Anne, I understand. Your engineers are busy on clean-up, etc., which should be their highest priority. We truly appreciate all that they're doing. All we're asking is that you not take reworking the archives off the table. If Ancestry is committed to keeping Rootsweb around, this is a key ingredient. At 07:42 PM 4/17/2018, Anne Gillespie Mitchell wrote: >I know what the old archives looked like, but making things work the way >they used is just not an option. It would require many weeks of >development time and my engineers have a lot of other projects they are >working on at the moment. > >I realize that you all are hearing no from me a lot but that is where we >are. As much as you don't like some of the features of this version of the >product, I do believe it is better than the alternative which is no system >at all. > >Anne > > >At 07:32 PM 4/17/2018, Mary Richardson wrote: >>Anne, if the archives are very important to this product's staying >>around, then they need to be more flexible like they were >>before. The date-only option that now exists is a big turn-off to >>researchers (including the potential new folks that you seek to >>enlist). They need to see the threads. And they need to be able >>to click on a poster's name to find more posts that might help >>them. Perhaps you have misunderstood Lin and me. We are >>describing how the archives used to appear to everyone -- not just >>admins. In other words, we want the archives to be user >>friendly...as you say you do, too. I am happy to send you a screen >>shot of how things used to look if it will help. >> >>Mary >> >> >>At 07:12 PM 4/17/2018, you wrote: >>>We disabled the download after listening to the people on this list. >>>People can access the information on the site. >>> >>>The archives are very important to this product staying around -- they >>>bring people in via google search. Ad revenue and maybe will get people >>>interested in the list and be subscribing to the lists. >>> >>>Don't look at them from an admin point of view but a user point of view. >>> >>>Anne >>> >>> >>>At 07:15 PM 4/17/2018, Mary Richardson wrote: >>>>I vaguely remember a name sort. We definitely had a thread >>>>sort. Now we only have a date sort. Which is pretty much >>>>useless. The point of archives is to provide access as much as >>>>possible to further one's research, but now we have no way to >>>>easily connect the dots :-(. >>>> >>>>Mary >>>> >>>>P.S. I assume that we can no longer download the archives >>>>because they were in mbx format which few if any of us could use. >>>> >>>> >>>>At 05:52 PM 4/17/2018, Lin Duke wrote: >>>>>I cannot see a way of sorting archives by thread/date/name as under the >>>>>old system. >>>>> >>>>>Neither can they by downloaded (I could a week a so ago). >>>>> >>>>>At the moment they are neither use nor ornament.