On 05/12/2014 15:21, brightside S9 wrote: > This seems to be their mangement strtegy - take the money and ignore the >>protests. They do seem to have surrounded themselves with some equivalent of spin doctors and got out of touch with their previous regular users. I gave up after they ruined the site earlier in the year. I EMailed them, including the top woman, but got nowhere. I have hardly used since then - usually disconnect in disgust after a few attempts at searches. My subscription ran out a few months ago, I EMailed to tell them why I was not renewing so they extended it by a few months but I have still hardly looked at the site and will not be renewing next week. Pity because it used to be a really good site that was far better than Ancestry.

"MB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] > On 05/12/2014 15:21, brightside S9 wrote: >> This seems to be their mangement strtegy - take the money and ignore >> the >>>protests. > > > They do seem to have surrounded themselves with some equivalent of spin > doctors and got out of touch with their previous regular users. I gave up > after they ruined the site earlier in the year. I EMailed them, including > the top woman, but got nowhere. I have hardly used since then - usually > disconnect in disgust after a few attempts at searches. > > My subscription ran out a few months ago, I EMailed to tell them why I was > not renewing so they extended it by a few months but I have still hardly > looked at the site and will not be renewing next week. > > Pity because it used to be a really good site that was far better than > Ancestry. > > I think I'm heading that same way. To be fair, they have made a lot of changes, and engaged users to ask for feedback & suggestions. Surprisingly, they haven't always understood that feedback, though, and declined some suggestions for reasons that seem to be obtuse to anyone who does genealogy. Having had two recent suggestions -- one quite lengthy -- "lost", and probably closed as duplicates based on some naive automated keyword basis, I have given up there. Tony Proctor

On 06/12/2014 12:22, Tony Proctor wrote: > I think I'm heading that same way. To be fair, they have made a lot of > changes, and engaged users to ask for feedback & suggestions. Surprisingly, > they haven't always understood that feedback, though, and declined some > suggestions for reasons that seem to be obtuse to anyone who does genealogy. > > Having had two recent suggestions -- one quite lengthy -- "lost", and > probably closed as duplicates based on some naive automated keyword basis, I > have given up there. Must admit I have not studied the site closely since the changes, I just find it so frustrating that I give up but I have not noticed any significant improvements. At the most basic level I would like to be able to quickly select a particular census, enter just a surname and town and get meaningful results within seconds as previously. I hate to think how many clicks it will need now to do a similar search and even then it is not as good because you have to specify county etc so will miss any that people have originally entered incorrectly on the census.