Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Familysearch is changing!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Familysearch is changing!

    Just been on to Familysearch and got a huge popup telling me that the site is changing over the next few weeks.

    They say that things will look very different, but all the great features will still be there.

    Oh dear.......

    I say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
    Co-ordinator for PoW project Southern Region 08
    Researching:- Wieland, Habbes, Saettele, Bowinkelmann, Freckenhauser, Dilger in Germany
    Kincaid, Warner, Hitchman, Collie, Curtis, Pocock, Stanley, Nixey, McDonald in London, Berks, Bucks, Oxon and West Midlands
    Drake, Beals, Pritchard in Kent
    Devine in Ireland

  • #2
    Pete the improvements are all for the better, all the people who have added their own incorrect information over the years will be filtered out and only the actual facts will be there.
    I have been an avid user of Familysearch site for the last couple of years since my subscriptions all ended and have seen many improvements and can find things easily, and most recently it has broken down my own long standing brick wall with new information added to original records, then I have discovered one of my lines in Stafford and they go back 200 years further into 1600 and hopefully beyond so I am constantly discovering something new.
    I have a friend who has Ancestry and I am finding stuff on FS and she is getting the actual copies and sending them to me once I give her the details so I say bring on the changes as they will be for the better.

    Edna

    Comment


    • #3
      well I dont know if its me or not but I prefer the old version ,dont get on with it at all so gawd knows what the new one will be like.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with Edna ...... if you look at the trial view (available on the pop up) the improvement is outstanding and I look forward to it as it will cut out a lot of dross.
        Joe

        Comment


        • #5
          they're not getting rid of user submitted material. they're just putting it all into ancestry like trees. i don't think i will like the new site.

          Comment


          • #6
            It took me ages to get used to the "new familysearch" and I could never get any good results, even ones I knew were there from the old search pages, but since they added the options of "Country" and "type" (birth/marriage/death etc) I have been getting much better results.
            Diane
            Sydney Australia
            Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

            Comment


            • #7
              I had realised that they were getting rid of the 'dross' and I have not seen any of the nonsense that used to be on there for some time (things like John Smith, father Mr Smith, mother Mrs Smith).

              This seems to be the way all family history sites are going; trying to simplify the search process for novices, and with more and more inforamtion becoming available restricting the size of returned searches.

              However for those of us that have considerable experience and large trees with a few awkward gaps and brick walls it is a disaster! I need those 1 and 1/2 star matches!
              Co-ordinator for PoW project Southern Region 08
              Researching:- Wieland, Habbes, Saettele, Bowinkelmann, Freckenhauser, Dilger in Germany
              Kincaid, Warner, Hitchman, Collie, Curtis, Pocock, Stanley, Nixey, McDonald in London, Berks, Bucks, Oxon and West Midlands
              Drake, Beals, Pritchard in Kent
              Devine in Ireland

              Comment


              • #8
                Actually, I rather liked the old, original FS, dross and rubbish included. It was very easy (once you knew how!) to spot the submitted material. A lot of submitted material was rubbish but SOME of it was accurate and very useful.

                I find the new site annoying in that it repeats and cross references the same information over and over again. Hopefully, the New new site lol, has got rid of that.

                OC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                  Actually, I rather liked the old, original FS, dross and rubbish included. It was very easy (once you knew how!) to spot the submitted material. A lot of submitted material was rubbish but SOME of it was accurate and very useful.

                  I find the new site annoying in that it repeats and cross references the same information over and over again. Hopefully, the New new site lol, has got rid of that.

                  OC
                  Hi OC,
                  just a query, how DO you spot the submitted material?
                  Thanks,
                  Christine
                  Researching:
                  HOEY (Fermanagh, other Ulster counties and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) BANNIGAN and FOX (Ballyshannon, Donegal, Ireland and Portland, Maine, USA) REYNOLDS, McSHEA, PATTERSON and GOAN (Corker and Creevy, Ballyshannon, Donegal, Ireland) DYER (Belfast and Ballymacarrett) SLEVIN and TIMONEY (Fermanagh) BARNETT (Ballagh, Tyrone and Strangford, Down)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Christine

                    Well, you can only spot it on the old, original site, although the current new site does have a few clues.

                    Basically, it's all down to batch numbers. If the entry shows a batch number beginning with C, M, or P, then that entry is taken from an original church document. Any other batch number (I,J,K, no batch number at all) is taken from some kind of transcribed source.

                    You used to be able to drill down the batch number and discover what document the record had been compiled from. You can no longer easily do that.

                    Any entry with no batch number or source record is a user-submitted entry and needs independently verifying. As I said, not ALLK submitted entries are rubbish but the John Smith son of Mr and Mrs Smith scenario isn't worth investigating.

                    Some of the batches on the new site are presented as primary source records - batches beginning with I, for instance. In my opinion these are not primary source records, as the I batches cover many very old transcriptions done by members of the public under no supervision whatsoever. I have personal knowledge that one of those I batches was doctored to conceal an illegitimacy in my family - a completely fictitious entry was added which did not appear in the original register. (The actual illegitimate birth did, though. Good job I checked otherwise my tree would be a work of fiction!)

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks OC,
                      Very helpful explanation and overview.
                      Regards,
                      Christine
                      Last edited by Karamazov; 12-04-13, 12:39.
                      Researching:
                      HOEY (Fermanagh, other Ulster counties and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) BANNIGAN and FOX (Ballyshannon, Donegal, Ireland and Portland, Maine, USA) REYNOLDS, McSHEA, PATTERSON and GOAN (Corker and Creevy, Ballyshannon, Donegal, Ireland) DYER (Belfast and Ballymacarrett) SLEVIN and TIMONEY (Fermanagh) BARNETT (Ballagh, Tyrone and Strangford, Down)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X