Genealogy Chat

Jim You are obviously right that an alternative solution is simply to search from a second account without going through the trouble of posting a duplicate tree. The reason I prefer to post a duplicate tree on the second account and search from my first account is (1) to be able to initiate messages with potential contacts for which one needs a membership account and (2) because my primary account tells me which matches I have already been in contact with before. I completely agree with whoever said that it is crazy that people should need to jump through these hoops just to e ta key piece of functionality of the system that we have enjoyed for several years and GR has specifically disabled for no good reason.

Yes Tracy it seems that (not unreasonably given there are over 80 m records0 GRs computers take a few hours (or maybe overnight) to incorporate the data from newly added /uploaded trees into the search function. Interestingly some of the closer relatives got added immediately but it took a few hours for the full tree to get onto the system. What this means is that the Duplicate file solution is a perfectly viable way of 'solving' this problem for anyone who is concerned about it. I appreciate that there are some people out there for whom its not a big issue. My suspicion is that GR will change back this part of the change once they realise they have shot themselves in the foot. I antiipate getting fewer emails querieying possible matches now that other people canot see there own people in their searches and it is of course the desire to initiate conversations which pushes many non paying members to sign up for a full account. Wade PS Derek I have not have not noticed too much of a proboem with corrupt data. But like I presume most people with lrge trees, I keep my master files ofn Family Tree Maker and just import a revised edition to GR periodically.

I am dumbfounded.How can anyone take something so simple and make it so complicated. A search from our second account. Elizabeth 1847 Southampton Hampshire No Avis Elizabeth 1847 SOUTHAMPTON Hampshire England No Kenneth Elizabeth 1847 Southampton hampshire Yes Jim in So'ton A search from this account Elizabeth 1847 Southampton Hampshire Yes Avis Elizabeth 1847 SOUTHAMPTON Hampshire England No Kenneth

Good morning Wade. I just did a quick search to find Bulls from Ringwood entered in the last day. Everyone was entered by your Wade Duplicate account. Here they are: Thomas 1670 Ringwood, Hampshire Charles 1667 Ringwood, Hampshire Frances 1663 Ringwood, Hampshire Jane 1657 Ringwood, Hampshire George 1647 Ringwood, Hampshire Christopher 1641 Ringwood, Hampshire Sara 1636 Ringwood, Hampshire Jone 1634 Ringwood, Hampshire Thomas 1633 Ringwood, Hampshire Jane 1631 Ringwood, Hampshire Edmund 1631 Ringwood, Hampshire Susanna 1629 Ringwood, Hampshire Sara 1628 Ringwood, Hampshire Francis 1625 Ringwood, Hampshire John 1607 Ringwood, Hampshire Edmond 1604 Ringwood, Hampshire Christopher 1601 Ringwood, Hampshire Thomas 1598 Ringwood, Hampshire Mary 1597 Ringwood, Hampshire William 1596 Ringwood, Hampshire Susane 1595 Ringwood, Hampshire Hary 1581 Ringwood, Hampshire Thomas 1579 Ringwood, Hampshire Mary 1575 Ringwood, Hampshire ? Edmond 1575 Ringwood, Hampshire ? William 1556 Ringwood, Hampshire

All interesting stuff! As has been said, we have waited long enough for GR to sort out their mistakes or preferably, return to the status quo. What about the data being lost from recently added marriage details, and the death date corruption problems. Have these been a problem for you?

OK well if this problem is an issue for you there is a relatively straightforward solution. Just create a duplicate account (all you will need is a second email account - you can offer a yahoo/hotmail/gmail account if you don't have one). When you are asked to give your name give something such as YournameDuplicate which lets people realise its a duplicate entry so hopefuly they wont bother emailing you. Then import your tree . If you have a big tree it seems to take several hours for GR's computers to update the new info but after that when you log back to your normal account and do a search you will see your duplicate entries (but not your own). Hopefuly GR will correct this glaring mistake soon, but this is a relatively straightforward solution in the meantime. Wade

Hi Jenny thatsa sensible suggestion. im not saying that its impossible, just that whereas a couple of weeks ago it was incredibly easy now we have to open multiple windows or post multiple trees orand then mess around to find the names to open - not so easy if you have 90 surnamesin the list and GR doesnt use Google type search algorithms. etc.

As I said, it doesn't really bother me not being able to see my GR names whilst searching. I only have a cut down tree on here now - just under 3,000 names, so when searching the site I have my full FTM tree open and refer to that, rather than GR The message about GR upgrading the search to include some of the previous facilities was posted by another member only a few days ago - so wait and see what is forthcoming please.

Wade cant you right click and open your names in a new window then you can check the new names against yours?, thats what I do when checking each surname is open them in a new window then close that window before going on to the next surname. Jenny

Hi Jenny yes I can do this, but i have around 900 surnames in my tree and 159 Buls so trying to do this remember ho I have then doing a search is mad. thats what I mean when I say that these changes have not been thought out from the perspective of people with big trees,. Wade

Wade If you click on my tree matches down the side and find the surname bull it will say how many Bull's you have in your tree, click on that number and scroll down and you will see all the names you have entered. Jenny

Thanks Jenny It looks as though it hasnt added my latest names into the search function for anyone - not just me. Im not sure what's going on - maybe it takes a few day for newly added files to make it into the general search function??? or maybe it just hasn't been ableto cope with the complications of a very large tree?

these are the ony Bull's in Ringwood Wade Edmund 1632 Ringwood Hampshire Engalnd Edmund 1632 Ringwood, Hants Susannah 1629 Ringwood Susannah 1629 Ringwood, England Susannah 1629 Ringwood, England Susannah 1629 Ringwood, Hants Susannah 1629 Ringwood, Hants. Susanna 1629 Ringwood Hampshire Engalnd Christopher 1601 Ringwood, Hants Susane 1595 Ringwood, Hants Edmond 1570 Ringwood Hants Edmond 1570 Ringwood, Hants

Some very weird things are happening. I have created a duplicate file WadeDuplicate and then because that didnt seem to work a duplicate in the name of my sister TarynDuplicate I then searched for some anmes i recently added to my tree: Bull between 1550-1700 in Ringwood, Hampshire When I add a place name in the search none of my or the duplicate names show up. However if I just search for a name eg William Bull and then order them in terms of eldest first, Up they show! Would someone do a quick search for Bull Ringwood c 1700+/-50 years and see if my names are showing for other users? Thanks Wade

Peter - I think in the early stages of developing a tree when you have maybe 30-100 names you may be right, having one's own names does make a search lok a bit untidy. However if like me and many other long standing users such as Ann you have several thousand names with say 20 Bull's from Boldre having your own names show in the search is absolutely essential for finding matches as its impossible to remember which Thomas Williams Marys etc you have and what date they are born etc. i agree with Ann if long standing members drop off the site and delete their trees, the site will lose alot of its power as it is the big trees which allow people to find connections between distant branches. Ive just tried to establish a duplicate account in the names of my sister and interestingly I am not even able to find her names on my search result, so obviously GR have gone to some length to take away thi functionality. We will see if they do something about it, but if they continue to make cock ups of this ilk theywill undermine the usefulness of the site. Unfortuantely with hunderds of thousands of members its difficult o knowwhether they will listen to the feedback of a few disgruntled members even if a quiet majority are also pissed off with developments.

Why don't we all wait and see what happens. GR have already stated that the are looking to re-instate some of the facilities in 'My Tree Matches' that everyone seems to miss. I can't see what the big thing about not seeing you own names is though. I get on just as well without it, in fact it was a hindrance at times. Perhaps it needs a button to toggle it on or off.

Wade, once again I'm inclined to agree with what you say. Someone else suggested that the whole point of introducing a Flash-based system was to enable ITV to put more commercially viable advertising onto this site. Some of those heavier bandwidth adverts play havoc for those poor folk who are accessing the internet through a dial-up connection and who have older operating systems, eg Windows 98 and even Windows 95. A few years ago, I attended an IT course which was designed to teach ordinary people to create websites accessible to all in order to display material from our local archive. One of the first things we were taught was to consider the lowest common-denominator user. We had to design our webpages to fit even 14 inch screens and they had to be as rapidly loadable as possible. We also had to consider partially-sighted users and the colour-blind. This was a valuable exercise and one I wish GR had taken on board when they 'improved' this site by using coloured lettering on coloured boxes. When I see a professional concern like GenesReunited flying in the face of public accessibilty in order to make more profit, it does tend to get my goat.

Thanks for the complement Ann. I think what one has to remember is that ITV paid quite a big chunk of change for GR. They caught Friends Reunited after it had become rather stale news. Everyone organised their old school union parties 2-3 years ago, but genealogy is still on the up as a hobby because the technological developments and especially the work at Ancestry and the various free data bass, have made it so much easier. Because of the very low annual subscription charges ITV are never going to make a return on their investment by running the company as it had been, which I presume was loss making. To make it pay they need to rope in as many new people as possible and to cross sell the dating/jobs and other sites and link with various TV shows etc. They are not therefore very interested in the relatively few people who are quite serious about genealogy but more focussed on the millions of those with a passing casual interest. Therefore I suspect they have used focus groups focusing on ease of use for casual users rather than worrying about the old hands who hang out on the message boards. Thus the emphasis on hot matches and the like. Even if this is their thinking, I still think they have not thought it through very well. They need to realise that it is the more experienced users who provide most of their content by uploading 1000+ name trees which then allow people to make serious progress through linking with people who have investigated branches before. I think as a work around for this particular problem the only practical way for those with large trees is to create a second account and upload a duplicate tree under an easy to recognise name then when you log into your main account you will be able to see your own duplicate tree even if you cant see your own original tree. Wade

Crikey Wade, I've just noticed you have over 6000 names in your tree. No wonder you are badly compromised by the recent changes. My own tree has around 2400 members and I can confirm that it too is not doing too well at the moment. In fact viewing any shared contacts' trees over 1000 in size is fraught with errors. The flash viewer just doesn't seem able to cope and ends up dumping islands of names, detaching them from the main tree. Just why it does that is a total mystery, but it should not have been made the default viewer with such serious issues. Not being able to view my own names in search requests has meant I have also been unable to check how many of my names have actually disappeared.

The thing that amazes me is that it should be a very small amendment of their code to include your own tree in the searches.Someone must have specifically decided that it was not a good idea to include your own tree results. As far as i can see, someone must have said well you should look atyour hot matches to get the match data but as anyone has used the system for a while realises Hot matches are a joke esp if you have 1000+ surnames