Genealogy Chat

Do you like the new tree shown from today..

Alan.

Well it looks to be better than the last one we had. At least you can see your tree and who they are related to too. I did'nt like it when you clicked and the whole page came across the screen blotting out everything else.

Still use the old tree though.............

But where have our pictures gone????????????????
Edit have found them now in the Gallery!!

At least the list of names shows the middle names.

PLEASE do not remove the option to use the old tree. Far superior to any of the new versions.

Like the list

notice photo's have no frames now,seems a little better ,but doesn't show where any one was born or not that I could see like the list of all people in tree

I quite like the new "new" tree. It's better than the old "new" tree, although overall I prefer the "old" tree, if that makes sense!

The new search facility seems very good and the whole thing is a lot quicker than it was. I'm not sure about the list as it doesn't seem to be in any sort of order.

No doubt we will all get used to it.

I insist on clicking on Old Tree on the scroll down menu. I dont entertain all the changes Im afraid!!

I shall use the old tree for as long as it is available............I sincerely hope that GR will have the good sense to leave it as an option.

We - who pay to use the site - should not have to 'get used' to anything we find less than satisfactory.

I just looked at the latest offering - took an absolute age to load -.and looked no better than the last attempted 'improvement'

It would be nice if GR actually made you aware that changes are afoot instead of member having to find out for themselves.

I have just sent this feeback to GR...at least, I think I have - the screen crashed as I pressed 'Send feedback'!!!!

"This version is marginally better than the earlier 'new' version - but basically shares all the same fundamental failings. About the only improvement is that the font used in the screen is NOT now in italics!

"There are numerous problems with changing what was (in the 'old' version) an exceedingly 'user-friendly', easy to use screen. Apart from a few minor tweaks (and a few programming changes) there is really nothing needed to 'improve' the 'old' tree. It is an excellent format, with both the relationships/tree displayed on the same screen as all of the detailed information for the chosen individual. Easy to view and - even more important - easy to edit.

"These 'new' versions are NEITHER easy to view NOR easy to edit.

"The way that the Tree refreshes when chosing a different individual takes longer than on the 'old' version, and displays in no better way than before.

"The Editing box wastes far too much space and contains useless information - why do I need 'Certainty' or 'Source of Data'? Both of these can be put into the Notes field if necessary. Indeed, I put all my references into the Notes and relate them to different bits of information. The 'Source of Data' implies that only one source has been used to compile the person's record, whereas often I find a huge range of different data sources and reckon it's important to relate each item to its source. You can't just put one 'source' in a field of its own. I would query the need for a 'Divorced' field too. This, again, is information that can be entered in the 'Notes' field, along with the date of the decree, etc, if wanted. I think, on my tree I have only one divorce record - amongst over 28,000 records. A simple 'Yes/No' entry is pretty useless anyway, isn't it?

"Even more useless is the 'Relationships' section. Why is this needed? The Father and Mother of an individual (if known) are shown on the Tree itself. Why repeat the information here?

"Infuriatingly, the Location fields (Place of birth, etc) are now too short to display the full location. Why?

"Why do we need the titles - General, Birth, Death, etc? It is quite clear from the field names what the fields relate to. This is simply a complete waste of precious space.

"Why do the 'uncompleted' fields have to contain text repeating the field title? It is much clearer to know that information is missing if these fields are left empty.

"Dates are inconsistent. Blank date fields show the format DD/MM/YYYY whereas completed fields show the format DD MMM YYYY.

"I have found - after a little searching - the Clipboard - but I haven't found a 'Copy' or 'Delete' button! It was all so simple on the 'old' tree.

"I usually use GR to input information and so have several windows open on my laptop to provide the sources. Ancestry (often more than one window open at a time), IGI (for baptismal records), Google (for archieval information), Google Map (to check locations of couples places of birth/marriage), Bank of England inflation calculator (to calculate current values of values in Probate records), etc. The 'old' version of the GR tree is ideal for working in this way. Its window can be sized to fit on the screen together with these other 'source' widows, whereas the 'new' tree window will not seem to work so readily.

"We also seem to have lost the ability to drag and drop data from Ancestry (and other source windows) into the Notes field but now have to copy and paste. Not a huge issue - but just another unnecessary niggle.

"The one and only change that I need to the old tree is the ability to merge two records for a single individual. For example, where cousins marry one results in duplicate records which can be very confusing if they are not merged. I currently Export my tree to FTM, merge the individuals, then re-Import it to GR to continue working on it. However, there have been problems with this in the past (...and currently!) where data has been lost or otherwise corrupted by the Export/Import software. (I have just lost the contents of the 'Occupation' field and the £ symbol has become a ? on a tree with over 28,000 individuals...). If we could merge individuals in GR I would not need to export my tree.

"In summary, the 'old' tree is exceedingly easy to use - far easier than inputting data to Ancestry or FTM - because all the information can be viewed easily in a single window. The 'new' version has the same failings in this respect as Ancestry and FTM. It was because the GR tree was so simple to use that I chose to subscribe to GR in the first place. The 'new' tree gives no benefits over the other software available and is, in my view, a retrograde step.

"I will be happy to discuss these issues further in London next week."

Could be an interesting session with them nect week!!!

Simon

I much prefer the 'old tree' too as you can see all the details you've added, including the photos .

Progress...I don't thinks so!

:-P

I don't understand why they have removed the names of the people who's trees you can view. I have 3 different contacts all for example having Taylor as the major part of their trees. I am now offered the chance (when I click on view other trees) to see the Taylor family tree OR the Taylor family tree OR the Taylor family tree. What use it this when you want to see a specific persons tree? Is it just me ???

Thank you, Jiminy Cricket. Putting the surnames in alphabetical order is good, but the other columns?? I suppose at some stage I might want to see how many people there are called John!!

I have also been trying to view other trees, clicked on "other tree" and it offered me 249 options! In other words, not my contacts, but every tree on the site with that name. If I wanted that I would use "Search Trees".

Frank, I think, although I haven't tried it, that we are going to have to use the Contacts list to see their trees - a confounded nuisance!!

I do NOT like the list of "Family Trees".

Why can't we have BOTH "Family Trees" and the Owners' names?

How did they pick the surname to use? Descendants of? Ancestors of?

I have access to many trees - now I have no idea which tree to look at!!

I want my contacts returned!!!!!!!

I just had a "play" with the new new tree.

Don't like it.

That's it! Fed up with the mess this site is now.

I will NOT be renewing my subscription in August :-P

Prefer the old tree, won't be using the new one, unless I'm forced to....the only thing I would like, is an option to view my tree as a pedigree just like Ancestry. I have many cousin marriages & unless I upload a ged com, they are not shown.
This is a slightly different tree to the one I have on Ancestry & i would like to keep it that way, except for these marriages!!

Alan - sorry!

I had started another Thread about the new new tree on the Suggestions Board, before I saw your Thread here.

Sorry again, because I meant to add this to my previous post, but I forgot :-(

Phil Moir posted this on the other thread I started (on the Suggestions board).... don't know why he didn't also post it here.


Hi, Just to let you know that someone on the team is reading through the issues being reported, although I haven't had too much time recently to get too involved in responding. The issues reported all seem quite valid, and with regard to the tree, I would recommend using the feedback option on the tree, as this is reviewed daily by the tree development team. With regard to Gedcom, GR have never provided full compatibility for importing all data. But it should not be converting data to any other format. These are bugs and should be reported in the usual way to support. But it is also worth posting Gedcom issues on the tree feedback, as the two are closely linked. The greater the amount of feedback on the tree feeback system the quicker the issues can get resolved. With regard to testing, we are constantly evolving new functions and features, and it just is not possible to have beta test cycles. although we are planning more of this in the future. Thanks again for the feedback. Phil (sorry for duplicating this post across threads)

Like the 'half screen' edit panel, so you can see the tree as well, but agree with Simon that some of the fields are either unnecessary, or not big enough. Also like the list, but, like others, have a number of other trees which I look at, and these are not so easy to access.