What is Ancestry playing at now?

[peter]

I hate to say this, but Ancestry (and they are not alone) do NOT consult as you imagine they should do.

That's right - when the changes are relatively modest the initial consultation is typically with a panel then, if the feedback is generally positive, it is rolled out to a subset of subscribers. That seems to be what has happened on this occasion.

However when there are major changes, such as the new Search that Ancestry introduced about 10 years ago, they carry out a wider consultation - on that occasion it took the best part of a year and everyone was able to comment. It isn't practical to do this for every small change.

Findmypast also carried out a major consultation after their new website was launched, again about 10 years ago.

 

[peter]

be aware of impending price increases

I wouldn't worry too much about what Bob has just said - nobody is going to pay more for a minor cosmetic change.

In any case, I suspect Ancestry are more interested in increasing the number of subscribers than putting up the price of subscriptions - the number of Ancestry subscribers is minuscule compared to the number of family historians (which is why putting a tree on Ancestry isn't the perfect solution that some people seem to think it is, simply part of the solution).

 

[At home in NZ]

If you want to have a say, contact Customer Services.

I did, I used the suggestions link in my Home Page.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I wouldn't worry too much about what Bob has just said - nobody is going to pay more for a minor cosmetic change.

In any case, I suspect Ancestry are more interested in increasing the number of subscribers than putting up the price of subscriptions...

Yes, I think these fair points and despite their lead in the numbers game (I refer here to Ancestry versus MyHeritage) they cannot afford to rest on their laurels so putting up subscription charges is probably far from their mind. For a start they have MyHeritage breathing down their necks and even though Ancestry is streets ahead in both conventional and DNA research elements, MyH does boast better European (Scandinavian & Germany) cover although overall I think this quite minimal.

Online research shows Ancestry with 8 billion names spread across 80 million individual family trees whilst MyH has 3 billion names in 35 million Trees. So even allowing for the obfuscation of many of the names being duplicates - as one online source explains - "if an exact same person is listed in a thousand different family trees, that will count as a thousand names", I think the number of actual subscribers is important as is the perennial topic of Public versus Private Trees as not all names are searchable without recourse to 'private' contact and I do not have numbers for how many of each.

 

[peter]

I think the number of actual subscribers is important as is the perennial topic of Public versus Private Trees as not all names are searchable without recourse to 'private' contact and I do not have numbers for how many of each.

With the exception of your DNA matches, you can't contact an Ancestry user unless you are a subscriber - so whether their tree is public or private matters little. (It's similar at MyHeritage.)

 

[Bob Spiers]

With the exception of your DNA matches, you can't contact an Ancestry user unless you are a subscriber - so whether their tree is public or private matters little. (It's similar at MyHeritage.)

The point about both needing to be subscribers is granted, but the observation "not all names are searchable without recourse to 'private' contact"... came from an online source, although I understood and agreed with the comment. In essence it explained that those with Public Trees granted search access to ALL (subject to Ancestry's safeguards regards living relatives) and enjoyed the same in return with other Public Trees. On the other hand Private Tree owners although able to search Public Trees unfettered, only granted access to their own Trees after private contact and agreement. So, in essence, not a level playing field. (It mentioned in passing the same would apply to MyH).

 

[peter]

Just a reminder that most Private trees at Ancestry are searchable.

 

[At home in NZ]

It seems all is about to be revealed, to me at the moment.
I went to my Ancestry tab and was confronted by the message in the attached.

Using the arrows I found the last 'page' contains this:
Look out for an updated homepage, a better family tree view, improvements to search, and more.

Can't wait - NOT!

 

[At home in NZ]

Have now had a look around one of my trees, all font appears to be Arial which is my preferred font for emails and Word docs but takes getting used to in my tree.
In the family view all profile 'photos' that are not photos are apricot for female and green for male. Looks very wishy washy.

Depending on which view you are looking at the actual photos are various shapes, I have some teardrop, some square and some with rounded corners.
I said the font is Arial, it is except when you go into a profile where the person's name across the top is similar to Times New Roman.
Top marks for inconsistency

 

[PhilGee]

Nobody seems to have commented, so: I noticed a few days ago that the (nauseating) pale green backgrounds and green text that had been introduced for various elements has gone back to blue - another experiment over?

Not all change is bad, though, as entering the message system now (for me at least) no longer takes 5 minutes to dismiss the rotating "busy" indicator but is near instant. Ok, 5 minutes is an exaggeration, it was only about 4.5 minutes

 

[At home in NZ]

Nobody seems to have commented, so: I noticed a few days ago that the (nauseating) pale green backgrounds and green text that had been introduced for various elements has gone back to blue - another experiment over?

Not all change is bad, though, as entering the message system now (for me at least) no longer takes 5 minutes to dismiss the rotating "busy" indicator but is near instant. Ok, 5 minutes is an exaggeration, it was only about 4.5 minutes

The text in my Home Page has gone back to blue today , it was green yesterday. Have also noticed the green for male has gone back to blue for the icons in tree view. I hope the wishy washy apricot colour will go back to pink for the females.

I gave massive Feedback the other day, colouring was one of the 'criticisms' I made. I didn't mention the 'avatars' which look like dolly pegs!

I've just had a look at my messaging, the 'daisy wheel' went round for about 20 seconds, which is 19 seconds too long for my liking.
It has always struck me as odd that the messaging can be accessed from the main site but when you close it, it remains in a separate tab which you have to close