Suggestions

Colin, Beryl...........re viewing other trees, I know exactly what you mean. I had the same problem and it drove me mad for a few weeks, but we had the old Tree as well then so I used that instead.

This is a problem with the the software which GR haven't sorted yet, but you CAN get to see your other trees you have permission for. Basically, the square on the screen that comes up showing the few you have access to has been placed too low on the screen so that you can't see the numbered pages at the bottom to click on to see your other trees. The way around this is to click on the zoom level (mine shows 125% where you need to click) at the bottom RH side of your screen and lower reduce it a notch. This makes everything smaller and so shows the other page numbers with your trees on. Once you have found and opened the tree you want you can click on the zoom level again and increase it back to normal. I hope this is of help.

You would think GR would have tested these basic functions before they went live with the new tree.

Sorry if I have upset anyone on this thread. Thought I was just making points and having them parried :-( :-( Quite enjoyed it, actually. Had my views changed many times this last few weeks, which is the purpose of rigorous debate.

I have never understood how Genes came to the conclusion that the new and exciting development was what the members wanted. And I know that those who take issue with me (quite forcibly at times) are often a bit puzzled themselves.

And it is clear if you look at threads long before I came on Community (in those halcyon days when I was really happy bunny bashing away at my tree and writing friendly and helpful letters to contacts) that communication between the Genes team and the customers is not that good.

And no company (and I think we are all very fond of Genes and have been members for very many years) can go forward without knowing what a representative sample of their members really think.

John, blogs are not at all representative of the opinion of the membership.

Recently another site published some records which were extremely useful for members. Unfortunately they used OCR for the transcribing and a lot of the records (perhaps 20%) were faulty and in some cases ludicrous.

The resulting blog was similar in tone to the new tree blog even though most of the information was good and no one lost anything by the records being made available.

Most people who accept the changes to the tree will have no reason to even look at the blog let alone add any comment to it.

Looking at the trees I have access to, there are 40 of which 2 are greater than 10,000 names 3 are greater than 4,000 and 26 are under 1,000. I know 5 of those have updated their trees since the change and the one who has done the most updating has one of the over 4,000 name trees. As far as I can see none of my contacts has made any comment about the new tree or site.

I agree that at present those with over 10,000 names have great difficulty with the new tree, from my contacts I would estimate them to be about 5% of Genes members

I began this thread to voice MY opinion of the new tree ,not as a battle ground for John and what he plainly feels is the opposite camp.Every one is entitled to have their say both those for and those against the TREE but please let's keep personal remarks out.
It would have been fairer to have had a one member one vote policy to decide on the tree format.All of us who PAY a subscription should have had a say not just the very small percentage that did.Surely with today's technology that wouldn't have been too difficult.
Now for posts.Yes I have posted in the past but always to ask for help in finding relatives in my tree.Members have been great and have at times come up with (what I thought) impossible finds.
As you know I do not like the tree but perhaps in time Genes will compromise,until then I will soldier on.

Sylvia

There is quite a big sample on blog. And it is 90% plus against new layout. This has already been analysed by those pro and anti and have come to a similar conclusion. It is quite a large sample, admit it may be skewed because that blog became a repository of unrest, but points to the probabilty that a large majority do not like using this new tree.

I don't feel "25 like it" "25 don't" therefore 50-50 helps anyone (particularly Genes) to gauge true feelings of membership. It is a fact, but not a fact you can draw any reliable conclusion from. In fact, we have both said we are short of facts in this debate. We don't know, and Genes don't seem to have many facts either. Even Blair could learn spinning from you. :-)

as I know about the BNP only from what I read


have very little interest in British politics


I "assumed" that your reference to them meant something nasty


it didn't "hit home" ................ I used an opportunity.



But I am glad to see that you are admitting to drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence


I'm not .......... I have just used numbers to show you that I know almost as many people as you know ................. but with the opposite view to you.


You are assuming that "knowing" there are about 20-30 people who have posted on these boards means that the MAJORITY of people do not like the new tree.

I've shown you that I know almost as many as you who do like the new tree.


That brings the FACTS down to ..................... approximately 50/50 like/do not like the new tree.


About par for the course for any changes





night

Night...........Dear John

:-D :-D Gins

Sylvia You have called me a liar :-0 :-0 How dare you. Liar, liar, pants on fire.;-)

Seriously, there are 3 levels - to lie, to spin, to draw a conclusion from insufficient evidence. Glad BNP hit home and made the point. Yes I hate them as much a you clearly do.

We are both at third level. Don't think either of us are clever enough to spin. And both far too nice to lie.

Night night :-D :-D

John


I think you are calling me a liar ON THIS THREAD ...... because you are saying that my information basically counts for nothing, in your eyes.


That, to me, means that you do not believe it



You are dismissing facts presented by the other side purely and simply because they do not fit with your "facts"


Both of us are, in truth, presenting "facts" which are but wisps in the wind ........ because neither of us knows how many people really do not like the tree, and how many do like it.


Only GR can have those figures


I can say what I have been told by a certain number of people, and you can only say what you have been told by a certain number of people ............. and those numbers are very close to being equal


so I can dismiss your figures just as easily as you are dismissing mine.


It is interesting that 20-30 people dislike the tree, but ........................



and only someone who thinks he might be losing an argument would be so crass as to bring in the number of people you think you know who might vote for something as bad as the BNP

Ey up....me legs, is never hairy....I is 40 summat and rids me body of hair


How come, you show signs of 'normal' and then revert to 'type'

?????

Gins :-D :-D <3 <3

Type far too quick for me. Love hairy legs.

Gins :-D :-D

Sylvia No idea where your conclusion that I called you a liar come from. I have checked all my correspondence with you over last 6 weeks (slightly shorter than War and Peace :-0) and have said that you were a nice person IMHO and never once said you have lied.

I think reductio ad absurdum means reducing an argument to so small a level that the conclusion could be absurd. So 25 people liking the tree to your knowledge is interesting information. But it would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the tree is being well received.

I probably know 25 people in my county who support the British National Party. I think we would be amazed if that interesting fact was particularly significant.

I have to go soon...................lecture/workshop tomorrow


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear John


You mean you dont love me :-(

For your education



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Berne


But...that link, gives nothing as to 'Bernes' theories

You normally reply 'parent - child'


;-)

John

you posted .............

"I cannot respond to everything you say. I would only point out that you keep saying so many of your friends like the tree. I think that is a useful point, but I think that argument was known as "reductio ad absurdum" in Logic. Yes, politicians use that a lot and then spin and spin. I suspect you would make a much better politician than me."


so you do not believe me, is what you are saying???

you're calling me a liar?

I can assure you that I do know people who are very happy with the tree ................ and only a few of them are my "friends". Others are people I come across on the Boards.

I did not do Philosophy or Logic at university ........ I'm a scientist pure and simple, I deal with facts and figures. So I have no idea what your parading of a Latin phrase means ....................

......... but foreign languages are supposedly NOT TO BE USED on this site. GR can delete postings using them.


as for your other suggestion ................

"I have suggested a more scientific way of moving forward based on asking a random sample of members what they think and what they want. Email and telephone people. Use a market research company if Genes staff cannot do it.

Basically doing what everyone else does. Companies and individuals. Ask round, discuss, decide, do, follow up. Just imagine the Genes Team trying to organise a barbecue without asking who wanted to come, what the weather would be like, who would buy everything, who would cook everything....."



once again, you are "johnny-come-lately"!


The suggestion that GR consult with members via email has been made several times in the past 2 years ..........

...... by those of us who have used the Boards, and have objected to things that were being done


AND THEY HAVE CONSULTED WITH MEMBERS


They have posted surveys (including at least 2 done by Market Research Companies), etc, on the Community Boards, AND started the Suggestions Board where members could post suggestions to improve the site.

Unfortunately, Suggestions has turned into the Complaints Board


They even had days this past summer (July, I believe) when people went to the GR offices in London, and consulted with the staff, being shown what was planned, tried new programmes, etc.

It seemed that each visit involved only 1 member, who received individual attention from 1 or more GR staffers. From what I've heard, all and every comment made by the member was carefully noted.

I know several people who went on those arranged visits ........ and said afterwards that they were impressed with the overall view of what was planned.

I, of course, have no idea how many people took them up on their offer!! I would have loved to do it, but not at the cost of spending over £1000 to get there

Calls for volunteers, and for anyone who wished to do it, were made on the Community Boards ................. unfortunately for you.


They sent emails to a number of members, including me, giving them the chance to test the beta site in late July. Unfortunately, they only allowed us about 2 weeks to test the site ............ but it did include the tree, as well as the new colour scheme.


Problems with your suggestions ..................


1. People change their email address, but do not notify GR .................. this is one of the BIG problems for people wanting to contact others.

I have never changed my email address since I got it in 2003 ........ but it does seem that many people do change, and that it is particularly common in the UK


2. Phone .................. GR does NOT have my phone number, never will have my phone number. Do they have yours????


3. Market Research Company ..................... yep, done that! Unfortunately, for you, it was done through this site, and through the GR Wall on FB.



I have no idea how they selected people to do the beta testing .................. it could have been on the basis of activity on the Community Boards.

Email them, and ask if you want to know.

Going to London was a matter of putting out an open call on the Boards ........... again ask them why they didn't email all tree users, or all members.



They HAVE tried .................. you were out of the loop for finding out.



But please do not call those of us who know more than you about this aspect liars


I really do object to what you posted about me in that message just above.


It seems to be a matter with you that anyone who does not agree with you, is lying, has to be lying because you know better than anyone.


Not impressed!

I am most definitely not your dear, Gins :-P :-P :-P

Is that a rhetorical question?



Oh dear......

Jax The analysis of my thread and the Blog was done more than a fortnight ago by one of the posters (Francesca, I think) who hated the new format and has since left Genes - like several others. And there has been very little movement since she did that analysis. Yes, your analysis is pretty good and accurate too.

This is not my thread, so why should you expect me to reply. You didn't even ask for a reply from me :-S :-S

Should I reply to Gins? Adult - adult discussion suddenly ceases. Should I :-P :-P?

It doesn't make me feel any better/ Doubt it makes Gins feel any better either.