Genealogy Chat

Before the old-new tree was introduced, there were complaints that GR's version was out-dated.

They've tried to address this.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

Why not purchase or download a different version onto your own computer and keep that as the 'Master', uploadiing it on a reqular bases. That way you can still use GR to search for records and use the other features of the site such as making contact with mutual descendents?

I saw nothing "NEW" on the Announcements board.

Easy decision for me to make - I will NOT be renewing my membership, due in early August.

IMHO GR don't give a damn about what members want.

It's been fun. May see some of you on other boards :-D

Announced at 11.32am and gone by 13.23pm 2 hours notice

Roy

What an absolute disaster! They say they've listened but I really don't think they wanted to know what we were saying. They say in the announcement that they want the Genes tree to be the best there is - all I can say is that the old tree certainly was the best in terms of ease of use for editing. This new thing they have is a nightmare to use.

Old tree goes today. See Announcements

It's not working on mine either. I sent my feedback via the Contact Us bit under Help. It worked because I had a very prompt reply.

Roy, I have just tested my slider, and it seems OK. Only a few of my contacts show, though, as the rest are on pages 2 and 3, which I haven't tried!

Feedback facility isn't working on my tree!!

When you click on your name and the list appears i can only view the top half, their is a slide function to page up and down the list but it does not work and the only way i can see the bottom half of the list is to use the zoom out function on my browser

I am not complaining because i only use the old tree anyway and have actually removed my tree from GR due to all these ongoing problems,

Due to these so called improvements some members have lost their entire tree and have not backed them up independently so have lost years or work

Roy

Mandy and Frank

You can look at your list of tree contacts by clicking on your own name at the top of the screen - where it says John Smith 500 Relations.

I didn't find this myself - GR told me!!

Has anyone noticed this with the new tree?

When I am adding a new person to my tree - or updating an existing one with new details I click on the 'save' button to ensure the new info/details are retained, but a few times now it has COPIED the details and then I get two almost identical records for the same person.

I have tried to replicate what I did but cannot work it out - now I just have to check the tree to make sure there aren't any 'spare' relatives

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.

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)

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 :-(

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!!

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

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!!!!!!!

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 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 ???

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 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