Suggestions

Catherine So many of us are in care currently - not only me. We have lost a loved one just over a month ago and are grieving.

This is really all we have had from Genes for over a month now of constant protests on their blog and on Suggestions Board. And writing directly. So an Announcement is 3 weeks overdue.

Surely this is far more significant that it looks. Look between the lines - it must be code ;-) :-( What can "Military Records" really mean? Surely not Military Records :-S

Wouldn´t it be nice to see some sort of response on this board from the GR team, just to let us know that they are actually reading the posts/suggestions, even if they are ignoring them.
At the moment, there is no indication whatsoever that suggestions are being considered.

John what are you talking about for goodness sake? You've posted this on 2 threads and I think this 'new' tree has finally caused you to finbally ........... sorry, I can't think of how to say it!
Catherine ;-)

Wisechild - I believe Benjamin Disraeli said lies, damned lies etc.

At last, a major announcement from Genes on 28 Aug. We have been waiting since 2nd Aug (good feedback) for them to admit the feedback isn't too positive, and how they intend to address us revolting members.

Here is the Announcement we have been eagerly awaiting:

"Have you uncovered an interesting story when using our Military records? Do you have a war hero in your family tree? If you’re happy to share your story with the media please email us at: [email protected]" :-( :-S

I think it is code for "we realise that 97% of you hate the new tree. We have messed everything up. We are going back to the old tree on Saturday 1st September. Please stay with us"

Hi,
I don't care about percentages/positive feedback etc.....all I know is - I have been a standard member since 2007....I recommended GR as the best online "tree" to 6 of my friends who were all starting off....they all joined GR. After this last fiasco, I will not re-new in October (and I shall totally delete my tree on GR, just stick with FTM and Ancestry), 3 of my friends have not re-newed and the other three will not re-new when their subscriptions run out. Silent majority/minority, whatever---it all boils down to the fact that GR have/will lose 7 subscriptions because of this situation.
Obviously this does not worry them at all. We will all survive without GR - hope GR can do the same over time.
Debs

Which politician was it who said "Lies, damned lies & statistics?

What I'm trying to say........

GR claim to have "positive feedback", based on what's on
http://www.freewebsitereport.org/

I had a look, didn't mean a thing to me.

Now I find out that it means GR has an average of 33,523 Views daily.

So what?

We look at all sorts of sites every day. I don't recall any questions about positive or negative thoughts on sites I've looked at (other than those who ask for a Facebook tick...... which I don't do).

I don't understand HOW this is taken as "positive feedback" ~ all it means is the site gets an average of 33,523 hits a day!!! Who is to know WHAT those people thought??

A tad misleading... just a tad :-|

Scozz I go on google and Genes every single day several times. Very happy with Google - still am. Very happy with Genes for over 9 years - like a best friend.

Started to worry about Genes when they launched new format. Thought it might be good, so struggled with it. Hated it. So did they. Need to make changes etc. Too complicated for many of us.

So continued happy till (was it 2nd Aug) when I finally couldn't access old tree. I never thought they would remove that option whilst new tree was, in my view, not fit for purpose.

I was pleased that so many felt like me when I looked for solace on the Community boards to gauge what members were thinking. But I could not believe the arrogance of some (yes, pot calling the kettle etc) who tried to suggest we were a bit short up top, had not read the packet, were constant moaners (suggesting we were the same people who moaned during the great wallpaper debate of 1914 etc etc).

Only two contacts in last 3 weeks (I have 23k on my tree to match with), put no new ones on. And now threads are so slow and a lot who wrote on the blog have not stayed to put their views on Estelle's Suggestions Board. And still no recognition (28th Aug now) that there is any crisis at all.

I look at Google every day (it's my home page). I may or may not use Google every day.

I'm sure squillions of other people do too..

That must mean Google gets lots of "positive feedback"

:-|

I dont know what the views mean Scozz

But although there have been a lot of complaints about the new tree, many are from new people to the boards.

Would they bother if they liked it? I doubt it

Personally I am not fussed as my main tree is elsewhere, because I could'nt get on with the old one, but I had a go tonight at looking at someones tree who had my 3x gt grandfather. She shared her tree with me 2 years ago and could not work out how to find this person on this tree as there were more than 6000 in it...so gave up. Found out tonight how to find it and there was no direct connection and most of what she had was a load of rubbish...so she has been removed from being able to view mine now :-D

This person has also been adding people to her tree most days for the last month...wonder if she likes it?

So GR has an average of 33,523 Views daily.

What does that mean?

3,352.3 people look at the site 10 times a day?

335 people looked at their tree, and loads of postings?

Views. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the opinions of those people.

I've seen many many postings from members who dislike the tree, many postings from members who say they won't renew their membership, many postings from people (like me) who have renewed because they like the boards (but don't like the tree).

I haven't seen too many postings from those who like the new tree.

Many members don't use the boards ~ I won't even try to guess what they think.

I haven't had a contact message for weeks.

I haven't had a response to messages I've sent for weeks (including messages I've sent to Hotmatched members).

Yup, KenSE. That possible corruption worries me too. Genes said they would remove option of old tree on 19th July. We were all accessing old tree via a "secret" link for more than a fortnight after that date. I put a lot on (probably 50) in that period. And I worried if they would go on correctly and if it might affect rest of my tree.

I don't even dare check till they have sorted out what they are going to do about this mess. :-| :-(

I do seem to be able to access the new tree though. And all my immediate records are there and correct.

One other failing of GR was in not removing access to the old tree via the url at the same time as they removed it as an option on the Tree dropdown menu.

I must admit to having looked at the old tree via the url to compare it with the new one. Subsequently I found some fault with dates in my tree. It might be that after the old tree was officially removed that they made changes to the actual tree database and the old tree builder then no longer interfaced fully with the current tree database

If that is the case it might well explain why some people have corrupted trees or trees they can't access.

I hate the changes and cannot find any benefits to them at all; being so slow is so frustrating. I am waiting unti the changes are in place to print off my tree and then I shall cancel my membership with GR. I was about to cancel my memebership with Ancestry and just work from GR, but so glad I didn't.
Molly

I can shed some light on the statement on the announcements board,

"After a long period of testing and reacting to user feedback, we feel that the new family tree is now performing sufficiently enough for us to retire the old version of the tree"

Just so everyone can see how much of an inaccurate statement of fact that is

long period of testing ? = abt 1 week of beta testing,

If thats a long period of time I'm glad they never rushed into this

reacting to user feedback?

They never had time to Analise user feedback let alone act on or re-programme the results of that feedback

They did make very minute alterations but the main focus on that beta testing was the makeover and not the family tree the feedback about how bright the site was and how it was causing headaches after a very short time was ignored totally whilst testing which then led to members who were testing spending minimal time doing the testing

I would not call that as a successful or sufficient period of testing

see

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/genealogy_chat/thread/1304182

Roy

Jax

I was happy with the old tree till it went on about 2nd August finally, so have no idea what Genes have done in last few months to sell the new format in. But I think they have failed spectacularly. Here are 3 recent announcements:

"After a long period of testing and reacting to user feedback, we feel that the new family tree is now performing sufficiently enough for us to retire the old version of the tree. The old tree will be removed at some point today "(19th July)

"We are really sorry to hear that some of you are having problems with the new tree. We just wanted to update you all on a few things as we are all working really hard to make sure these things are fixed as quickly as possible" (24th July)

"Thank you for taking the time to send us your feedback on the new design. There has been lots of positive feedback" (2nd August)

Now (August) it has become obvious there was no canvassing of what members wanted and no beta testing. But nothing from Genes to admit that or do something about it since the "launch" on 19th July. And it is the tree that is very important to a lot of people who accessed it daily till about 2nd August.

Would you not have put it to the members? Would you not immediately do that now?

John

That announcement on the 2nd August was to do with the site makeover....meaning the change of colour of the boards ect, which I believe a few thousand members were asked to beta test it and give their feedback.

I do not think Genes have announced anywhere that they have had positive feedback about the tree alone.

It would have been fairly easy to ask us what we thought. Genes still not really interested, it seems to me. Seem to want to follow own agenda, with no input from the revolting masses.

We can only guess why they have taken the actions they did. But when I was upset at removal of old tree 4 weeks ago, so were many many others.

Yet their announcement on 2nd August 2012 suggested feedback about the new tree had been good. And that still remains their official position as at 27th Aug. Still absolutely no recognition that a huge number cannot or will not use this new tree.

If we eventually return to the old format, do you want me to help to put your new ones on it, as per my kind offer? Suspect you will be equally competent with old tree ;-) And your eyesight would definitely improve :-D

John, those stats are not from GR they are from a company that monitors other web sites

As for how many names have been added to their tree in the last month i myself have added more than you quoted all by myself

I have never disputed that members are having problems, That's why i try to help, just as i have helped with look ups and advice on Genealogy in general,

And if you look really close you will also see that i have posted comment on how i think GR have got this wrong as in the past i have openly said on occasion that GR appear to have nothing but contempt for their members

Roy

As my dad use to say, Theirs more than one way to skin a rabbit ;-)

There is no point in defending my statistics. Probably about as valid as those given officially. I also know that 67% of the population of a village was wiped out in 1957. The only survivor lost his wife and son when a truck careered out of control.

But you have accepted, I think, that an awful lot of people are not able to use this new tree. A lot are being helped by you goodself and others, but I doubt many are able to take much of that advice.

And those statistics from Genes need to be qualified. I could prove 97% against on a limited sample (any statistician worth his or her salt can skew figures to suit themselves - Disraeli is oft quoted). I don't think there is much tree building at present. Do any of the statistics prove that more than 20 individuals have been added to Genes trees in August 2012. And how do the actual numbers for August 2012 compare to August 2011. My guess? 2011 - 28,000 new entries of relatives, 2012 - 19 new entries. People unhappy with tree layout - 2011 - 12, 2012 - 421 (plus 11 million silent)