Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'New improved Ancestry'

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

  • 'New improved Ancestry'

    I seem to have had this foisted on me. I've tried it, don't like it - not at all relaxing/satisfying to use - but can't find how to get back to the 'proper Ancestry'. Am I doomed to be forcibly improved?

    Judith

  • #2
    Afraid so - lost the old ancestry either yesterday or today.

    I liked the old ancestry where I could highlight a person's profile and it would print off sensibly on one sheet for my paper records. Now it goes over to 2 pages or more and isn't as neat and tidy.

    In a person's profile if you are getting a timeline with all the siblings births, parents deaths etc you can get rid of it by clicking facts - then further down there is a Show with dropdown menu of Family events and Historical Insights which need to be unclicked.
    Last edited by JBee; 15-12-15, 14:13.



    Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by julite View Post
      Am I doomed to be forcibly improved?
      Yes!
      Elaine







      Comment


      • #4
        Avatar is my Gt Grandfather

        Researching:
        FRANKLIN (Harrow/Pinner 1700 to 1850); PURSGLOVE (ALL Southern counties of England); POOLE (Tetbury/Malmesbury and surrounding areas of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (1650 to 1900); READ London/Suffolk

        Comment


        • #5
          I've been using it all day and am getting used to it. I only started using Ancestry trees a month ago so am having a double learning curve! Can see some advantages, though.
          Anne

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the replies. I had unclicked all the extraneous information, but it's still a messy, bedazzled experience. Having had a quick look at the blog, I wonder what the proportion of the comments are supportive. My sub recently ran out - I intended to renew it in the New Year but now I think I'll save my money and continue my trees offline - a pity because I have benefitted from and contributed to some satisfying collaboration.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't see many comments from all the regulars , are you all sticking your heads in the sand and hoping this load of rubbish will go away ?

              Ken

              Comment


              • #8
                Ken I did fill in a survey and said I did not like it but dont know how much notice they will take.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It won't go away, I'm afraid Ken. They have been warning us for a while that this was coming, not much we could do other than stop using their website. In fact this is what I've done - I cancelled my Ancestry sub recently after 12 years of membership. I have not been happy with the way the company has been headed recently and I am disappointed with the lack of relevant new primary record sets being released of late. Instead, they seem to be concentrating their efforts on getting their subscribers to put their trees online (and the recent decision to "retire" Family Tree Maker software is a part of that) - information which the company then sells to other customers in the form of subscriptions (since you have to subscribe to see other people's trees, even if they themselves made them public). The "new-look" website is also a part of this strategy as apparently it is supposed to be more friendly to users of mobile devices (though who does their research on their phone, I don't know - I struggle to read text messages on my phone, let alone the details of a census image!).

                  I think all these changes will drive the serious researchers away from Ancestry, which will ultimately degrade the quality of their online trees. Perhaps that is what the company wants - a newer, younger client base who just want to link up to an existing tree with a few clicks on their phone and then move on to something else, paying Ancestry a handsome annual fee for the privilege (and how many of those users will simply forget to cancel their memberships, giving Ancestry a steady income stream for years to come?). I certainly don't think they are interested in the quality of their online data any more - it's all about the look and feel now, all gimmicks but no substance.

                  There are alternatives to Ancestry around, the most obvious one for researchers with British roots being FindMyPast. I'm not a big fan of the design of their website either to be honest, but I do feel they are more likely to continue to support the genuine genealogist and continue to bring us decent record sets into the future. We can only hope!

                  Richard

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Richard

                    It is my impression that the recent change in ownership of Ancestry signals its new direction - that of an investment company, run for the benefit of shareholders. If you cannot increase profit then you must cut costs and although the new tree layout isn't part of that strategy, it is as you say, an appeal to those who are really only interested in a trivial way in their trees.

                    The value of Ancestry (on the stockmarket) is its huge data sets and the subscriber-donated family trees (over 7 million at the last count). Accountants are not interested in family history and therefore do not see that the vast majority of those 7 million trees are at best inaccurate, at worst fantasy rubbish.

                    I am reminded of what happened on GR. Went from being a genuine company whose onky interest was family history, was sold to ITV who were only interested as an income-generating investment (and lost millions of ££££ because they did not research the true value of the site, merely took it at its face value of 6 million members or whatever it was), to the present ownership who are holding it as a separate company because the Monopolies commission say they cannot merge it. there are complaints on there all the time about lack of input from "the management".

                    Everything changes. Nothing stays the same. We have to pick our way through what is on offer and always be on the alert for the next unpleasant development!

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kenw55 View Post
                      I don't see many comments from all the regulars , are you all sticking your heads in the sand and hoping this load of rubbish will go away ?

                      Ken
                      Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean other people are "sticking their heads in the sand". I started using it from the earliest opportunity. Some of the early quirks have been ironed out and I'm playing quite happily in the sand.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If you delete your private tree from Ancestry - what happens? I mean someone said they keep control but how?



                        Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JBee View Post
                          If you delete your private tree from Ancestry - what happens? I mean someone said they keep control but how?
                          Anything you upload remains on their master/archived server even if you delete your tree from the server that the membership and visitors see on the website.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A lot of the site appears to now be run by Bling Maps , it keeps sticking pins in places that are not relevant , I will give you one example , Beatrice Lilian Phillips Born 1903 Freshwater Isle of Wight , Married Mar 1923 Portsmouth , Hampshire , England ( that is how it is entered ) , Bling Maps has stuck a pin in Lancashire , so I investigated and by the side of the A646 at Cornholme there is a Bus Stop and it is named Portsmouth Bus Station , So Bling Maps can not find the City of Portsmouth on the south coast , the home of the Royal Navy yet it can find a Bus stop in the wilds of Lancashire , it is the inconsistantancy that is so annoying and it looks like all 4000 people will have to be checked.


                            Yes I have backed up my tree to my computer . and I will be cancelling my subs when it runs out in Apr 2016

                            Ken

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                              Richard

                              It is my impression that the recent change in ownership of Ancestry signals its new direction - that of an investment company, run for the benefit of shareholders. If you cannot increase profit then you must cut costs and although the new tree layout isn't part of that strategy, it is as you say, an appeal to those who are really only interested in a trivial way in their trees.

                              The value of Ancestry (on the stockmarket) is its huge data sets and the subscriber-donated family trees (over 7 million at the last count). Accountants are not interested in family history and therefore do not see that the vast majority of those 7 million trees are at best inaccurate, at worst fantasy rubbish.

                              I am reminded of what happened on GR. Went from being a genuine company whose onky interest was family history, was sold to ITV who were only interested as an income-generating investment (and lost millions of ££££ because they did not research the true value of the site, merely took it at its face value of 6 million members or whatever it was), to the present ownership who are holding it as a separate company because the Monopolies commission say they cannot merge it. there are complaints on there all the time about lack of input from "the management".

                              Everything changes. Nothing stays the same. We have to pick our way through what is on offer and always be on the alert for the next unpleasant development!

                              OC
                              Couldn't agree more, OC. As you say, Ancestry is run for its shareholders, not its customers. Therefore the only way that we customers can have any influence on the company is to stop paying for its services, and thereby having a negative impact on its shareholders. Of course this is a personal choice - you have to weigh up what the company is offering against the cost of your subscription and decide whether it's worth it for you. For me, this equation has finally tipped into the negative this year, given the lack of new data sets being offered, their tinkering with the website and the decision to "retire" FTM software. I am not interested in copying other people's trees, researching on my phone, DNA testing or giving Ancestry free and unfettered access to my years of thorough research, so that is why I've decided to cancel my subscription. It really doesn't bother me whether the company thrives under its new direction or whether it crashes in a heap and self-destructs. It's been useful in my research but it's certainly not irreplaceable. I will miss access to some of its record sets but I'm sure I'll manage with FMP, FamilySearch and the occasional trip to the library for free access to Ancestry when & if they ever put any new data on there that is relevant to my tree!

                              Richard

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                I don't understand what they will do with the family trees on the master/archived - surely they can't make them public if they are private trees - so what can they do with them?



                                Researching Irish families: FARMER, McBRIDE McQUADE, McQUAID, KIRK, SANDS/SANAHAN (Cork), BARR,

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I have just made my trees private. I remain ambivalent about my decision as I believe genealogists can often achieve more through collaboration. I didn't mind other Ancestry members copying from my trees and I also gained (before my subscription ended) from others with similar areas of research. On the other hand, it seems to be the only way I can 'stamp my foot'!

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by JBee View Post
                                    I don't understand what they will do with the family trees on the master/archived - surely they can't make them public if they are private trees - so what can they do with them?
                                    I don't know the technicalities of it JBee but I do know, having seen it with my own eyes, that they use people's data as they wish. I once found a person of interest in a private ancestry tree and messaged the owner asking for permission to have a look or for them to share info. I never got an answer and don't know why. A while afterwards I followed a tip from someone and Googled this person of interest. I found a link to another online tree on a different website that previously I had never heard of. Lo and behold, there was the same tree with same owner and it was public. All I had to do was register and I could see the tree. The site was called Mundia and was suspiciously ancestry-like. I found out by asking around that it was owned by ancestry but they just didn't publicise the fact.
                                    My suspicions had been aroused by the fact that when I registered using the same username as my ancestry account, I didn't have to go through the whole process as it already knew who I was!!
                                    In my ancestry account, I am a guest on 3 trees and an editor on 1. These trees belong to relatives. I went back on to Mundia and searched for someone in each tree who had an unusual name and found matches for all of them. In each case, the tree owner was the same as on ancestry. I told them all of my discoveries on Mundia and they were stunned as they had never heard of it.
                                    Last edited by GallowayLass; 16-12-15, 17:07.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by kenw55 View Post
                                      I don't see many comments from all the regulars , are you all sticking your heads in the sand and hoping this load of rubbish will go away ?

                                      Ken
                                      Originally posted by Jill on the A272 View Post
                                      Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean other people are "sticking their heads in the sand". I started using it from the earliest opportunity. Some of the early quirks have been ironed out and I'm playing quite happily in the sand.
                                      As I have been. since it was clear that changes were going to happen, then it seemed silly for me to do other than get used to it!!

                                      One complaint is that it is too dark - I find that a slight movement of the laptop screen fixes that .... I do have trouble using Chrome on the site so I use Firefox. I don't understand why the new look should cause cancelling of the subscription and a petition and threats of a mass exodus. If one does cancel, then you can't access the records any more!!
                                      Caroline
                                      Caroline's Family History Pages
                                      Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        So, I'm coming at this from a different direction. For years my only trees have been on my own computer, not accessible to anyone else (apart from a few contacts from various places). I've been banging on about this for a while now but I'll say it here again ......

                                        When I am no longer here what use is a personal tree on my computer? OK, some of the family my be interested but why not let many, many more people benefit? I have had years of fun finding it all out and I'm really not bothered if people "steal" the tree, my certificates, my stories, my photos, all of which I am in the process of uploading to Ancestry. At the moment I have them private but only because I am working towards getting them in the best shape before making them public.

                                        I only began this process last month and had quite a learning curve getting to know what was possible. Got a bit of a shock when the 'new' layout started but I can see plenty of advantages of the new way. I specially like the way it connects each fact to the sources relevant to it. I have noticed that very many tree on Ancestry have no sources at all! This is not from want of Ancestry trying to get you to do it and the new way makes it even more obvious that sources are needed!

                                        With my own computer program tree I have never attached photos, certificates, census records to the tree itself ..... just the way I work, preferring to keep them separate. However I'm having fun attaching stuff to each person on Ancestry, although they have found very little I didn't already know.

                                        Since two thirds of my family come from West Yorkshire I couldn't do nearly as much as I do without Ancestry. For the cost of the annual sub I couldn't even do one day's research, needing travel and overnight stay.

                                        So, in short Ken, my head is not in the sand. I'm liking it!!
                                        Anne

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X