Review Ancestry Hints in a New Way

[At home in NZ]

I know I brought this up in another discussion, the feature had disappeared since then.

I was looking at and the Ignored Hint for this person and clicked on the title of the record and this appeared:



Clicking on Next in the smaller window produces this:


Clicking on Next tells me how I can adjust my Hints view.

If you click on Review you get the ability to Edit the person's details and add the Event, you can also see all the family members but I'm not sure I can see any purpose in that.

You can call me a luddite, stick in the mud or whatever you like but why, oh why do we get change for change's sake?

I just want to be able to click on the title in the Hints list and be taken to the record, instead I have another step to take by clicking on the title in the right hand 'window' under the heading ' Step 1'.

Once again I ask myself do these changes made by Ancestry help me in my research or are they in the 'nice to have' category?

 

[jorghes]

It seems to only appear when you are viewing the hints inside the person's page. It hasn't appeared in the overall list of hints.

I also can't quite understand what this adds to the process, other than cutting the loading time.

 

[Susan]

I just right click on the record title (birth index, 1901 census etc) and open it in a new tab, then work from there in the 'old' way.

 

[At home in NZ]

It seems to only appear when you are viewing the hints inside the person's page. It hasn't appeared in the overall list of hints.

I also can't quite understand what this adds to the process, other than cutting the loading time.

I always click on the person in the overall list of Hints because I like to check the facts I already have in order to see if the Hint is a duplicate or a new one.

It might cut the loading time but it's still adding time to the way you access the record.

I will not be using this new way of loading because the Description field isn't available for editing, at least not in those I've seen so far. I make extensive use of the Description field.

 

[At home in NZ]

I just right click on the record title (birth index, 1901 census etc) and open it in a new tab, then work from there in the 'old' way.

Doesn't work for me. I get a list of actions I can take with the link, they don't include opening the record.

 

[Susan]

If I right click on the record title, this is what I get



Then left click on 'Open link in new tab' then go to the newly opened tab.

I use Firefox, maybe that makes a difference?

 

[At home in NZ]

left click on 'Open link in new tab' then go to the newly opened tab.

I use Firefox, maybe that makes a difference?

I use Chrome and get a similar selection, the window won't stay open for me while taking a screen shot.
However, I don't want to open in a new tab I want to open in the person's profile but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Susan]

I do use opening in a new tab quite often on different websites - for example on a fish keeping forum I'm a member of I use it to open links to other pages on the site when replying to a question. So using it on Ancestry is second nature.

 

[Tim]

Here is the way to feedback to Ancestry on any new features or with your own suggestions.

Ancestry Suggestion Box

 

[At home in NZ]

Here is the way to feedback to Ancestry on any new features or with your own suggestions.

You have heard the expression shovelling the proverbial uphill?????
I've been there done that in the past, they don't take a blind bit of notice.

 

[At home in NZ]

I do use opening in a new tab quite often on different websites

I often have 3 tabs open for Ancestry, so I'm not averse to opening new tabs.
My preference in this instance is to open the record within the profile of the person which is the way I handle all Hints.

 

[Tim]

You have heard the expression shovelling the proverbial uphill?????
I've been there done that in the past, they don't take a blind bit of notice.

They assure me that everyone is read and assessed

 

[Bob Spiers]

I've been there done that in the past, they don't take a blind bit of notice.

'One Swallow doth not a Summer make' I'm afraid. I used to oversee Quality Assurance for a Company, where 'Customer Complaints' was a feature of its QA policy. The golden rule was - as the old 'Swallow' saying illustrates - one complaint (indeed a handful) does NOT constitute an ISSUE. But repetitive complaints, will bear fruit, eventually. QA procedures require all Feedback to be acknowledged and the customer informed the matter will be passed along for consideration.

So the more people complain, the greater the chance of it being heeded. But of course, and I know this from experience, it has to reach the right department and they will of course have a myriad of reasons why such a change might be detrimental in the scheme of things. It will be discussed internally, but the outcome rarely explained, unless it finds its way into their Q&A's, or (lucky you) acted upon!

You can of course further complain about not hearing until YOU become an ISSUE. That usually earns you an explanation which may or may not satisfy.

 

[jorghes]

I have found the worst (at least for me) aspect of the "new" hints.

They now treat the date and the place as a single entity, instead of allowing you to add them separately as in the old hint addition. That means that an incorrect date or place can wipe out correct information when all you're trying to do is add a place (which happened to me when I attempted to add a birth place from a record which then attempted to write over the birthdate as added from a different record.)

Not particularly happy to continually have to correct data when entering information from records to support and add to information that is already there.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Not particularly happy to continually have to correct data when entering information from records to support and add to information that is already there.

Yes I don't know quite what has got into Ancestry of late, lots of new innovations and variations to the old ways of working. They introduce them (mainly without prior warning) and think they will catch on. They seem to have an active R&D Team at work, similar in many ways to Microsoft who introduce new innovations with their weekly 'Cumulative Updates', and heaven help their bi-annual critical updates.

I just wish Ancestry would think things through from the ground floor level (ie the user) but that is not happening I'm afraid. I may take a peek to see if there is an 'Ancestry' Forum where such issues are being raised and add voice there, but meanwhile I'm afraid you will need to continue with your data corrections.

 

[Tim]

I have found the worst (at least for me) aspect of the "new" hints.

They now treat the date and the place as a single entity, instead of allowing you to add them separately as in the old hint addition. That means that an incorrect date or place can wipe out correct information when all you're trying to do is add a place (which happened to me when I attempted to add a birth place from a record which then attempted to write over the birthdate as added from a different record.)

Not particularly happy to continually have to correct data when entering information from records to support and add to information that is already there.

This is exactly what I complained about. The only useful thing they told me is that if you scroll down to the bottom of the page in that righthand view, there is a "View Record Page" at the bottom, and pressing that bypasses the new way of adding the data.

 

[At home in NZ]

If you look back to my screen shot, you can see the record at the right hand side. Click on the title, UK Patients Lunacy etc, you get this:



That is how I am handling this 'new way of looking at Hints'.

 

[Margery]

lots of new innovations

Oh Bob, aren't all innovations "new"?

 

[At home in NZ]

aren't all innovations "new"?

I hear that a lot at home, especially when TV news is on.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I hear that a lot at home, especially when TV news is on.

I believe it is an example of tautology and much loved by the media who love to over emphasise everything and perhaps that's tautology too? Even after being reminded - and agreeing - I am still likely to include 'new' in front of innovation again as (perhaps in my mind only) I do not think the word innovation alone conveys something is 'brand new'. It's all in the mind I'm afraid.