Posted by Ancestry Team on April 7, 2016 in Site Features, Website

 

We’ve added a couple of features to LifeStory for your convenience. Before today, these features were only available from the Facts View, and we wanted to remove those extra clicks for our members who prefer to work in LifeStory.

  • Add Facts directly to LifeStory – To add a new fact from the LifeStory page, go to the “Add” button on the top right corner. It contains the option to “Add Event”. Then like in the Facts View, you can select an event type and add a date, location, and description of that event.

Lifestory1 lifestory2 lifestory3

 

  • Add Images to LifeStory events – To add a new image to a life event, go to the “Add Image” link and it will bring up a modal with all the media you have attached to the person for ease of selection, and also allow you to upload a new image if you wish. Before, this link only allowed you to upload new images, and to add a picture you already had in your tree to a fact you had to navigate to Facts View.lifestory4 lifestory5

 

We appreciate your feedback and encourage you to keep submitting it. What do you love about the new website? Did you find a bug? Something doesn’t quite work like you think it should? Please submit it via this form. Thank you. We will be providing more updates over the next couple of weeks.

59 Comments

  1. freeman

    I just ordered an ancestry dna kit..i entered a code to save on shipping and I wasn’t given credit for it.

  2. You would think that with all the negative comments over the past few months concerning the Life Story that you would get the hint that people don’t like it. You waste time adding to things people hate instead of fixing the things that don’t work.

    Why won’t you listen to the paying subscribers?

  3. Sheri

    Why is time being wasted on LifeStory when most people don’t like it or use it. Adding images and events are just as easy when added to facts.

  4. Monika

    When are you planning a “block” feature so those of us who feel that you encroached onto our trees without our permission can block your stupid LifeStories. The day you create this “block” feature will be the day I become a paying customer again.

  5. Thameslass

    I see that Jessica, Sheri and Monika have already written what I was going to say.
    Various things that we all have been reporting since last summer *still* aren’t working properly or haven’t been reinstated after the transition to New, so why aren’t your programmers concentrating on getting those fixed as a priority?
    And how many of your members actually ‘prefer to work in LifeStory’? I’m surprised that anyone does (though maybe they’re the ones who just copy details from other trees without any thought) – no serious researchers use it.

  6. Why is time being wasted on LifeStory when most people don’t like it or use it.
    We’re paying money not on the useless updates of LifeStory! We are researching our ancestors, so please pay attention on this fact and start updating family tree function please!

  7. MDubuc

    What a disappointment.

    When I saw the blog headline about ‘LifeStory Enhancements’, I hoped that Ancestry management had finally come through, and was going to provide a way for a user to turn LifeStory off, should they choose. Alas, that is not the case. Deaf ears seem to the norm these days at Ancestry.

    What is being delivered are some feeble attempts to make LifeStory usable. Well, from my point of view LifeStory is totally unusable, undesirable in my tree.

    It (LifeStory) is inane. Its only possible purpose is to provide a kiddie literature approach to one’s family history. I choose not to have my family history treated as kiddie literature! I am embarrassed to have my current family members view our tree and then think I am responsible for the LifeStory content/format that now defaces the honor of our ancestors. LifeStory is Ancestry-placed graffiti within our tree.

    LifeStory is at the top of the list of things I hate about New Ancestry. There is only one feature of New Ancestry that I have found useful, that being able to resize the primary photo presentation. One good feature though doesn’t though offset so many terrible ones like LifeStory.

    I HATE LIFESTORY. I HATE NEW ANCESTRY.

  8. Barbara

    I agree with above. Life Story is the reason for many good trees to go private. It is especially bad for UK trees. Until we have an off switch bad trees will proliferate. Hints will become even more bizarre.

  9. BEE

    FIX whatever is wrong with “hints” – get rid of that “pain in the neck” pop-up whenever I add something!

  10. Karen

    The only fix serious researchers want is the ability to hide LifeStory from anyone looking at our tree. Right now the only way that can be done is to make our trees private and block everyone from seeing everything. Please forget the LifeStory mess you have created and fix the problems at your website so it actually works most of the time.

  11. Sandy

    Some people do like life story and wanted a way to edit it. Just because the programers have worked on this does not mean they are ignoring other problems. There will always be features that some people do not use. It’s a difficult task to add new features and correct problems while thousands of people are using a site.

  12. caith

    Your customers have spoken and many have privatized their trees after this last upheaval. In my DNA account, previously, 50% of my matches had public trees. Now only about 30- 35% have public trees. Your customers are speaking in many other ways, as well, and all affecting your bottom line. Business 101: The customer is ALWAYS right. ALWAYS………

  13. Marilyn

    I couldn’t agree more with everyones assessment of the Life Story. I never use it and feel the overall feel of the new site looks more like a children’s storybook than serious research. I also do not like the “large font” size as it uses too much paper unless I adjust the print size when printing the pages I add to my research. The home page is a joke. It almost has not functionality and options to customize it are limited. I now have to do extra steps to achieve the same results I used to in old Ancestry. And no, I am not a newbie or against learning new systems. I worked in the computer field and know how a system is supposed to work having had to learn several different ones. I am with MDubuc in their assessment….I HATE NEW ANCESTRY. I unfortunately will continue to use it, but will abandon it when something better comes along. It is disheartening to see that the powers that be continue to ignore all the requests to fix the things that do not work instead of adding more functionality that we do not want or use.

  14. Heather Guit

    media. mostly Scotland media (census etc) not being added to my family tree program 2014 when sync.

  15. Crystal

    LIFE STORY: Same song . . . different tune. Still doesn’t work for me. Still keeping my trees private.

    PROGRESS: Nice to see that you’ve made some small progress in a print function for the Profile (aka ‘Fact’) page. It could still use smaller type for the name HEADING that is still GIGANTIC. And while putting the Sources beneath the Family display on the print version is a fantastic update (Thank You!!!) , some background boxes for each fact, family member and source would make the display even better. (If you don’t remember how the print version looked in Classic Ancestry, I’d be very happy to send a few examples to you.)

    ONE QUESTION: When you make these changes, why don’t we hear about it in your blogs? Did I miss something? Seems like we find many of the system updates only by accident.

  16. Another Marilyn

    Dear Holly, we users and (in my case) former users are upset because we bought a product which made us happy – it was a contract. The owner of the product decided to change that product so the owner could make more money. An agreement could have been made which would achieve both goals but the users were ignored despite many, many courteous pleas. Nobody listened.

  17. Joyce

    Life story is not only completely unreliable it is filled with nonsense stories that don’t add to our understanding about the live’s of our ancestors at all–I never look at it because it only makes me angry when I do.

    Case in point…one story added to me 3x GGM said she experienced a frightfully cold winter in 1804 in New England–only a few problems with that—she never set footin the USA prior to 1848 and she was not born until 1814.

    Yet another story about an ancestor was that they experienced a severe hail storm YET totally ignored the fact that they came over during the Irish Famine Years and what that was about–NOR did it mention anything about the hatred of the Irish during that time period.

    LIFE STORY is a total waste of time and rather than get angry about all the useless and incorrect info on it–I just ignore it…

    Nothing will make your blood boil faster than seeing the untrue “facts” by a bunch of people who are 100% clueless about your family and their stories–the important things are ignored and things that are blatantly incorrect are added.

    I think they either need to get that program on track or get rid of it…for any researcher, it is total nonsense–AND you are misleading the amateur researchers who don’t know how to separate YOUR FICTION from the facts!

  18. B

    @ Another Marilyn and Joyce…I so agree with what you both have expressed so well about Life Story, especially “-the important things are ignored and things that are blatantly incorrect are added.” I keep my main tree private because I do not have the time to go through every single profile and correct the falsehoods Ancestry has inserted into Life Stories. I am now, once again, having to make my basic tree that I use for DNA matching purposes private because of blatant falsehoods appearing in several of the DNA Circles I have. The most egregious example is my 4th great grandfather’s Circle. There used to be about 20 people in it and then it suddenly exploded into 87 people in it. Not only that but when I opened the Circle, my 4th great grandfather’s name becomes the name of a male I do not descend from. When I click on this male, up comes the name of an entirely different male. What was once correct is now an utterly hopeless slapped together fabrication. Another example of a DNA Circle and Life Story gone bad is that of another one of my 4th great grandfathers. He has been combined with his two brothers to produce another “frankencestor.” I have repeatedly requested a button that will allow me to hide Life Story from anyone viewing my tree. Ancestry has repeatedly ignored those requests. So, I’m left with no option but to keep my trees private.

  19. Janice

    For all those who don’t like the Life Story feature, why not just go to the “facts” page and ignore the story page? The fact that there’s a story page doesn’t change your tree. Just sayin’. Originally, it was a nice way for me to share information with relatives in a simple format and I was able to adjust the story as I saw fit. I think people can still do that and delete or add what they want. Or ignore it altogether. If you don’t like a historical tidbit, remove it. As for tree inaccuracies, that’s not Ancestry’s fault.

  20. dmarshall511

    Ancestry, do you not understand? We do not want enhancements for Lifestory! We want Lifestory to be ELIMINATED! Why do you not understand that?

  21. Monika

    @ Janice – If someone rapes your daughter, why don’t you leave the room so that you don’t have to see it? I did not work for ten years on my trees for ancestry to force their LifeStory on me. I never said that ancestry should get rid of LifeStory for those who find value in having their ancestry interpreted that way. I just want the opportunity to block it from my trees. Just as I would not want a restaurant owner to shove food down my throat simply because I am sitting in that restaurant and payed for that meal.

  22. B

    @Janice..It is Ancestry’s fault when their algorithm takes a very accurate factual tree and changes it into a very inaccurate LifeStory! My trees are private because of LifeStory. All I’m asking for is a way to hide LifeStory from anyone who views my tree, so that I do not have to continue to make my tree private.

  23. MKath

    Just make LifeStory go away. It turned my carefully-researched family history into fiction. It makes genealogy look frivolous. All my Southern ancestors have plantation and emancipation pictures on their LifeStory pages even when they were not involved in that way of life. I know I can turn it off, but all the errors and inane narrative are still there.

  24. KarenM

    I agree with those who still find LifeStory insulting. About one third of my tree is colonial America & about two thirds other parts of the world. Ancestry’s algorithm still cannot handle foreign locations. It still cannot handle dates properly. When I use a date range for birth & death, Ancestry still turns those ranges into dates certain, stating an age for events that can be off by decades. My tree is too large to check & edit every individual for Ancestry introduced errors. I have had several invited family members complain about “my” errors because of LifeStory. The only improvement I want at this point is an OFF switch for my entire tree.

  25. donald krueger

    Just give us the option, to use or to block. Solves many problems, concerns and bad pr.

  26. I really do not like the new Ancestry. I have not personally experienced the life story problems but I intend to look my trees over.

  27. Clayton Raney

    Some of you are so engrossed in your personal pursuits that you cannot see others’ views. Yes, I hate Lifestory, at least what Ancestory has done to it … a change here, a tweak there, always causing users mountains of work to get back to what they want … but to say that no one wants it or serious researchers don’t want it is making a huge erroneous assumption – I am a serious researcher and I’m putting my efforts into providing as much historical family information as I can and making it available to other family members. Only I’m also a realist and know that the vast majority of people want an “overview”, not an in-depth story. If you don’t like Lifestory, stay away from it and tell your users to not use it. But don’t penalize those of us who DO want it.

    I Do wish they would not make changes that negates the work we’ve already done, like tyhe resizing of multiple media images instead of streaming them down the page as they had been. This is going to take hundreds of hours of work to re-do or put the onus on casual users who will never be familiar enough with the system to click on individual images to open them. Bleech!

  28. Mdubuc

    Clayton,

    I am thinking that those of who dislike LifeStory would be happy with a user controlled switch to turn it (LifeStory) on/off within one’s own tree, all profiles. I am not asking for LifeStory to be turned off in your tree(s) or anyone else’s tree, just a way to tiurn it off in mine. I dont’t want others to see LifeStory within my tree.

  29. Anne Scott Frankland

    Clayton – You know good and well that A.com will never get rid of Lifestory. It’s just too precious to them – for some reason. But for those of us who won’t use it and don’t want others to even see it – A.com just needs to list Lifestory on the SHOW dropdown with Family Events and Historical Insights. If I ever want to look at it – I would just click on Lifestory and there it would be. Click again and it’s gone. Hidden. While you get to keep it and do whatever you want to with it. Everybody’s happy.

    Your quote – “…and tell your users to not use it.” Really! I don’t know who might look at my tree. How can I tell them not to “use it”.

  30. Tom Boyer

    I don’t understand most of the criticism about Lifestory. Seems like an easy fix: don’t use it if it doesn’t work for you. Most of you sound like you THINK you’re better genealogists than ancestry. If you’re so good, go start your own web site. Good luck with that. I like Lifestory and I like the new ancestry.

  31. pnight259

    Lifestory has some mistakes. When I find them, I change them and usually it’s my fault. I like the feature. My tree is something I intend to leave to my children. Things they will never know about their ancestors I will leave for them in Lifestory. It’s a work in progress, however. I dream big!

  32. Monika

    @Clayton Rayney – Don’t let your lying eyes deceive you when you read our comments! Most of us are not asking for ancestry to eliminate LifeStory. We are asking for an opportunity to block it from our trees. There is a difference! Anyone who finds value in LifeStory should rejoice in it, sorry as I may feel for them. I paid for a service. My payment–when I was a paying member–did not include my permission for them to encroach onto my trees and add something to my trees. That is why I now have my trees in a stand alone program on my desktop. I will return as a paying member the day that ACOM gives me the opportunity to block LifeStory.

  33. Karen

    Tom Ancestry is not a genealogist. It gathers resources and that is all. Their LifeStory has corrupted the information we have input. All we want is the option to block others from seeing it in our tree. It’s not a matter of us not using it; we don’t. We don’t want others to see errors. We don’t want others to see the silliness added to LifeStory and think we added it. We don’t know who will look at our tree so our only choice is to make it private.

  34. B

    Here is an example from my tree of how badly LifeStory can scramble factual records I have attached to an ancestor. For one of my 4th great grandmothers I attached records of her application for the Revolutionary War Widow’s pension and land grant after the death of my 4th great grandfather. She received the Widow’s pension and a land grant. This is the shambles LifeStory has made of this information: “Serving in the American Revolution, name of my 4th great grandmother, fought against the British during the Revolutionary War.” My 4th great grandmother was not even born until 1794! She was the second wife of my 4th great grandfather. He was 64 years old and she was 29 when they married and they had 7 children before his death. Yes, I can correct this, but I have very large main tree, and going through each individual LifeStory profile to correct errors is a truly time-consuming and burdensome task. All I am asking for is a button to hide LifeStory from anyone viewing my tree. Otherwise, I will just keep my tree private!

  35. dmarshall511

    @Clayton Rayney The root of the issue is the programming that Ancestry uses to generate LifeStory. It is unable to discern the difference, for example, between “Co” which is a common abbreviation for the word “County” and “CO” which is the official abbreviation for the State of Colorado. A very common result of this problem is that people who lived their entire life in Ireland are placed in Colorado by LifeStory.

    Because of this problem, which indeed is Ancestry’s fault, I have become obsessive-compulsive about spelling out words to avoid the use of any abbreviation when adding new information to or updating existing profiles or adding new people to my tree. But this is just one of the smaller problems that appears in LifeStory. Another problem that shows up occasionally is people that were born in the 1790s or later being said to have fought in the Revolutionary War. No one should have to tolerate errors such as those or others appearing on their tree.

    I wish Ancestry would totally eliminate LifeStory. But if they will not, I want a global switch to hide it on my tree. There is no way for tree owners to tell casual viewers or people searching for new or additional information to “not look at LifeStory because it might contain computer-generated errors”, so the only acceptable options are for it to be eliminated or for us to be given an “OFF” or “HIDE” switch.

  36. Ch

    12 April 2015

    I just found this blog; it wasn’t in the regular Ancestry blog.

    Good Lord! we have been asking, pleading, and begging to get rid of Life Story and they are making enhancements!!??

    I think I’ll go barf in the toilet!

  37. Ani

    I agree with Ch, pitch Life Story in the bin. It’s ridiculous. Why management refuses to listen to customer displeasure is beyond me. Instead of enchancemnts to the Life Story, component of the program, how about getting photos to load quickly or to upload rapidly the way they used to, or better still load at all. New Ancestry is a highly flawed product that you refuse to repair. If any of us were at our jobs for three months and had not repaired a program, we would be fired. Yet it’d been over three months and photos take the speed of 80’s dial up to load and 85% of the time they do not lad at all. When uploading photos and media to trees images take over 5 minutes to upload and then one receives a ” Error occurred. Try again later” message. Please fix these basic site issues first.

  38. MDubuc

    I suspect that LifeStory was the brainchild of some relatively senior exec at Ancestry, thus the stonewalling on providing a way to turn it off. Providing a way to turn it off would be an indication of failure, something no exec wants on the their performance plan.

  39. Gina

    I love Life Story. It has helped me make connections between my ancestors and historical events that I wouldn’t have made otherwise.

  40. MDubuc

    Gina: I respect your opinion of loving LifeStory. If you which to see it, that’s fine.

    Many of us though don’t wish to see LifeStory functionality within our trees.

    It would be so simple for Ancestry mgt to put in a user configuration, for ‘Display LifeStory Tab’ (defaulted to ‘yes’). Should the user not wish access to LifeStory within their tree by anyone, they would change the configuration to ‘no’ and the LifeStory tab no longer would be displayed. And in essence LifeStory would be blocked in the associated tree. It would be so simple to provide us that functionality, it is ridiculous that it hasn’t been provided.

    So we all could be happy, those like you who like LifeStory, and those of us who don’t want it accessed within our trees.

    Unfortunately Ancestry management has had deaf ears toward those of us who don’t want it.

  41. Lydia

    I have enjoyed the LifeStory feature for SOME of my ancestors, finding that it offers a venue for commentary or summarization that the Facts view doesn’t really accommodate. Even the Historical Insights, which I admit are often sort of dorky, have offered opportunities to flesh out some ancestors’ activities that I probably wouldn’t have thought to include in the Facts view. For other ancestors, I just ignore it. (And I haven’t experienced the totally erroneous sorts of wierdnesses that so many other commentators seem to have.)

    That being said, I really don’t see why it should be so difficult — either technically or philosophically — for A.com to implement the suggestion made by MDubuc and others — to allow users to simply opt out of the LifeStory display. (Actually, I would like to be able to do so on a person-by-person basis, invoking LifeStory in cases where I have something interesting or useful to do with it, and eliminating it as a display option otherwise. But maybe that would indeed be too much to expect, although it doesn’t seem to me to be all that difficult either.)

    I do think it unfortunate that so many people seem to have chosen to make their trees private due to their dislike of LifeStory, thus, in effect, using it as the reason for refusing to share any of the results of their research. Isn’t that a little like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face? Or am I missing something?

  42. elliott

    It seems Ancestry just keeping nailing their coffin tighter and tighter. Why not listen to your customers? Just let us switch off Life Story!How hard is that?? LifeStory is written in simpleton language, pre-school level and NEVER gets info correct! I am STILL worrying about which way to go with a MAC program to support my research. To me, this is more important. Ancestry is just digging a deeper hole.

  43. alrf

    Really! Improvements to a page that hundreds, probably thousands, of users don’t like, want, or use. And in the meantime problems that have been documented since the implementation of the new site are not being fixed. There is something wrong with this picture?

  44. GreyMare

    So I am not alone! I was shocked with horror when I discovered Ancestry had interfered with my tree & presumed all sorts of rubbish in a most infantile fashion. I began with complaining about the ridiculous map which I cannot delete on the Life Story page. Surely such a simple option is not rocket science? Then I was annoyed that the Ancestry tutorial tells you to put dates the following way: day/month/year. However, their update uses this format (correct) on the Life Story page, but NOT on the facts page where they put month/day/year. This is inconsistent & untidy. I have ALWAYS used day/month/year and am now having to go through every person on my tree to correct this silliness on th Facts Page. I am very cross that, as a paying subscriber, these alterations have been made without any consultation with me. I would go elsewhere now if I could figure out how to transfer all my info to another site (I am a bit of an IT twit & get rather stressed with anything that I find complicated!) Replies to my questions from Ancestry show that they do not properly read (or understand) the issue, let alone do anything about remedying it – all they do is send endless “links”

  45. Monika

    @GreyMare. You refer to it as “interfering” with your tree. I refer to it as “encroachment”. To me, what they have done is tantamount to rape. They have FORCED themselves on me (my trees) without my permission and changed my data in the name of being “geographically correct”. I have in MY TREES hundreds of copies of AUSTRIAN census records that identify my ancestors as “AUSTRIAN CITiZENS” because they were born in territory that had been occupied by Germans since the 12th Century and that became part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but ACOM insists on re-writing history (in order to be geographically correct in 2016) and writes into LifeStory that my ancestors were born in the Czech Republic, merely because the United Nations chose to give this territory to the Czech after World War II.

  46. Jeanie Ritchie-Blaski

    ….I HATE NEW ANCESTRY…… I’m not opposed to learning new systems. I worked in the computer field for 18 years, and had learned different computer systems and software.
    1. The older version of Ancestry was much more user-friendly and intuitive. I chose Ancestry because it didn’t look like or work like Family Tree and the other look-a-likes.
    2. Life Story – I will never use it because I prefer to write my own story.
    3. Canvas.com – Thank you for listening and keeping it 🙂
    4…New Ancestry….As soon as I complete 2 more books, I will either opt to pay the smaller annual fee or I may abandon it all together.

  47. howron

    Instead of working on something that so many dislike, why not bring back something that is the basis of genealogy – Family Group Sheet. And make it functional and easy to use, like it used to be. In fact, the entire New Ancestry needs to be made functional and easy to use, like it used to be. The developers have forgotten the basic tenet of design – Keep It Simple. And the owners of Ancestry.com have forgotten the basic tenet of business – Listen To The Customers.

  48. Carolyn

    I am thankful that I have the option to have Lifestory on Ancestry. It does enhance the story of each Ancestor and the visualization helps me to remember them in the setting in which they lived in this world. It is my chance to have my personal story from the information that I discover and add from my own personal pictures, records and DNA Cousin Matches. It is an exciting and fun time in which I am making some wonderful discoveries. Thank you Ancestry for making so much of this possible.

  49. Monika

    Geographical Correctness vs Historical Correctness— Before you impose “geographical correctness” on European countries (the importance of the historical accuracy is something you do not seem to have a clue about), clean up your act right here at home. As I clean up my profile pages, I look at records you are offering from Massachusetts where you say that “Dorchester” is in Suffolk County in the early 1600, then you offer records that say that Dorchester is in Norfolk County in the early 1600. Now add “geographical correctness”, which implies that we are talking about the geography in 2016. History lesson for you: Suffolk County was created by the Massachusetts General Court in 1643. So to say that e.g., Dorchester is in Suffolk County in 1630 is historically and geographically incorrect. Norfolk County was not created until 1793, so to claim that Dorchester was located in Norfolk County in the late 1700 as some of your records imply is equally incorrect. Add to that that in 1997 and 2000 Massachusetts abolished the majority of its counties. Geographically, Dorchester is today a historic neighborhood in Boston, Massachusetts. It was annexed to Boston in 1870. So, if you want to be “geographically accurate” you would have to say that everyone who was born in Dorchester was really born in “Boston, Massachusetts”. Do you realize how stupid that would be if you did that? Now, can you take this one step further and realize that it is equally stupid if you insist on doing that to villages and cities in Europe??? The most accurate system is, in my opinion, to let the record “stand”. With other words, if e.g., the Census was taken by the AUSTRIAN government, and in these census records it refers to the citizens/ancestors in that town as Austrians, and these towns/regions are considered part of Austria at the time of the Census, it is inappropriate for you to decide that these Austrian citizens were born in the Czech Republic simply because geographic changes occurred 100’s of years after people in these regions were born.

  50. Madeleine

    I don’t know if this has ever been notified to us by Ancestry in some way, if it has I have missed it, but I have found a way to turn Life Story off. If you go to Tree Settings there is a tick box beneath the Tree Description box. I have unticked the box and my Life Story page looks like a differently presented version of the Facts page.

  51. Vince

    To Madeleine,

    I also noticed just this evening that tic box on the Tree Settings page and found that clearing the tic mark does remove the computer-generated narratives from the beginning of the LIFESTORY pages and from all the facts shown on those pages, leaving just whatever text the tree owner has entered on the associated FACTS pages. I regard this development (if it remains in effect) as a significant and welcome response from Ancestry to the thousands of complaints since last June about misleading or inaccurate text automatically added to the LIFESTORY pages. Now, those pages do appear to show only what users have have entered, instead of trying to regurgitate and embellish that user-entered data. I see that invited guests can still choose to view or not view Family Events and/or Historical Insights via the SHOW drop-down menu at the upper right of the LIFESTORY pages. But, as before, no Historical Insights will appear for invited guests unless the tree owner or an editor has activated them. Hoorah!

    The map view that many people have criticized in some cases as being wildly inaccurate still appears at the beginning of the LIFESTORY pages, so that criticism will probably continue. But I personally don’t mind just skipping past that feature. Overall, this option to turn off the computer-generated narratives goes a very long way toward allowing me to return my trees to public view from the private setting I put in place last summer to prevent dissemination of the useless, misleading and often downright false data displayed on the LIFESTORY pages by Ancestry’s automatic computer algorithms. I will keep checking to see whether this option remains available to tree owners.

  52. BEE

    Unfortunately, the “photos” are still there, and have to be “ignored” one at a time for each person. – WHY would I want a photo of “The End of Prohibition” inserted into the history of a man who died in 1939?? I will continue to “ignore” “Lifestory”…………………

  53. Paul

    The “simple” LifeStory view is precisely what is needed to share information with my relatives who are not die hard genealogy hobbyists, but who do want to know the results of my research. They are not interested in sources as I am. My siblings approve of LifeStory as an easy way to learn about their ancestors. I don’t use it (I stay in facts view) except to see how it will look to others as a means to learn about the individual. I agree the generated stories and historical events are clunky and in most cases misleading. It’s probably wise not to intuit any type of narrative because, as we all know, not one size fits all. I do have question: For a couple of individuals in my tree (the ones with the most media and facts), the map and media will not load onto the screen (constant spinning circle in their place). All the facts load, just the map and the media. Have a surpassed some limit or created a conflict preventing the map and pictures to load?

Comments are closed.