Ancestry users what do you think of your new Home page?

[At home in NZ]

From Ancestry in response:

Thank you for contacting Ancestry with regards to your feedback.

Its fantastic that you want your voice to be heard with regards to the decisions made on Ancestry, and I'm sorry you haven't had the opportunity to let it be heard yet.

Interviewees are chosen at random specifically to prevent our own selection biases, we want a collection of both new and returning members' voices to be heard to try and create a better experience. It is unfortunate you yourself have not been selected for this, however I have attached below a link to our suggestion box as mentioned by my colleague previously. It is on this page you will find the "General Feedback" section.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/cs/suggestions

This is the space where members can provide feedback on all manner of features, which is regularly reviewed, especially on newer changes.

We would encourage both yourself and the other forum members you mentioned in your original contact to please provide us with as much feedback as you can. The more feedback the better.

BTW, I did not say which Forum I belong to. The final sentence was not in bold, that's my doing.

 

[At home in NZ]

Ancestry aren't doing away with existing Quick Links, so I've just set up a load of new ones.

While composing my contribution to Ancestry's Suggestions I am using the Home Page to assist with descriptions.
I thought I would add a Quicklink to the Suggestions page but they've removed the ability to do so. I sincerely hope our existing Quicklinks do not go the way of the dinosaur.

 

[JoyNor]

Thanks for posting the link. Hope Ancestry is prepared! Feedback will ensue until it is coming out their ears.

Best to copy all your Quick Links asap. I simply took a screenshot of the list in case they vanished overnight. Then started a more leisurely offline document listing each one as a clickable link & to which I can add new ones. What a faff!

 

[jorghes]

Interestingly I don't seem to get hints for my wife's tree either, even though I am the tree owner. I can't figure out why this is.

I think the Dashboard reflects the last tree you were working with (i.e. spending a lot of time in) because my dashboard is showing the US centric tree that I have been working on for a close family friend, not my own tree. Every hint shown on the dashboard relates to that tree.

 

[peter]

Best to copy all your Quick Links asap. I simply took a screenshot of the list in case they vanished overnight. Then started a more leisurely offline document listing each one as a clickable link & to which I can add new ones. What a faff!

If you copy them into Word or Excel they will be clickable - only takes 10 seconds.

 

[peter]

Interestingly I don't seem to get hints for my wife's tree either, even though I am the tree owner. I can't figure out why this is.

I think the Dashboard reflects the last tree you were working with (i.e. spending a lot of time in) because my dashboard is showing the US centric tree that I have been working on for a close family friend, not my own tree. Every hint shown on the dashboard relates to that tree.

I wasn't talking about the dashboard, I was talking about the hints displayed when I click the leaf at the top right of the screen. At the bottom of the dropdown you can click See all recent hints in to see a list of trees, but in my case it isn't a complete list.

 

[JoyNor]

If you copy them into Word or Excel they will be clickable - only takes 10 seconds.

I meant what a faff having to reorganise my working practice because Ancestry chooses to move the goalposts. I did a quick screenshot because I was on my tablet. Next time I fired up the desktop I copied them to a Word doc. The screenshot was a precaution in case the list did indeed vanish before I got chance to copy them as clickable links.

 

[At home in NZ]

In my long list of suggestions I have pointed out that those of us who are experienced with Ancestry think Quick Links are vital and can we have them back please.
I have also asked if we can turn hints off in the same way we can turn off hints from other trees.

I have copied and pasted my suggestions into a Word Doc and saved it for future reference because there is a statement to the effect they do not answer suggestions.

I raised 9 points and won't repeat them all here, I might bore some of you.

I am not holding my breath for any of it to happen.

 

[jorghes]

I wasn't talking about the dashboard, I was talking about the hints displayed when I click the leaf at the top right of the screen. At the bottom of the dropdown you can click See all recent hints in to see a list of trees, but in my case it isn't a complete list.

You can switch off which trees appear in that hint menu. I only have one tree appearing in the shaky leaf hints when you click on it, and when you "see all recent hints", it only shows the trees that I either have open in my tabs or I have been working on recently. It doesn't show a full selection of my trees either.

 

[peter]

I meant what a faff having to reorganise my working practice because Ancestry chooses to move the goalposts.

To be fair to Ancestry, most people never use the Quick Links - that it is probably why they are being retired.

 

[peter]

You can switch off which trees appear in that hint menu.

How?

 

[JoyNor]

To be fair to Ancestry, most people never use the Quick Links - that it is probably why they are being retired.

Hmm? How do you know that? Have you asked everyone? In my experience many people (certainly recent new members who have joined for DNA) don't build trees - should Ancestry therefore do away with the facility? And a lot who do build trees don't attach records or sources so . . . .

 

[peter]

Hmm? How do you know that? Have you asked everyone?

Of course not - only a sample of Ancestry users. But since LostCousins members are amongst the most-experienced users of Ancestry I think it's reasonable to assume that an even lower proportion of Ancestry users generally use this feature.

Another indicator is that LostCousins members don't seem to complain about the fact that Findmypast doesn't offer a similar feature.

In my experience many people (certainly recent new members who have joined for DNA) don't build trees - should Ancestry therefore do away with the facility? And a lot who do build trees don't attach records or sources so . . . .

There is a big difference between features that are purely for the convenience of one person and those that benefit the wider community.

 

[At home in NZ]

Another indicator is that LostCousins members don't seem to complain about the fact that Findmypast doesn't offer a similar feature

We can't complain about a website we don't use.

 

[peter]

We can't complain about a website we don't use.

And your point is?

 

[Pauline]

Another indicator is that LostCousins members don't seem to complain about the fact that Findmypast doesn't offer a similar feature.

I use both FMP and Ancestry, and in general I find it much easier to locate specific datasets at FMP than at Ancestry. I don't find the Ancestry card catalogue very user friendly, whereas I rarely have any issues locating what I want at FMP. That is why I think the Quick Links at Ancestry is so useful, but don't miss it at FMP.

 

[peter]

I use both FMP and Ancestry, and in general I find it much easier to locate specific datasets at FMP than at Ancestry. I don't find the Ancestry card catalogue very user friendly, whereas I rarely have any issues locating what I want at FMP. That is why I think the Quick Links at Ancestry is so useful, but don't miss it at FMP.

I used to have a problem with the Card Catalogue, which is why there were two articles about Ancestry's Quick Links in the newsletter in 2014. But I haven't had any problems recently - whether that's because I've learned to use it more effectively, or because my usage has changed, I can't be sure. What was good about the Quick Links is that they weren't restricted to Ancestry links - you could link to other sites, even LostCousins.

The problem with Findmypast is that there are some record sets that can't be found at all (or at least, couldn't - this may now have been fixed). It can also be difficult to find record sets you know are there because the name has changed or because they have been subsumed into larger collections. For example, the British Army pension records used to be known as the Chelsea pension records, but you now can't find them by searching for 'Chelsea' or 'pension'. Until recently you could still find the Kilmainham pension records by searching for 'Kilmainham', but now even that doesn't work. At least the names of datasets at Ancestry seem to stay constant, and the links don't change.

 

[Tim]

Hmm? How do you know that? Have you asked everyone? In my experience many people (certainly recent new members who have joined for DNA) don't build trees - should Ancestry therefore do away with the facility? And a lot who do build trees don't attach records or sources so . . . .

You can use Analytics on content that you create which can tell you virtually everything about what the user is doing on your site.
So they'll know how many people have quick links and how often they're used.

 

[JoyNor]

What was good about the Quick Links is that they weren't restricted to Ancestry links - you could link to other sites, even LostCousins.

Precisely! Perhaps THAT was one of Ancestry's pet hates & a reason to get rid.

On the other hand if Ancestry had given more prominence to the usefulness of QL perhaps they would have been better used. When one of my experienced collaborators pointed them out to me some years back it was a revelation! And all my regular contacts who are very experienced use them. But not a single one of them is on LC so I don't accept that the LC community is representative in the way you indicate.

On the TV ads 87% of women interviewed agreed a particular cosmetic was the best thing since sliced bread. Seen the tiny print across the bottom of the screen? That was 87% of maybe 154 women. Hardly representative of the female UK population or even of those who have bought that particular potion. Nuff said.

 

[peter]

When one of my experienced collaborators pointed them out to me some years back it was a revelation! And all my regular contacts who are very experienced use them. But not a single one of them is on LC so I don't accept that the LC community is representative in the way you indicate.

Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant - I've corresponded with many thousands of LostCousins members over the past 18 years, whereas you haven't contacted any of those you've been matched with in the short time you've been a member. So any statement you might make about the LostCousins community lacks credibility, to say the least.

I don't know how much experience you and your collaborators have, but as someone who has been an Ancestry member for nearly 20 years, and a LostCousins member for over 18 years, I know from my own experience that LostCousins members are, on average, far more experienced than Ancestry members. You yourself pointed out that many Ancestry users don't even have a tree, and few on this forum would dispute that many Ancestry trees are unreliable.

On the TV ads 87% of women interviewed agreed a particular cosmetic was the best thing since sliced bread. Seen the tiny print across the bottom of the screen? That was 87% of maybe 154 women. Hardly representative of the female UK population or even of those who have bought that particular potion. Nuff said.

You might want to do a crash course in statistical sampling before making wild statements like that within my hearing. Long before I began researching my family tree I was director of a market research company, and I'm still a member of the Royal Statistical Society after more than 30 years - so I can assure you that the sample size is in the right range.