-----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of MB Sent: Sunday, 30 June 2013 05:24 To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Ancestry Old Search On 29/06/2013 08:46, John Hill wrote: > But surely is there not a point that the way "to achieve the same > types of results with the current search as in Old Search" requires "a > great educational video" and "a helpful article", whereas in Old > Search it was pretty intuitive? >> It seems a lot of messing about instead of being able to do it in a much simpler way. >> I had a discussion with one of their people on the Support Communities. >> I think I gave an example where I could search on surname and town and get a match but if I did the same in New Search it did not show any matches at all. >> Why is it that online sites insist on messing things up against the wishes of the users. Something similar has happened on Flickr and Google so it all the time, making their sites progressively worse. Like me "old don't mean dead", and using the old search I have discovered most of what I wanted to find. That still eluding me is unable to be found using new search either. Often employing "least is best" gets what one is seeking. Keeping both searches would not appear to be difficult with programming skills, nor would being able to display the results in new search in a more "economic" with line items some 20 or 50 per page as old search does. Instead I find umpteen pages of results in new search a challenge to my short attention span. Keith Wellington, NZ