyperlink – but there where? There’s no text, no icon, nothing. Secondly, I’m wondering who thought it would be a good idea to, on the new trees page, put white boxes on a dark background. Very tiring and painful on the eyes. The rest, well, with elements missing, I’m trying to figure out where everything is still. 🙁

  342. John McConkey

    Tried it and prefer (by far) Classic. If you are going to make this new format generally available DO NOT remove Classic for us serious researchers.

  343. LinJ47

    I was concerned when I noticed that our comments are still being posted here but under the comment box Ancestry states, “Commenting is open until Friday, 19 June 2015” and was worried that would mean all the comments posted after 19 June are not being read by Ancestry, so I posed my question on the Ancestry.com Facebook page and Kristie Wells was kind enough to respond:

    “Please know ALL the comments are being read and you are still able to leave comments as well. .

    The “Commenting is open until Friday, 19 June 2015″ is wrong as we keep threads open for 90 days. It is funky code in WordPress we are working to resolve it.”

    So I would assume then that our comments are being taken into consideration so by all means keep posting your comments!! We have 90 days genies to allow our voices to be heard. Thank you!

  344. Kristie Wells

    To confirm, yes, comments are open up to 90 days after the original post date and the Ancestry Product team is reading them all. Please keep submitting your feedback and commentary.

  345. Elhura

    I see nothing that tells me you are addressing the issues of visibility for older users or users with eye problems. A custom background color and lettering color, font and font size are cruical to continued viewing and use. Is anything being done to address these issues?

  346. Andrea

    Please make it easy to pick a photo from gallery and make it the profile picture. When the photo is attached to two people I can’t find the option!

  347. Sharon Lee Wade Coughlin

    Completely disappointing. I want the classic site back. I often unsub during busy summer months and return in the fall. Won’t be happening this year. I hate this new setup.

  348. Pat Secord

    Every feature seems to be hidden, and if you don’t use those features on a regular basis, they’re hard to remember where they are. Too many clicks to get to these features, as well. LifeStory is simply duplicating the “fact” page, and the historical “insights” are ridiculous. But when you’re the only game in town, I guess you can do anything you want.

  349. caith

    I cannot help but feel there is a disconnect somewhere……….in Ancestry’s attempt to change something that is NOT broken, although the Classic does needs some tweaking. So, who has sold this “bill of goods” to Ancestry. Some big New York firm? Or Ancestry’s in-house staff who feel they need to come up with something new to justify their salaries? Just wondering. New is NOT always better. What about that does Ancestry not get?

  350. Nick

    If you go to the picture page and select the dropdown arrow next to the person’s name where it is attached, the option to Use as Profile Image makes the picture the primary one that shows in tree mode.

  351. Again. I ll say u should have been working on problems u already had that pissed us off! And investing in customer service personnel! To be told over and over everything’s working, that can t happen, it must be your system, then read thousands and thousands of same complaint, by others u don’t know, is not a company building a better site! To be down at hrs most can spend time in their paid subscription is not friendly either. We all love the hobby and the history but feel like u could care less. Spend that money on new databases or info on our ancestors lives we can read, and get too. The tree doesn’t have to be a grand production but the facts and resources have to be there!

  352. Lynn

    I can see why comments were closed in June. I have been forced into the new “Ancestry” today, July 17th 2015, and it is an utter and complete disaster. Someone needs to lose their job. I feel a bit bad saying that, but it’s true.

  353. Lynn

    Hi Caith, Yes, I am using less than a 17″ screen. Why do you ask?
    For Ancestry.com: My first input: I miss the ability to attach images to the “Facts” section of the profile page. I also miss the 5 images that lived at the top of the profile page. What I would love is to have the 5 images up at the top, but to be able to organize the images and be able to choose which ones are visible at any given time. Would also like to have the ability to attach images to the “facts” again. It was a way to make images relevant and more visibile and enjoyable. More to come.

  354. Lynn

    OK, here’s an issue, when I click on an image in the gallery, I have often gone to great lengths to translate an image of lets say a Swedish obituary. Now my work is in a tiny scroll box to the right of the image. I can’t see the translation all at once, and the scrolling is so erratic that it hops and jumps making reading what I wrote impossible to read. An example can be found at “Charles Nordlund Alberta Lodge Swedish Society Writeup”. And about my previous input about not being able to add images to the facts, I get that now the images are attached to facts in the life story section. But it was great to have the facts, images, and sources (with links) all together in one site.

  355. Lynn

    Also, I need to be able to save an image from one profile to other profiles, so please add that functionality back. (Oh, and thanks for NOT closing comments just yet. Greatly appreciated.

  356. Lynn

    Also, I need to be able to save an image from one profile to other profiles, so please add that functionality back. WHOOPS, that functionality still exists, it’s just moved to the upper right hand corner, under ‘saved’ (Oh, and thanks for NOT closing comments just yet. Greatly appreciated. )

  357. Margaret

    I appreciate that you are trying to update this website but I don’t like it at all. There are things in the timelines that don’t apply to my family. We can’t move things from Ancestry to FamilySearch and my family isn’t able to bring up the classic mode to move things. Please consider bringing back some of the good things in the classic Ancestry. It is not user friendly and I don’t need to spend more time learning a new site. I would rather be spending the time on my family history.

  358. Mick

    No need to repeat the 100’s of accurately described problems – Someone needs to be held accountable for insufficient planning and deplorable execution of a so called enhanced product. All products can be improved but you have taken several steps backwards that will ultimately have a serious impact on your bottom line and loss of customers. I hope the upper management makes the required adjustments to get it corrected, if it isn’t already too late !!!!

  359. Roger

    Maybe give us the option to change the system generated date format from the US mm/dd/yyyy to the more popular convention used in the UK, Europe and elsewhere; which is dd/mm/yyyy.

  360. Elhura

    I visited the site once again today and, once again, am appalled at the difficulty of operation. I am working as swiftly as I can via Classic Ancestry to enter what I can on my East-Central AL Pioneer Families, because my work will either end or become painstakingly slow with the New Ancestry. A site that cannot be maneuvered easily nor clearly seen (the gray background, blue letting and font are deplorable) will be virtually unusable. Please keep Classic as a working permanent option.

  361. As you can see most people see this new site is a disaster, kind of like when yahoo changed its e-mail in 2013. Yahoo had to backtrack. I agree this is a disaster and it has greatly reduced my productivity. I hope, one will have the option to use the old or new ancestry site.

  362. kim

    I want the old website back! This has ruined my tree and makes it painful to do what I want to do.

  363. Roger

    One big issue here, is the destruction, mash-up and access to media. It’s all gone from the time-line and I have content in the story view that I did not enter. This is a privacy issue because why do I want pictures of zeppelins and of street waifs and strays in my ancestors records? Unless I put them there, you have no business to do so. We need a proper research tool, as with Classic, even with its current faults, it’s a thousand times better than ‘New’ Ancestry. Can’t you just take the hint?

  364. I will consider the needed edits and updates to the visual content of my tree in another year after this matter of the new site will be over. I do not have time to spend cropping my beautiful family photos to fit a little circular frame. I also do not have time to edit the mess you have made of the stories I created in your text editor.

    My solution was to copy all my stories to Word and Notepad to store on my hard drive. I have deleted them from the profiles in the tree.

    As for the photos, they looked awful both in the circular frame and in the tree layout. The sizing is awful. I’ve gone through each profile and deselected all the photos.

    Results thanks to the new site is the removal of personal stories that add to the profile and the visual appeal of a profile photo.

    Your developers had no sense of the business model for this site nor of what appeals to family historians. Shame on you for this sub-standard new design. Or do you think that because you have a monopoly to access of public records that you can now ignore your subscribers? This poor design will further lessen Ancestry’s status among those who want to do this seriously. At the prices you charge you will not be attracting the casual family historian you hope will like cutesy icons and unnecessary data. All you will do is encourage other services to develop a market for dissatisfied Ancestry subscribers and in time you will have the competition needed. I really hope someone else comes along to take a big bite out of your subscriber base.

  365. 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.

  366. Elhura

    Oh, please tell us the above assumption is true! Then maybe we can get back to real research without the threat of a “timebomb to destruction” casting a pall over what we do. You have taken the joy out of real research and preservation with your thoughtless plans. And whatever you call it – Old or Classic – it will always be a “class act” in my view. You have a gem in the Old Classic. Don’t throw it away!

  367. Cheryl

    Vince, no Ancestry thinks we’re stupid. “Classic” implies that something is great, withstanding the test of time. “Old Ancestry” implies something that is tired and used-up. They simply want us to believe that Classic is spent and not worth anything BECAUSE ANCESTRY WILL NOT ADMIT WHAT A COLOSSAL MISTAKE THEY HAVE MADE!!!!!!!!

  368. Elhura

    In reading “The Bottom Line” blog of July 2014, Ancestry.com CEO Tim Sullivan was found explaining how “Ancestry.com has tried to make family research easier while not alienating serious genealogy researchers.” Well, Ancestry.com has managed to miss the mark in both respects with the introduction of the new Ancestry.com. They should wake up and smell the coffee. The new product is not liked and, by large majority of the responders, appears to be loathed. Ancestry.com had a great product in the Ancestry Classic, or Old Ancestry as they are calling it today. If they truly remain committed to easier research for all, and a quality product for the serious-minded researcher, then they will retain Ancestry Classic / Old Ancestry as a permanent option. Only then can Ancestry.com lay claim to what was once a great reputation.

  369. Roger

    I just don’t feel like doing any more work, Ancestry. And that is sad. You’ve spoilt so much, I am wondering why I committed to you. Unfortunately, working in New Ancestry is difficult for the serious researcher – and these should be the ones you are concerned about. They are the ones that give you vital and accurate information which I believed was the object of your existance; not the casual “catch-all- people-without-checking” subscriber whom will eventually give up. So be it, because I am convinced you won’t retain the ‘old’ format despite the immense amount of pleas here and elsewhere in other blogs, comment forums and social media.

  370. Jane Peppler

    Adding my voice to the many here who dislike new ancestry. I came searching for a way to change the default photo on a person in my tree, to find that it is not possible. Also do not like the tiny circles. Also do not like the patronizing timeline. Now I have to go waste some time seeing how to get “old” ancestry back. Making New Ancestry was a stupid waste of your time, ancestry.com, and now it’s wasting ours.

  371. Jane Peppler

    Also insane: suddenly I have scores of “hints” from Slovakian records, and then next from early German marriages, for people who lived their whole lives in the U.S. – I should be able to delete all Slovakian hints at once without having to do them one by one.

  372. Mary Howell

    I use ancestry on my ipad constantly, the new upgrade has rendered it completely useless. I get the error message”this page will not work correctly with Private Browsing enabled or with cookies/local storage disabled. Change your settings and visit the page again to continue” I go to my settings and follow the directions – nothing changes same error message, I reboot the ipad, nothing changes. I undo it and nothing changes. I travel, this is what I use, so now I cant use the sight. I dont like the app because of links to facebook. any suggestions?

  373. Margie v Marenholtz

    I’m sure first time viewers of Ancestry will love the new story-telling version but it is not what I, as a decades-long user, wants. I am having to change my primary photo in FTM and then sync to change the photo online. I can’t see facts I think important. I appreciate change but PLEASE give us the option to revert back to classic. Media linking is a nightmare for someone with over 3,000 to sort through with no easy way to do it. My biographical notes are better than a computer-generated story line yet I have to use a pull-down menu to find them. I am now depending more on my FTM program so I don’t have to deal with the new look.

  374. Cathy

    I find it interesting that you claim to have many positive comments, but there are certainly more negative than positive. The site is awful looking, jumbled and not very readable. Too much crammed into some pages and others you just can’t read because the boxes or fonts are too small or they fade into the black (or dark gray) background. Not very modern or clean looking. I only tried using it for a short period today and find it difficult to navigate. I don’t like that sources are not included with facts as they were before on the Profile page and that there is so much crammed on the Profile page it’s hard to read any of it. I am very concerned about comments about not being able to view my tress on my IPad, something I do frequently. Not sure why you even embarked on creating this childish looking new site as the Classic site works wonderfully. I truly hope that the head of Ancestry is listening and that your reconsiders and leave the Classic Ancestry site available for serious genealogy researchers.

  375. mfarmer194

    My guess is an effort to torpedo the ‘classic’ style to accept a new program that ‘classic’ won’t accept so someone can cash in on new upgrades, etc. They aren’t responding. Time for a new site that is user friendly and takes pains to correct what doesn’t work…which Ancestry has failed to do consistently for many years. I logged on and suddenly, my father, for some reason, had become my grandfather and numerous other data ‘dislodging’ had taken place. This is not a safe site to work with. I am a bit more than upset. Back to pen and paper…pitiful…just pitiful!

  376. Roger

    If the day of death is not known but the day of burial is, the burial precedes the death in the timeline of the ancestor’s profile. In Old Ancestry it does not and it is the correct way round; the death will be shown as May 1832 and the burial will be shown as 25 May 1832 and this burial will be the last event. This needs re-ordering.

  377. Roger

    If the day of death is unknown but the day of burial is, the burial precedes the death in the time-line of the ancestor’s profile. In Old Ancestry it doesn’t and it is the correct way round; the death will be shown as May 1832 and the burial will be shown as 25 May 1832 and this burial will be the last event in the time-line.

    This needs re-ordering.

  378. LInda

    I can no longer save a PDF to my tree, ie, when I find a story PDF saved to another tree and I want to link my ancestor’s Gallery, it disappears in the process. Please advise.

  379. Jan Murphy

    Before the “new Ancestry” was introduced, you changed the look of the abstract or ‘detail page’ for a historical record from a busy, cluttered, three-column format to a new, sleek, two-column format. Then you changed the Overview tab on an Ancestry Tree profile from an easy-to-read, two-column format to a busy, cluttered, three-column format. MAKE UP YOUR MIND. Not all of us have room on our desks for 17″ monitors. If you thought it was worthwhile to go to a two-column format for displaying the records (it was), then the SAME design considerations hold true when someone is viewing a person’s timeline on their profile.

  380. Jan Murphy

    The format on the new profile is unworkable for those of us who have saved alternate facts. Please display the overview the way it used to be.

  381. Connie

    When the past “new” president insisted he had saved JCPENNEY from the brink, the numbers sure didn’t look like it. JCPENNEY claimed it was going well. Users, not so much. Is this the demise of Ancestry.com? Sure hope not.

  382. CAROLYN

    I NEED THE FAMILY SHEETS!! WASTING TOO MUCH TIME TRYING TO FIND THIS INFORMATION WITH YOUR ‘NEW CHANGES’. BRING CLASSIC BACK AND STOP WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT BROKE AND IMPROVE ON THE NEEDED SITES!

  383. Joyce

    I am thoroughly disgusted with the NEW and NOT improved version. I check back there every now and then to see if they have fixed some of the MAJOR issues and they have not. There are too many of us out here who HATE the NEW site because it omits many of the features that used to be on the Classic/Old site such as being able to print off a profile page and having parents and children as well as sources in that print out—I tried to print out Facts page on NEW site–(using ctrl + F because there IS not print function anymore) all I was able to print was the person who’s page I was on–NO info on parents/spouse kids could be printed NOR on sources–what the heck good is that? Most of use keep paper copies as well as online copies and you have made that impossible. I SEE what you are trying to do–you are trying to FORCE us into buying more ancestry products in order to be able to record OUR OWN DATA—remember ancestry–without US most your hints would not even be there—There are SO many problems with the NEW ancestry personally I think you should just get rid of it and consider it a FAILED PROGRAM–it is lousy, cumbersome and doesn’t give us half the tools we used to have. At the VERY least, keep Classic around and let US choose which version we prefer to work in…I have not seen ANYTHING yet in New Version that is better than OLD ancestry–and I have seen a LOT of things that are worse.

  384. Mary H

    What happened to all the stories and details I wrote in my trees? To remove them would be a serious copyright breach under U.S. and International law.

  385. Joseph

    Please return the ability to choose a default photo for a person in the tree. Also, please forward all “Story Line” info from Old Ancestry to new Life Story, please.

  386. Robin

    I think my biggest problem with the New Ancestry is that it posts information to my family tree in the story line that I do not want or appreciate. There is historical information added, like, for example, if my family member was alive in 1944, a post pops up to let me know that WWII occurred during this period and a large poster about it appears in my family member’s life story. I can delete it, but I have over 6,000 people in my tree – and now I have to edit each one of them to delete what ancestry.com had added (without my permission). It is presumptuous of ancestry to assume that they know what events in history were important to my family. I should have control over what goes in my tree – no one else. I also don’t like that the histories of familiy members get intermingled in the lifestories. For example, my mother’s timeline shows when I was born or when her husband died. I don’t want that intermingled. If I did, I would include the fact myself. I think ancestry.com should allow us to choose to stay on Old Ancestry. I have invested too many years in working with Old Ancestry to be willing to lose information and functionality. Mostly, I am not willing to allow Ancestry to add information to what is MY TREE and not THEIR tree. I think there are potentially huge legal issues here.

  387. Joyce

    I TOTALLY agree Robin–I know my families and if I want to add the nonsense they have in story view I will add it as a story…MOST the stuff in the story view is total nonsense. WHO CARES if they lived through a blizzard? Or a big hail storm.

    I forgot about that being able to choose the primary photo cannot be done anymore..THAT feaure is IMPORTANT that is where MOST of use either put a picture of the person or a headstone…OR something else WE think is important.

    I had heard that in NEW we were going to be able to arrange documents in the order we wanted…BUT that is not at all what the feature on new does…the drop down selections are nonsense.

    There are SO many things wrong with NEW ancesrty I could go on for hours—I check back there occasionally to see if they have fixed any of these BIG issues and they have not–that tells me they are not going to–and the issues I and others are bringing up are important.

    I have been on ancestry since about 2003–actually longer under a different screename–I don’t WANT ancestry making decisions by some automated process what stories I want in my tree…

    I have paid for international deluxe membership for MOST of those years and I feellike ancestry took MY money and threw it away.

    The important things they COULD have improved and SHOULD have made were not done–instead they settled in this crazy NEW version and the Story Virw is just a gimmick to attract new customers–SERIOUS RESEARCHERS don’t like the NEW version at all…

    SO who does ancestry want for customers? People who are going to be long term members (we are the folks who keep the lights on AND provide CORRECT hints) OR do they want to further degrade the database by people who are attracted to “cool stories” but won’t hang around long enough to do serious research or “keep the lights on”

    Ancestry seems to have chosen the people who often are not vey serious about research…they’ll come on, enter a few names and be gone…There IS a petition circulating about keeping the OLD version–I don’t know of a link where it is–and even if I did if I posted it they would probably delete my post…but google is your friend 🙂

  388. David

    I have devoted the day to understanding the “New Ancestry.” It’s about as bad as the above comments would indicate. I am not sure what the management was trying to fix. One thing they didn’t seem to address was the almost total lack of report writing, such as is available in FTM. And I totally agree with the comments to the effect that if I wanted to add the fact that WW II was raging when my father was alive, I would have added that fact myself. My facts are mine and I do not appreciate ancestry adding many of their own to my tree. Yes these can be deleted, but why should I have to take this step. I have over 8000 people in my tree. I could go on, but the sad fact seems to be that at some point this new version, bad as it is, will be forced on us. What to do???

  389. Elhura

    I have periodically made comments via this blog site and hesitate to repeat the continued concerns, but I do want to respond to David’s point that the unwanted additions and irrelevant photos can be deleted. I found the tool that allowed me to delete the family events from the fact page and the added events and photos from the life story for my entire tree – only to find that it affected only MY VIEW of the tree. A friend and new Ancestry subscriber who is also a guest on my tree was offered only the new option. When she views my tree, all the junk is back again – further proof we have no control over our hard work.

    Need I mention again that the poor visibility, the layered and time consuming processes, the unwanted additions, problems with your own photos and stories and the overall clutter of new Ancestry make a poor product indeed. The serious researchers know it and many are asking to keep the Classic option for our use. Keep your concerns coming to Ancestry and let’s hope they listen. They have a real mess on their hands that I hope they can fix.

  390. Barbara Babbitt

    I do not like the new format. Thankfully my information is also on Family Tree Maker. Definitely more user friendly. Please give the option to use the original classic format.

  391. Vickie Carter Tallent

    First, when you try to go back to classic view, it will not allow you to enter comments.
    Second, when viewing a document that came from a hint you can not download the document to your computer UNTIL you save it to the person. I like to be able to look at the document while I am adding it as a source, since most of the transcriptions are poor it populates facts with the wrong information that I have to go back and change.
    Third, the childish lines it draws between the facts and sources are ridiculous. Put our sources and document thumbnails back with our facts, please.
    I, too, will probably remove my tree from ancestry and only use my FTM 2014. Rather than spending resources on a new website why not concentrate on repairing sync errors. You’d have happier customers.

  392. Susan Ricketts

    is there an inhuman robot running this blog? How can you say you’ve received positive feedback – 999-to-1 hat the new site! You are not listening to your customers! I have raved about ancestry for years and encouraged others to join,
    If you continue with this arrogant disregard and ruin the site for the majority of your customers, I will end my subscription and NEVER recommend ancestry to anyone. Stop listening to your website developer and listen to US!! WE PAY FOR THIS!

  393. Gail Bates

    HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, I do not like the new site bring back the Classic or at least put it back as an option to be able to be switched back to. Do not like the fact the in Family Tree view the heads are missing or cut off in the photos. Also do not want extra information put into MY TREE by Ancestry like when pubs closed in 1963 on my fathers page, he was not a drinker and that the Australian cricket team were playing when my grandfather was alive, not interested in the world events that were going on when my ancestors were alive, this is my tree and if I wanted that information in there I would have put it there. Yes I see it can be deleted, so I have to go through over 3700 people in my tree and delete all the useless information that I do not want in there. I have put together my tree over the years with hours of work and do not want extra information that I have not asked for or authorised to be added to my facts. BRING BACK THE CLASSIC.

  394. Roger

    Can you believe this?:- I sent an issue to support about LifeStory, thus -“If an ancestor’s date of death is not known ‘Lifestory’ insists on reporting their existence when the chances are they have passed away. The unwelcome reporting is achieved by taking the date of death of a sibling or relative. One of my relatives was shown close to 100 when, even though I did not know the true year, it is pretty clear she had passed away much earlier than was being implied in LifeStory. Why do we have to put up with that?

    To cap it all, this is what an Ancestry Customer Services Agent told me to do:-

    “I took a look at your tree and I could see that even though Minnie Louisa is listed as deceased there is no death date on file therefore the system is not able to tell if she was still alive by the time her two brothers passed away. I understand this is causing you issue, a good way to go around this would be to add a date of death, even approximate so the system will not display any life events after this date.”

    So, researchers, Ancestry want me to put FALSE information in to my tree so that their LifeStory will not look rubbish! It gets worse . . . . . . .

  395. Gail Bates

    My response from Ancestry today when I asked how I can switch back to the “Old Ancestry”

    Hi Gail, we are sorry to hear that you have had a bad experience with the new site, and we will be sure to pass your feedback along. If you would like to switch back to the old version of the site, you can do so by selecting the “Old Ancestry” option from the account drop-down menu. This can be found in the top right hand corner of the Ancestry page, after signing in. However, please note that opting out of the new site will only be temporary, as our plan is to move everyone over to the new site very shortly.

  396. Roger

    Gail – the usual type of reply. For now, try logging in to your account at the UK site where you can continue to work in ‘Classic’. How long we in the UK will be able to do this, I don’t know but my guess is that Ancestry will NOT back down despite these blogs, social media comments and petition sites. It’s a shame because they have a good product but have been sold a pup by a software company that probably has no interest or experience in genealogy nor the demographics of the users. Try ancestry.co.uk and you won’t be irritated by the ‘New’.

  397. I have been trying to work with the new Ancestry site however totally dislike it preferred the Classic site and wish to go back to it! If you continue to use this badly designed new Ancestry site I will have to seriously consider another option – I agree with what Roger Gail had to say “You have been sold a pup by a software company that probably has no interest or experience in genealogy nor the demographics of the users”. It is time that you rethink what your members want you to supply for them!

  398. Re: Gail Bates post. So it seems they are not listening to the customers and will be changing to the new version. I was so excited when the DNA came out. So glad I did not do it and I won’t. Hate the new version and they have lost me as a customer. The tree’s are not ours, they can do what ever they want. Good bye Ancestry.

  399. Gary C

    The grey background is awful on the tree page – needs toning down hugely. Whoever thought this works must be colour blind.

    Secondly (& I know you can hide them but….) putting things that ‘may’ have happened on the timeline is plain ridiculous.
    If you new to this people will assume that some of these things are directly linked to the person they are researching – that’s not what ancestry is about, its unnecessary & is moving too far from the purpose of the site.
    Family Trees need FACTS, not fiction.

    Personally I’ve been thinking the site needed refreshing as long as I’ve been using it (about a year now) as I always thought it was dated so I won’t complain too much about the changes, but it does feel like its moved more away from being a serious genealogy website.
    I don’t think people will take this site seriously anymore.

    As for me, I think I’ve probably got most of what I can get about my family from this site now, so ultimately I’ll join the ‘you’ve lost my subscription’ club.

    Thank Ancestry, its been great fun & I never thought I’d love this as much as I have (& get so addicted) – but maybe this is just too much of step change for most.

  400. Dave Andrews

    The lifestory/timeline addition is quite interesting, but not I think of much use BUT it making up for itself some quite astounding facts in that it alleges that my uncle died in the USA, as seemingly did one of my 3G.grandfathers, even ‘though both have their place of death clearly stated in their profiles (one England, one Wales).

    And for this you take money ?

  401. Jim

    I don’t have time to shop for a new ancestry website right now, but I hope to find everyone on a new ancestry community after the dust settles. I hate to give up ancestry.com after all these years, but it looks like that’s where it’s headed.

  402. Joni

    I don’t follow this blog, but was surprised when a friend/subscriber told me about the “new” ancestry and sent me a link to this page. After reading some of these comments, and learning about current/upcoming changes, I was shocked to see Ancestry considers Family Group Sheets (FGS) a “low priority” item. You’ve got to be kidding. Rule #1 is “start with what you know and work backwards”, which leads to preparing a FGS and Pedigree Chart. Every researcher – beginner to experienced – should have FGS in their files. Being able to print Ancestry member’s info in a FGS provides a “research road map.” This is a tool I have long used to separate those researchers who attempt to find the primary evidence from those who just grab onto an existing tree without attempting to confirm the facts, thereby perpetuating errors. Printed FGS serve as a research worksheet, and allow me to add to and correct information. As a side issue, I have long been frustrated when I attempt to print the FGS that the beginning of the names on the left side of the page are cut off, no matter how often I try to adjust the margins when I print. I respectfully request you fix that hiccup/help me solve that problem AND keep Family Group Sheets in your “new” Ancestry format. I vote for keeping the “old” ancestry, but will begin to explore the “new” in order to fully understand some of the above comments.

  403. Elhura

    As stated and restated by so many, the site may be pretty, but not much good for serious work. Please continue to repeat your concerns to Ancestry.com. By keeping their attention, maybe we can keep hope that Classic/Old Ancestry will remain available as a work site. I personally prefer that others view my tree in the Classic format, but so-be-it, I will be happy just to be able to continue my work by having option of the Classic mode.

  404. Robin Hanna

    In case anyone would like to correspond by mail, the address is:
    Tim Sullivan
    President & CEO
    Ancestry.com
    360 West 4800 North
    Provo, UT 84604
    I don’t know if it will be effective, but it seems as though we have to make our request to keep old ancestry available any and everywhere we can.

  405. Robin Hanna

    For those wishing to keep the old ancestry, it might make sense also to communicate with the owners of ancestry, who bought the company in 2012. Rumor has it that ancestry is for sale. It might be helpful to let the owners know that many of us feel that the value of the product is about to be seriously degraded, one result of which is that the current and future owners may have many very unhappy customers. A barrage of phone calls and letters to the owners letting them know our concerns might be helpful.

    Primera Advisors
    320 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor
    New York, NY 10022
    1-212-386-7480

  406. Are the problems worth it? I want the old version back. Many census forms are unreadable. The old version had an index you could scroll through. Is it gone forever?

  407. PLEASE make it so that I can change which pic I want for the profile pic, sometimes I find an actual picture later only to have it locked into a document???make it so I can slide a photo into the portrait slot! 🙂 LOVE the site!

  408. the.howz

    Did the “new” Ancestry have any input at all from us, your customers? It really looks as if it has been designed by kids who have little interest in genealogy. What happened to the old maxim “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? Will we be able to continue to use the “old” site or, more accurately, the current site? If not, I may have to find an alternative supplier. I REALLY disliked your adding random photographs to MY tree and having a computer to tell the story of my tree. Why?

  409. Robin Hanna

    A fellow researcher called ancestry today to ask why this was happening when there are so many issues. He was told that those of us with issues just have a problem with change. He was also told that these changes have been made so that ancestry can be more easily accessed by tablet and by smart phone. I wonder how many serious genealogists will work on their family trees on their cell phones while they are standing in line at the grocery store. If that is what the changes are for, why wouldn’t a special tablet or phone app be developed for those who want to access the software that way – and let the rest of us use Old Ancestry?

  410. Robin Hanna

    I spent time today surfing the internet to see if I could gauge the level of unhappiness there is about not having an option in the future to remain on the Old Ancestry. It seems to me that the unhappiness is widespread and deeply felt. At least when the wildly unpopular Windows 8 was released, we had the option to stay on Windows 7 (and I’m glad we did). At this point, we who have happily used the Old Ancestry for many years have no option. There is no place we can transfer our data. We are stuck. Ancestry seems to be committed to making us use New Ancestry, regardless of whether or not we want to. At this point, I think our only leverage is to ask the owners (see Primera Advisors above) who – if rumors are to be believed – have put ancestry.com on the market, if they have adequately disclosed to potential buyers that there is a sizable group of formerly-satisfied customers who are very unhappy.

  411. Jeanette Daeschner

    Hate it, hate it, hate it. Why couldn’t you have just added an additional button so people could view their ancestors with the historical stories if they wanted to. Looks to me like this is going to encourage new users to just go with the inserts and not do the research and add actual records, so that means more trees with inaccurate information. Hate that my tree was so beautiful and now it is all messed up.

  412. Martin Reed

    Difficult to express how much I dislike the new site which looks like its been designed by fesh out of college design students. Multiple problems and combined with the appalling so called ‘help’ responses it looks like I’m going elsewhere

  413. Stanley

    After reading most of the above comments and trying the New Ancestry for I few days I called ancestry.com and asked the ever polite tech rep: “Just what is Ancestry trying to accomplish with the New Ancestry?” Answer: “Appeal to users of tablets and mobile devices.”

    Now that answer sounds very much like why Microsoft rushed into Windows 8 except that if you didn’t like Windows 8 you could continue to use Windows 7 (I still do). Furthermore, as noted above, I just don’t think most of the users of ancestry.com are likely to do their research while standing in line at the grocery store.

    I also got the comment the most of the people who express their dislike of the New Ancestry “just don’t like change.”

    My conclusion: The smart people of Ancestry have made a cynical calculation that serious subscribers have no where else to go. (Alas, that seems true.) Thus is they can broaden their appeal to users of tablets and mobile devices without losing their core subscribers. We shall see.

  414. Roger

    Robin said ” He was told that those of us with issues just have a problem with change. He was also told that these changes have been made so that ancestry can be more easily accessed by tablet and by smart phone.” Really Ancestry? Do you honestly believe your subscriber base will substantially comprise researchers accessing their data, the census returns, military documents, probate records and other what-not, on a SMARTPHONE? Or even a tablet? Sure, I have a tablet but wouldn’t dream of conducting serious work on it because the screen real estate is so limiting – sure, it may be OK for a few games but – Please become real! Return to your core values and provide an application/web site that enables serious family history research.

  415. davehough72

    The new version is realy hard to use,i think its rubbish,much harder to use,the old one was far better,please stop the new version-i will leave ancestry

  416. JJHouston45

    The Family group sheet is the ONLY thing I use on your site, so I will not be able or willing to use it when the change becomes final. The ‘fan’ / link page with lines has too many people & is useless. I do NOT understand why you don’t listen to the people begging you to keep the Classic version or give people a choice. We don’t want or need your timeline. I will not be a customer much longer if you don’t stop the change.

  417. Ann Jones

    Is there an email address for these people – Primera Advisors
    320 Park Avenue, 33rd Floor
    New York, NY 10022

  418. there are way too many of the editing features from the old ancestry that are missing from the new ancestry – please don’t force us to change over until all the editing features are put back – new ancestry is very pretty, but it has lost most of its functionality

  419. As a UK customer with no American ancesters on my tree I do not understand why USA state names have been added to some of my UK town,city or county names. Place names should not be changed incorrectly in new Ancestry

  420. Stanley

    My biggest concern (of many, many) is that there is no longer a direct attachment of media to facts. For individuals with few facts and few media, this is not a problem, but for those with numerous facts and dozens of media (photos, letters, documents, etc.) it’s chaos.

  421. Ann Jones

    I have just tried the Ancestry app on my iPad, you know the one that’s they are supposedly aiming to get us using after the so called upgrade. Well I can’t find the search, that is if I enter a person already on my tree, I can search that ok, but if I am looking for someone completely new to my tree, there is no search facility, or I can’t find it.
    Also, where do I save my documents once I’ve found them, at the moment I’m using my laptop and saving them onto an external drive, but where would I save them on my iPad. I’m not going to waste my time sending myself emails all the time am I?
    I hope Ancestry answer these two questions for me? Unless of course I’ve missed them, please tell me if I have.
    Also I would like to know what the average age of the Ancestry member is, I’d bet my last pound that it’s not 18 yrs.

  422. Ann Jones

    I have just tried the Ancestry app on my iPad, you know the one that’s they are supposedly aiming to get us using after the so called upgrade. Well I can’t find the search, that is if I enter a person already on my tree, I can search that ok, but if I am looking for someone completely new to my tree, there is no search facility, or I can’t find it.
    Also, where do I save my documents once I’ve found them, at the moment I’m using my laptop and saving them onto an external drive, but where would I save them on my iPad. I’m not going to waste my time sending myself emails all the time am I?
    I hope Ancestry answer these two questions for me? Unless of course I’ve missed them, please tell me if I have.
    Also I would like to know what the average age of the Ancestry member is, I’d bet my last pound that it’s not 18 yrs.

  423. Elhura

    I am posting my message below on various Ancestry blog sites, specifically because of information received in a phone call in response to a letter I sent this past week to Ancestry CEO Tim Sullivan. To assure it was seen by someone, I paid a few dollars for certified mail directly to Mr. Sullivan who may or may not have seen the letter – but I did get a response. I urge everyone to keep giving feedback at this and the blog link mentioned below. Be specific about problems, and, if you want to keep Classic as a working option, make that request I also think some good heavy mailbags arriving at the Utah offices might also keep attention focused on our concerns. My information and impressions after my call from Ancestry are below:

    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.

  424. David P

    After some time of inactivity I have just started to use the new Ancestry version and I am having problems already. The specific one is that places of birth as given in the grey boxes in a profile (such as “Jim’s brother was born on XX at YY) have not been accurately transferred. Thus the place of birth of many of my family has been changed from “Leeds, Yorkshire, England” to “Leeds, Ontario” – not quite the same thing. I have not been able to work o9ut how to correct these, and in any case the task of working through everyone on my trees to check the accuracy doesn’t bear thinking about.
    Please bring back the old Classic version.

  425. There is a problem in the LIFESTORY algorithm in that it can generate foreign addresses instead of the English ones, thus creating a fictional life story.
    Having enhanced the story line, with extra detail, I have concern that any Ancestry solution to the algorithm fault might wipe out those enhancements.
    Do we hold off enhancing until Ancestry notifies us of corrected status?
    The EDIT function is stubborn and appears to revert to the original narrative. Repeated efforts sometimes work.

  426. Stanley

    Ancestry wants SPECIFIC problems. (Never mind the whole New Ancesrty has major problems.) So here goes.

    The New Ancestry tries to clean up the geographical locations. A noble effort. Fixing obvious misspellings is fine; but changing “At Sea” to Atsee County” is ridiclous. Why not just put in a “spell check” and allow users to fix the locations THEY want.

  427. Vince

    Ancestry’s focus on “fixing” location references, besides blithely eradicating appropriate historical and/or foreign place names, 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 New Ancestry: August 14th Feature Update 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.

  428. Nancy

    This is the most confusing upgrade. Very user unfriendly. Please consider going back to the old program. It is enough to want to leave Ancestry. Also I have a visually impaired friend that uses Ancestry daily. The coloring and shading is not enough contrast.

  429. Robin

    In response to a question I asked on Facebook, I got this answer today from Ancestry:

    “Hi Robin, while there are a few issues we are still working to resolve on the new website, we believe once you start using it you will see how it will help you create and showcase your family history. If you happen to find a bug or something doesn’t quite work like you think it should, please send us a private message and we would be happy to assist you or you can submit it via this form http://ancestry.me/1gCfJSF. Thank you.”

    It’s good to know that Ancestry can keep its sense of humor at a time that seems to many of us like a disaster.

  430. Chris

    I’m a tech person, and have been doing genealogy since I was 14, I am now 36 and have been using your service for over a decade and I do not like the last change to facebook. There is too much going on and I know if I’m struggling with doing research and being able to adjust to the change there are a lot of people who struggling as well. Please consider some of the previous features and layout I loved the old version of how the pictures and family were presented on the family layout. I’m not a fan of the oval picture, it distorts picture from a glance and not as clean and crisp. If my tree wasn’t so big, and there wasn’t so much work involved I would probably take it of the internet and put in a software that is presented better.

  431. Lori Cassaro

    I LOVE Ancestry.com….except for the fact that it is now UGLY and hard to read. Please, PLEASE give us the option to change back to it’s previous appearance!!!

  432. ANGUS

    Like the majority of members, I hate the new layout.

    It makes Ancestry look ugly, cheap and nasty, and is difficult to read. Why do tech website people with nothing better to do annoy customers by radically changing a Classic Ancestry layout. When Coca Cola changed years ago they lost huge business and had to bring back Classic Coke. Please allow members to continue using the Classic Ancestry layout and features. I agree with all those who have complained about the previous detailed personal Profiles replaced by Lifestory which adds no new knowledge about a person. PLEASE RESTORE PREVIOUS PROFILES ENTRIES AS A STANDARD FEATURE, which in some cases took hours to write for future family generations to see.

  433. Stanley

    END OF ANCESTRY??? I urge all longtime users of ancestry.com to get informed about ongoing corporate events as they help explain what may be happening with the New Ancestry. The private equity owners of Ancestry are Pemira. They purchased the company in 2012 and are now putting the company back up for sale. Meanwhile they have been taking very large divindends, financed by adding debt to the company. This is exactly the worst of private equity behavior: Investors get their money back, load up the company with debt and let the employes and customers fend for themselves. Under these circumstances it is more understandable why management has more pressing things (money) to worry about than the defects of their product.

  434. Martin Goodson

    The new Ancestry, looks cheap and nasty, references for census and the like coming up in ballons, like comic books I don’t think so. The life story is rubbish, the information was all there on the old Ancestry you don’t need anything else. Also the battlefields of the Somme, France and Flanders have now been relocated to New York.. Where is the comment box, also I cannot go to another person without going back to the tree and then the find a person box comes up, this feature should be there all the time. I feel in the Uk Ancestry made the change over to coincide with “Who Do You Think You Are” on the television, so that new subscribers wouldn’t know the difference. The new layout has also reduced the information you can see on census you have saved when your subscription runs out, the transcribed version has disappeared. Please bring back the Classic Ancestry it deals in records and facts, much more professional than the new one.

  435. Pat Berel

    Please bring the Classic back. With all the scrolling on the new site. Everything could be seen on an individuals profile page. Please give us a choice. May have to find another site to use.

  436. Mary Carolyn Mitton

    I cannot speedily use your NEW search. Editing searches is a slow and painful time-wasting process…. not as rapid as before. I doubt the complaints will be heeded, as you have spent lots of $$$ reprogramming. I think this will be my last subscription year. Goodbye.

  437. Stanley

    ON THE BEACH is the most famous novel by Nevil Shute. After a nuclear war in the northern hemisphere a group of people gather in and around Melbourne, Australia, trying to live normal lives (for the most part), while waiting for the deadly radiation that will kill them all. For some strange reason I think we are “on the beach” (a Royal Navy term) waiting for the New Ancestry.

  438. caith

    @Stanley – And Ancestry’s bottom line is eroding like the sand on the beaches. And in their case, they have sent boys to do a man’s job, or vice versa. Common sense tells us their staff and advisors consist of people too young to have had real life experiences; and do not know how to use a common sense approach to tech and programming, etc.

    So, who is going to pay for these unwanted changes in terms of dollars………….Cannot wait to see how this all shakes out.

  439. Angela walsh

    This new site I’d very confusing. I know eventually I’ll get the hang of it. I wish the time line part was in a separate page and the origional page that you got when you clicked on the family member was still there. I like the time line but no way to print any of this information. I would like to be able to save my files that I find. Such as death certificates it used to have a spot that said save to your computer now it is gone! If I right click it says save picture as so I tried this as it saves it as a blank webpage. Please fix this!

  440. Barb

    . I cannot say I care for the new look. It is less than professional looking, something I would expect in a 5th grade classroom learning about genealogy.. But .. If that was the worst of it I could live with it.

    When I opened the profile of grandfather I was assaulted with the clutter you have added to the profile pages. Personally I do not care to have this information cluttering my ancestor’s profile, yes I tried to turn it off, per instructions, but it did not work. The blue lines on the left side serve no purpose except to add to the clutter. As many, I prefer a clean and simple profile. On my grandfather’s page it was stated how old he was when one of his brothers was born, I do not find this information of any value, it added to the clutter and if I wanted this information included I would have added it. It should be the choice of the tree owner to choose the content of an ancestor’s profile.

    But … the frustrations did not stop there. A number of my pictures were blurry, many of my pictures were so small it was impossible to make out what the picture once was, some of the pictures were grossly enlarged, one pictures of my Mother was so enlarged all it showed was her chest. I clicked on several of the blurry and small pictures with hopes they would display correctly if I enlarge them only to end up at a white screen then thrown out of the ancestry.com site, this I attempted several times. I found the documents I had scanned could not be read since I had lost the capability to enlarge them. I have put many years into collecting pictures and scanning documents. I cannot not begin to express my heartbreak, anger and frustration. It just made me sick.

    I have also learned via the Community Page posting events /facts in using your new site only one picture can be attached to the event/fact and one would need to go to the media tab to view the rest. This I find to be a great loss Will one lose the capability to ad comments to these pictures? It was also stated the pictures would be displayed in a thumbnail format; pictures are posted so one may view them as intended. I have many events; weddings, graduations and our father’s military pages which not only has pictures but scanned documents. With the classic view everything pertaining to that event/fact can be viewed without extra steps. It just makes sense when viewing a fact/event everything pertaining should be displayed. Why open a book to find several pages torn out?

    My brief view of your new site was filled will frustration and disappointment with Ancestry’s choice to make such a dramatic change, one that has created many issues and apparently is not agreeable to your subscribers. As stated many of your loyal subscribers are frustrated and angry, many of us have used Ancestry.com for years, with no complaints or problems with the “Classic View Those of us who have been used Ancestry for years are use to the way things work and never faced all of the issues and problems as this new view is presenting. When we sit down to add new information to our trees we do not want to muddle through learning the new site and our session filled with frustrations. The profiles with all that has been added is hard on the eyes and messy, the grey back ground is not attractive but most important the old way was user friendly

  441. Stanley

    Ancestry always asks for specific problems. Fair enough. Here are some with the Old Ancestry that I have brought to their attention and have not been fixed.

    1) Many uploaded images turn grey. It apears that most of these grey images originate with ancestry.com. (I download them, enhance them in Photoshop, and the upload them to the appropriate people in my tree.) This problem is a month or two old. So far it does not seem to apply from documents that I scan from paper, only those that are downloaded as jpgs.

    2) I can no longer copy media from private trees that I have been invited to view as a guest. After many phone calls and emails on this issue I was told the “Ancestry updated their privacy policy.” What’s the point of sharing a family tree if one can’t copy some of the material.

  442. Roger

    @Stanley. You are right, Stanley. I just tried with an image that is shared both publicly and available within my circle as a guest / family. The image was not available from my family connection, but was available if I visited another tree that was public but not in my private gues/contributor list. How ridiculous is that!!

    As I’ve said before this stuff just seems to be getting worse and worse. It’s time someone was sacked for incompetence.

  443. lynn

    I have used Ancestry for many years and am very disappointed with the new site. I would like to be able to opt out of the childish canned “stories” and silly ovalized photos! I want a research-oriented, functional tool which allows me to compile a working document. Too TRASHY!

  444. Stephen

    Consistent with a prior customer above, I am not happy that one major aspect of the old version does not appear to be functional in the new version. Stories that I previously created and attached to Facts no longer appear as such under the new web site. No stories appear in the list of media to attach even though they can be found in the gallery. This is a big problem and needs to be fixed ASAP if you want keep this long time paying customer. I use this feature a lot. Additionally, 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.

  445. John Bayless

    You have always wasted so much page space and now it is even worse. Also, the colors, I am not sure if you call them pastels or what, but it was really apparent how terrible they were when I walked away from my monitor and when i looked at it from 20 feet away, the entire screen looked totally faded as opposed to being distinct and readable. Who chose the colors? You’re Fired!

  446. Angela

    I find the new version way too busy and cluttered. I do not like all the unnecessary stuff added to the time line such as the age of the person when a sibling was born.
    Most photos are uploaded in a rectangle or square format, not an oval/circular format.
    The current oval shape makes my photos look cheap.
    Just a thought, allow for folks to choose which version they would like to use–the new or classic look.

  447. Tavon

    I really do not like how the new ancestry looks. I like the old layout way better, it was perfect. Now its confusing & I still don’t really know what to do. Bring the old version back. It should’ve been a option to keep the old version & new version, I’m sure 95% would’ve kept the old one. I really don’t like how its set up ugh I hate it.

  448. Tavon

    The old version really needs to come back, based on the comments no one is 100% feeling the new version. Its ugly. && I don’t even know how to get to the census records I saved. Never should’ve changed it, it should’ve been an option !! It needs to get changed back or I will cancel my subscription.

  449. amy

    Not enjoying the new Ancestry family tree, takes longer to load tree view, no longer simple family group view, layout is clumsy and difficult, – I like to see the images attached to each event, images now only in gallery, viewing family events swamps timeline – there was nothing wrong with the previous version 🙁

  450. Cindy Duffek

    I was transferred to the “New” Ancestry today for the first time! First impression – go back to the old one! I can’t even review my hints. I get a message that I have some “third party access blocked” and to change my settings. I don’t even know where to do that. I liked the old version – used it daily.

  451. Vivien Stoneman

    Of all of the Genealogy sites I have used ANCESTRY was the best – until NOW! Now it is just as much hard work to use as all the others! I spent ages trying to look for “member connect” only to find it hasn’t been added yet! I hate it – please give us a choice between the classic version or new version, otherwise you look set to lose a lot of customers.

  452. Pam

    Image thumbnails back next to their facts – please. I can see there are (under the facts) an indication (it tiny print) that there are associated facts and thumbnails but I liked it that I could instantly see what type of image I had attached to the fact.

    I love it that we can turn on family events to appear in the individuals fact list. I find it very helpful. It’s a bit clunky – though. It could be streamlined by instead of this:

    Death of Sister
    Robert’s sister Alice died in February 1916 in Berwick-Upon-Tweed, Northumberland when Robert was 60 years old.

    it could read this:

    Death of Sister
    Robert’s 48 year old sister Alice died in February in Berwick-Upon-Tweed, Northumberland.

    … because we can get the year, and the age of the individual who’s facts we are looking at, from the information to the left of the fact! Surely there could be an algorhthym (can’t spell it) to work out and present the age of the sister that died (instead of us having to scroll back up and do the maths)?

  453. Pam

    Fellow users – if you are annoyed with family events and historical events swamping the timeline there is a little cog symbol at the top of the facts list (next to the button to add a fact) and you can turn off the display of family and historical events!

    Otherwise I’m agreeing with the dismay of not having a floating family group on the right of the screen, not having image thumbnails with the facts, not having source information with the facts (there’s a heck of a lot of screen space going to waste – having them all collected at top center). I like it that the sources are big enough for me to see exactly what sources I have attached to facts but I think it would be better if they were collected next to the facts they are attached to.

    Cog symbol button – you can disable the display of family and historical events 🙂 .

  454. Vince

    The “Cog symbol button” mentioned by Pam hides family and historical events ONLY from the current tree viewer. Anyone else viewing the same tree will still be able to see those often misleading and sometimes downright inaccurate notes. I reiterate my comment above on August 16, 2015, at 11:58 am calling for tree owners to have complete control over whether this now automatically computer-generated material is displayed at all in the trees they own. This tree owner control option should apply to both the FACTS view and the LIFESTORY view.

  455. 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?

  456. Stanley

    Dear Ancestry:

    I have a specific question for you.

    Are you changing (fixing, altering, enhancing, etc.) location names as you move to the New Ancestry???

    Several people report on the various blogs that you are. Frankly, I can’t really see why you would do this, if indeed you do. If so, what is the intended purpose?

    Thank you.

  457. Maggie

    The “view relationship with you” link know seems to work again thank goodness. However the Not you? option (which I use all the time – otherwise you have to go into Settings each time and change the “Who are you in this tree” option) is missing unless you use it through the list of “All Hints”.

    I like the Storyline option and the way you can edit it to suit but it is incredibly annoying how it defaults to US spellings and dates and places. So now I have loads of people that were born in Yorkshire or Lincolnshire but it now says they were “born in Dakota” or “born in Arizona” etc. I will have to edit all these by hand.

    The media gallery doesn’t seem quite right in Chrome when you try to enlarge an image. And I wish you could sort and catalogue the media gallery rather than have to page through dozens of pages to get to earlier images.

    Overall, some nice improvements but needs more testing and more attention to detail, and less Americanisms (for UK users). Thank you

  458. Catherine Fullerton

    This new format is set up for a novice. I am not a novice, so find this new format annoying. Also, the gray font is so dim, that I will be leaving Ancestry.com after many years of being a subscriber. Ancestry.com is a huge disappointment now.

  459. Mark Henderson

    Straight off, I dislike the dark backdrop entirely (my ancestors are dead but I’m not in mourning). It’s like returning from holiday to find someone has redecorated the house in your least favourite colour. Then, the features I use on a regular basis are no longer intuitive and some are downright lengthier. It’s like subscribing to another provider altogether.

    Ancestry’s savior in all of this will be their records availability. We put up with the changes because there is no comparative alternative. Microsoft made a similar mistake with Windows 8 and it hit their sales and reputation and even they admitted to what a failure it was!

    When did we say we needed these changes? When did we say we were unhappy with the old format? Were the changes overseen by someone that actually had an interest in family history?

    Ancestry HAD a great formula for success and it WAS outstanding. Not so much now.

    I’d like to think giving up my subscription after seven years would make a difference but I doubt Ancestry is listening in on this blog at all. Where are Ancestry’s views and how do they intend to demonstrate they have listened to we, their customers?

    PS. At the absolute very least give me an app where I can change the background (or theme) from something Henry Ford might approve of.

  460. Jan Forbes

    Don’t like the new Ancestry Site? No need to give up just opt out of the new format and return to the classic version and everything is back to the format we know and love. This can be found under the tab where you sign in/sign out.

  461. Ken Sturmer

    I am pretty much disgusted with Ancestry.com. I also use a few other genealogical websites, so please do not insult my intelligence by saying I do not know what I’m doing!
    What disgusts me, is that you nickel and dime everyone. I have been researching my family for some time. Unfortunately on Ancestry.com you only have American records. I upgraded to World Explorer after being told that this would allow me to use all the resources available in Europe. Well to my surprise, when I try I am once again being told to join, only to join Ancestry.de! I get the information, but I cannot access it! I have found ancestors listed on about a dozen German Trees, but they are only accessable on the German site. I though that by paying the extra geld to upgrade I would be able to see these trees. NADA! If I look for those same trees on the American site, they are not available! This really angers me. I think Ancestry.com is a total ripoff!

  462. Maureen

    I just watched several ancestry.com videos posted to Youtube that explain how the new ancestry.com works. The presenter is Crista Cowan. I strongly suggest that everyone watch the What’s New At Ancestry June 2015 before they complain about the new website. I have read a lot of comments above about issues/complaints that are addressed in these videos.

  463. Nina

    I don’t like the new format… and here’s why.
    1) no family data sheet, I depend on these to take to repositories to do further “boots to the ground” level research
    2) not being able to see a whole family or an individual at a glance — now I have to scroll down the page to see data. I’ve tried reducing the size and then I can’t read the data…
    3) cannot find the print button for anything
    4) the names of my family are too long to fit in the little box you’ve given them and with the text wrap-around the name gets cut in awkward places… just annoying
    5) what’s the difference between an undecided hint and an ignored hint?
    6) my profile pictures, some are headstones, are made worthless with the circle shape they’ve been assigned
    7) have always wanted to re-arrange the media but not by alpha or date added, rather by event and to put multiple pages in reading order
    8) the life story is annoying, doesn’t fit my family at all…. saying someone lived a and died is not a story and I don’t care to rewrite the basic story for each of the 7000+ people I have in my tree; it’s a feature I will never use
    9) you still have not given us the option for an unmarried relationship that produces a child/children
    10) we’ve complained about the slider bar search that is either all or nothing and doesn’t give us the control to create better searches especially with spelling
    11) Not being able to see the media with the profile creates a disconnect for me; many of my media pieces are sources for the data on the profile. I see that I can connect a piece of media to a fact but the process creates lots of extra steps and wastes time
    12) And, that’s all I’ve noticed within the first 30 minutes…

  464. Kurt Moser

    Is anybody listening? We do not like the “New Ancestry”. Please do not force it on us. I can find nothing that I like – it is just a confusing mess.

Comments are closed.