<<snipped>> There appears to have been no thought given to the new result forms at all, <<snipped>> It seems to have got through even to FMP management that the output forms waste huge amounts of space, given what they say on the Feedback site. I would implore everyone with comments to use the FMP Feedback site. Comments on lists and boards like this may help us blow off steam but will not be read by FMP so will not count as a negative response. Please use http://feedback.findmypast.co.uk/ Please also make specific comments - "Give us back the old site" is never going to happen so don't bury comments in that thread. As for anyone saying, "I'm cancelling my subscription...", well, most of us do not have the luxury of alternate sources of data. Adrian B

<<snipped>>I would implore everyone with comments to use the FMP Feedback site<<snipped>> I don't use FMP so can't comment on the changes, but it would seem to me a good idea to also complain to the organisations (eg TNA) who have commercial partnerships with FMP - if their records become all-but inaccessible because of the changes, then they are not keeping to the spirit of their commercial contracts which at some point will have to come up for renewal. Just a thought. Mark

I am pretty sure that the copyright holder for Boyds is still the SoG, but before bombarding the society with complaints, do remember how dependent they are on volunteers!!! If someone in Charterhouse Buildings is reading this, lets hope they can take it up. I think a partial explanation of the mechanism that seems to split up records and present them in an apparently absurd order (though no excuse) is that FMP probably aims to present disparate record sets together in one set of results, and keep some detail behind the paywall. They have probably taken this merging too far, and the field order has been influenced by some record set you are not including. This may result (without actual error) in the order appearing illogical, or may result in duplication, and may even result in inclusion in the "detail" of items NOT actually in the records themselves (an example being the County in a GRO index item - to me an inexcusable error). Where counties are redrawn or reg districts are merged or split this can cause actual errors, but anyone who knows the original records can delete the county from the detail (but the researcher in South Carolina or saõ paulo does NOT always know this, of course). With error, you can get the absurdity i found on some military records (musters) that resulted in "length of service" being interpreted as age, with concomitant effects on what a search that includes date of birth will find. Sorry, away from my records so i cannot remember this one exactly, but records of 8-year olds in the military are sometimes not mistranscription of the figures, but pervade the whole record set. This is not a "new search" issue, as i found it with the old, but the error is not apparent until you view detail (so go beyond a free search). The records in question had images available (more cost for non subscribers) but these made the error blindingly obvious. Yes,i did complain about that one!! Meanwile, for military musters and the like, view images for a sample in the period of interest, and where this error is found, extend the DOB "to" range for any searches of those records forwards by 20 years or so and always view images. I am not really familiar with boyd, but if at the detail level (a link you may be charged for if you dont have a sub), something is missing that you know should be there, that *individual point* is a cause for complaint, rather than burying it in a field order complaint. It is more than likely that the responsibility for the two will not be the same. Let us hope that reasoned and precise complaints to FMP will persuade them to improve. I dont have the top level of sub, so occasionally have to PAYG for non subscription results. If it stays as bad as people are saying i may be tempted to go 100% payg, as i m not doing a huge volume of searches these days. Last time i used it i was on old search, though for an hour or so around midnight a couple of weeks back i saw the new, then in the morning was back on the old. I cant explain that at all! Dave Beakhust On 2 April 2014 12:09:38 dorsetpast@aol.com wrote: > <<snipped>>I would implore everyone with comments to use the FMP > Feedback site<<snipped>> > > I don't use FMP so can't comment on the changes, but it would seem to > me a good idea to also complain to the organisations (eg TNA) who have > commercial partnerships with FMP - if their records become all-but > inaccessible because of the changes, then they are not keeping to the > spirit of their commercial contracts which at some point will have to > come up for renewal. Just a thought. > > Mark > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message