LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS-L Archives

Archiver > LEICESTERSHIRE-PLUS > 2011-02 > 1297104038


From: "C. Phillipps" <>
Subject: Re: [LEI] Family Search website
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:40:38 -0600
References: <201102052221.p15MLcqF001620@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au><26F1988F5112485DB763C5699378C53C@claireac3e9bca><19ED1987E4AD4A39BD922FDBC7BD651D@Emrys><8FE629E05BD849239ABF5179232F4AA9@claireac3e9bca><BLU112-DS164158C9731726F4FD409894EB0@phx.gbl><AC7E78B90F134B5DBF28871F90A865AF@discount6774a5><BLU112-DS14946662F3D94E00C9311794EB0@phx.gbl><A6238E45B12D4BBEAE577A16B7D4FD43@LoisPC><AANLkTinFomQhpQP9aw4CJRt-vfg8xv=La37uDbSQHSBv@mail.gmail.com><72BAFB55AB3948DDB90292E2CEA7894E@claireac3e9bca>
In-Reply-To: <72BAFB55AB3948DDB90292E2CEA7894E@claireac3e9bca>


Well, the problem tends to be that this will eventually go down into people
just complaining about it and not solving the issue.

But...I have to say I have complained loudly and frequently to them and I
have seen improvements in the search algorithms. They have emailed me
several times about how and when I expect different results and a lot of the
results have been cleaned up considerably, particularly in my area of
specialty, Michigan.

The problem tends to come because they decided on standards partway into
their site development, so the first projects tend to have non-standard,
incorrect entries into them - something like you might find my Needhams who
should be in Queniborough, Leicestershire, England with results from
Leicester, Queniborough, England, and Leicester, England. So you have to
fight the search a bit. While Ancestry arrived at the same problem via a
different way, Peter over at Lost Cousins talks about the same problem and
how he fought the search engine and won:
http://lostcousins.com/newsletters/feb11news.htm. And I'm not even tackling
when you have a town that shares its name with another place in the world
(like Greenville in the UK, Greenville in Canada, and multiple Greenvilles
in the US!). You have to be specific and yet try different tactics to get at
the same thing.

Its not the best system or the worst (Ancestry by far takes the cake in that
regard in my opinion), but they do actually make changes to it. My point is
that the developers don't read this list, nor any other mailing list. They
don't know there's a problem until we tell them, and then insist that they
fix it or give us the solution to the problem.

Rootstech is coming (I think its this week?) and they are supposed to
announce significant improvements to the system again.

Concetta



On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Nivard Ovington <> wrote:

> Hi Concetta
>
> I do take your point to a degree but as far as I am concerned it is very
> much an issue with all
> Counties , Leicestershire included
>
> As far as the best place for feedback ? I would agree that familysearch is
> the best avenue but
> frankly they do not seem to listen (I have sent several), or if they do
> they react very slowly and
> communicate poorly
>
> If there is no avenue to discuss the problem, researchers will be unaware
> of what the current
> situation is but as always I abide by the list admins direction
>
> I have revisited new familysearch in the last two days and clearly they are
> altering the site to
> reflect what people are requesting but have still a long way to go
>
> I still get some bizarre results
>
> On the subject of Leicester, if I search the new familysearch for SWIFT in
> Leicester I get 9,132
> hits in "England Births and Christenings", which does not include patron
> entries, yet if I use the
> old familysearch I get 1,615
>
> There are many thousands of other hits in other categories that have
> nothing at all to do with
> Leicestershire, so why they come up I have no idea
>
> Checking the hits on new familysearch I got to the 343rd SWIFT when all of
> a sudden it changes to
> hits from Staffordshire
>
> If that doesn't impinge on Leicestershire research I don't know what does
>
> There is no doubt the new familysearch has improved since its first release
> but just wish they would
> get it sorted out to at least enable a search that you could do on the old
> site
>
> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)
>
>
>
> > Guys, were getting off on a non-helpful tangent here.
> >
> > If you have feedback or issues with FamilySearch, the best way to air
> them
> > would be to send the comment to FamilySearch directly:
> >
> https://help.familysearch.org/help/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=:org.familysearch.help.helpcenter.page.OpenCase
> >
> > <
> https://help.familysearch.org/help/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=:org.familysearch.help.helpcenter.page.OpenCase
> >There
> > have been some good tips here near the beginning of this thread and good
> > articles published by Dick Eastman and other major bloggers if people are
> > still having issues with finding helpful information, and I have found
> the
> > new site doesn't impede search results as much as it did when it first
> > launched.
> >
> > I'm not the mod but this is always good advice. I'd much rather talk
> about
> > Leicestershire!
> >
> > Concetta
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe'
> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: