At 12:48 24/04/2011, John B wrote: >There is a pilot site that's been available for some considerable time and >that remains far superior in performance to the new site. I found it much >easier to use and far more responsiveness but, sadly, it's gradually being >taken out of service and replaced by the new site; oddly, the new site does >not seem to be a replica of the pilot site ! Yet the question still remains: why replace a perfectly usable site with one that isn't? It seems to me the possibilities are: 1. They have canvassed users and users do prefer the new site (making us lot non-representative of users generally); or 2. They have canvassed users and users prefer the old site (but they are going ahead with the new one regardless); or 3. They haven't canvassed users at all (which could be for any number of reasons). I tried the link you provided to the pilot site but that seems to just divert you to the new one so perhaps the pilot has gone completely now. Kind regards STC

"Susan Tudor-Coulson" wrote : > At 12:48 24/04/2011, John B wrote: > >>There is a pilot site that's been available for some considerable time and >>that remains far superior in performance to the new site. I found it much >>easier to use and far more responsiveness but, sadly, it's gradually being >>taken out of service and replaced by the new site; oddly, the new site >>does >>not seem to be a replica of the pilot site ! > Yet the question still remains: why replace a perfectly usable site > with one that isn't? It seems to me the possibilities are: A fair question ! > 1. They have canvassed users and users do prefer the new site > (making us lot non-representative of users generally); or > 2. They have canvassed users and users prefer the old site (but > they are going ahead with the new one regardless); or > 3. They haven't canvassed users at all (which could be for any > number of reasons). They certainly have canvassed users and there are 'Feedback' buttons on both the new site and the 'Pilot site'. The owner of the 'Lost Cousins' website conducted his own survey among his membership and has sent, or will be sending, a collated report to the LDS, detailing all of the issues raised. He also drew attention to a document published by the LDS that explains the reasons for the changes to the Family Search website and how best to use the new site. You can find this document at http://tinyurl.com/277hqam > I tried the link you provided to the pilot site but that seems to > just divert you to the new one so perhaps the pilot has gone completely > now. Not for me, it doesn't. The new site is at https://www.familysearch.org/ and has 600 datasets, the pilot site at http://pilot.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html#start has 378 datasets and is still working this morning. Whatever the truths in all of this, the Family Search websites provide a huge, and free, resource that we should all be mightily grateful for. I know they have their own reasons for making the data freely available, but the LDS have done family history research a tremendous service by their continuing generosity. John B Leic., Eng

Hi Susan The three sites are still all working (so far) Recordsearch pilot <http://search.labs.familysearch.org/recordsearch/start.html?datestamp=1203850297546#start> (it will take a few seconds to load) The Old IGI on familysearch <http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp&clear_form=true> The Newfamilysearch https://www.familysearch.org/ As regards the new site, they may or may not have canvassed users ( believe they did and still do but seem not to listen to the feedback) but what I can say is that the feedback I have seen to date on the new site is that the vast majority do not like it or are confused as to the best way to use it Why they have created the new site is because the old could not handle the ways in which they want to make data available and create an all in one family tree Unfortunately they have employed people who it appears know nothing of what is required by genealogists It has improved slightly since its release but has so far to go as to make the present site almost useless To be clear there are two aspects to the new site , the side with access to the images and separate databases is excellent and very useful (although could do with some reorganisation) The side where the problems are is the search side, the search engine is hopeless, returning hits for seemingly totally unrelated events even when you request only England say Perhaps in time it will become usable Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > Yet the question still remains: why replace a perfectly usable site > with one that isn't? It seems to me the possibilities are: > > 1. They have canvassed users and users do prefer the new site > (making us lot non-representative of users generally); or > 2. They have canvassed users and users prefer the old site (but > they are going ahead with the new one regardless); or > 3. They haven't canvassed users at all (which could be for any > number of reasons). > > I tried the link you provided to the pilot site but that seems to > just divert you to the new one so perhaps the pilot has gone completely now. > > Kind regards > > STC