Suggestions

Hi,

I think I could adapt to the new layout if only it wasn't so slow. Is there any reason for the sluggishness & is it likely to speed up in the near future?

Regards

Coreen

I recently added a birthplace as Jersey.
Genes suggested Jersey,Channel Isles,Madadaon
Any idea where Madadaon comes from?

Haha Simon!

I wish I could remember the circumstances now but I went to add another ancestor recently, somewhere in Birmingham, and among my list of options was the T.B. Hospital. :-S

'Hopefully with this kind of details you may get more matches'...... does this mean that since 'Watford Herts,' gives 'No matches found', these ancestors will NEVER be matched up with other people's trees??

Stephen, of course you can just type over their 'suggestions' - so why have them at all?

Beverley,

I recently complained to GR about this:-

"What on Earth have you done to the pop-up list of addresses? Whoever gives their address as "Abingdon, Vale of White Horse District, Oxfordshire, England, United Kingdom"? You might as well carry on, as we did as children and say, "The Earth, The Universe, The Milky Way..." The old address format - "Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England" was fine. Why change it????"

The answer I got was:-

"I am sorry that you are not happy with the recent changes that we have made to the Genes Reunited tree.

We have changed this because the different ares can then be searched fro(sic) and hopefully with this kind of details you may get more matches.

I hope this helps"

Erm... no, not really!

What is the matter with place names on the new tree?
I wanted to type in the birthplace of Watford, Herts. for one of my ancestors.
On beginning to type 'Watf......' I am presented with the following possibilities:

Watford, Daventry District, Northamptonshire, England, United Kingdom
Watford Rural, Three Rivers, Hertfordshire, England, United Kingdom
Watford District, Hertfordshire, England, United Kingdom
Watford, Watford District, Hertfordshire, England, United Kingdom

HUH?
Where on earth do these suggestions come from??

'Watford, Herts.' comes up as 'No matches found'.
OK I know that at the end of the day we can type in what we want, but the options presented are just not appropriate. They ought to be removed altogether since they have no useful purpose.

This is the first time I have viewed my tree since the update. All I can say is WHY? The compressed box is pointless and it won't allow me to expand to full screen. I probably don't have as many names in my tree as most people but its useless trying to move it round when it goes slower than a snail.
As the old adage goes 'DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKE'.
Go back to the old tree in the old colours, so much easier to view.

i do not usualy put things on the boards but i am so fed up with this new tree
i dont think any of gr people are listening but when all its members dont
renew membership maybe then they will realise what they have spoilt
sandra

Well, I now gather that Estelle is on holiday until tomorrow (Thursday), so perhaps she'll read the thread when she gets back and answer all the queries and put in hand all our suggested improvements.

After all, what it seems we all want is to have a fully functioning, user-friendly tree and the many suggestions on this thread, together with those which have been sent to GR individually through the 'feedback' system, must surely lead them to actually make some positive changes to the current tree... mustn't they?

From reading some of the other similar threads on this and related topics, it seems that many who are not fussed by the new tree use GR more for the Community aspect than for building their trees. It us us tree builders in the main who have been saying that the new tree is no good and not fit for purpose and bemoan the loss of the old user-friendly tree.

I'm quite happy to accept that technology moves on and that the old tree system was creaking at the seams and needed to be updated both in style and function... BUT... please give us something useable!

Simon,

It is obvious that nobody at GR is even reading this thread, I quote from the 1st message on this thread
"Please note: duplicate posts, general questions and anything that isn't a suggestion will be removed."

Well there have been posts that are not suggestions and they have not been removed. Therefore I assume it is not being read.

I would much prefer to go back to the old tree. Will probably not renew as I don't enjoy using GR anymore.

Oh dear, oh dear, still nothing here on this board to show that anybody from GR has read this thread.

Printing descendents, ancestors for a given person works fine though.

Whilst accepting that it is impractical to print out a large tree in its entirety, it would be useful to print the 'immediate family' view.

Currently this is not possible.

If somebody selects "do not show living relatives" for shared trees then in practice any entry with birth < 120 years is not shown.

Suggest it would be better to change the rule so that people for whom a death date is known and shown are not to be included as living relatives.
Another well known FH product works on this basis.

But GR won't reply because they won't admit they got it wrong.

The old tree was more user friendly than this ever will be.

As we did not have to zoom in or out to see what we want to see and it was miles easier to use.

Soory but this is a fact GENES.

Hmm. 24 hours later and still no sign of a reply here from GR. Presumably that means they haven't read this thread; which is a shame as more sensible comments are continuing to flow in from members trying their best to improve the appalling tree that has been foisted upon us. :-|

Could i suggest that GR amend your advice in the FAQ relating to compatibility view under the heading Unable to see the whole of my details panel NEW and Unable to view the whole of the dashboard NEW

I have tried your advice on IE7 through to IE9 and your solution does not work

I either have to use the zoom function on my browser or go to full screen view using my browser F11 key because the full screen view in the tree it's self does not work and i did report that to you whilst doing the beta testing

And before you blame my screen resolution i have tried all combinations

Also can i just remind you that most members are not spotty 14 year old computer geeks and as such constantly having to make changes to their browser is not an option,

One of the first rule when in business is to no and understand the strengths and weaknesses of their employees,

The same rule applies when trying to meeting customer expectations

see my thread

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/suggestions/thread/1309077

Roy

The place names offered seem to be the places that currently exist and seem quite inapprpriate for records from the nineteenth century and earlier and of course there were a lot of county changes in the mid twentieth century.

I would like these alternates to be included in the lists offered

The Old tree used to warn you when you tried to leave an amended record, that the changes had not been saved. On the New tree it is too easy to forget to save.

What I want to change about this new inferior tree is the way the text boxes in the slide-out panel have the same words typed into them as the headings above. It makes it harder to see the information you have entered as the occupation box says 'occupation' and the Place of baptism box says 'Place of baptism' and so on.

Surely we're intelligent enough to know what goes were without having to see this twice?