Suggestions

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


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

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.

Gins :-D :-D <3 <3

Type far too quick for me. Love hairy legs.

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'

?????

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

:-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

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

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

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. :-)

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.

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

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.

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.