No search facility is perfect, so you are quite correct in saying the old FMP search was lacking in some respects. But why introduce a new search which does not as a minimum include all the facilities of the old. I do enjoy the ease of using something I am used to and am impatient when I have to "learn" a system all over again. But if you promote a new system as being an improvement - this needs to be obvious or more advice provided on how to undertake the searches. Having just looked at the FMP site I now find a "Handy Guide to FMP new search" published on 21 March. In response to a query there is also a comment from Paul Dunlop: "The next post will indeed focus on some the basics of census searching on the new site. Not every single feature from the old site has made it across yet, but we're working to bring them up to par as quickly as possible." Well - better late than never but I would have appreciated both items of information with the email telling me that I had access to the new system. Anyway Gerry, when you do get it and have used it for a week (!) I'd be interested to know your views. Lin Howard -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Gerald Newnham (Gmail) Sent: 22 March 2014 14:09 To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] New Find My Past I have to say that, as far as I am concerned, the existing (old) FMP search is sadly lacking in many respects and I can't wait to get my hands on the new search. I watched the demo at the WDYTYA show and also watched the video on the FMP web site and it seems to be a great improvement. It may be different from what you are used to but that doesn't mean it isn't any good. My suggestion is - give it a fair chance (at least a week!) before you damn it. Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 22 Mar 2014, at 13:09, P A Wallbank <pawcards5@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I certainly am very frustrated by the new FMP. I commented on > their site via their Feedback forum & was emailed by a Paul Dunlop who > asked me what aspects of the new site fall short. Anyway I said much > the same as you David, but not as comprehensively. Perhaps if we all > comment this way, maybe they will start to listen? > > I cannot understand why they feel the need to change something that is > so good. > > Patricia Wallbank > > > > On 20 March 2014 16:12, David Wharton <david@wharton21.freeserve.co.uk>wrote: > >> Is anybody else frustrated by the new "improved" Find My Past website >> and searches? >> >> For example on the census, it is no longer possible to search by >> Piece/Folio/Page reference. It is no longer possible to search by >> place of birth. The results no longer appear in a table where >> clicking on certain columns changed the sort to that column [there is >> a drop-down box called Order By, but the only option is Relevance]. >> The transcription no longer shows a sensible table with a line for >> each person showing all the fields; the other persons appear at the >> bottom of the page with incomplete information. >> >> On Life Events (BMDs), it is no longer possible to search all Parish >> Baptisms on their own. The choice of Filter is Births & Baptisms. >> From 1837 this produces Births as well, but the initial data shown >> does not have the source - you have to click through to see it. It is >> possible to choose Baptisms for just one county, but this is tedious >> for mobile people living close to the next county. Again the only >> option in the drop-down Order By box is Relevance. It is no longer possible to choose other columns. >> >> On Births from 1911, you have to know or guess that the Mother's >> Maiden Name goes in the Keyword box. On Marriages any of the Spouse's >> names go in the Keyword box. But the Keyword box does not have any >> Name Variants option, unlike the previous versions of these searches. >> >> On Marriages, it is no longer possible to search by Year of Marriage >> or a range. >> >> On Facebook FMP say that they are noting problems raised and working >> on them. But it strikes me that the introduction of this change is >> very premature and also "user hostile" even if they resolve all these problems. >> >> David Wharton >> >> >> --- >> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus >> protection is active. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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

It is ironic that I have been commenting to FMP for a number of years about the shortcomings in their search facility and I will probably be one of the last to get to try out the new search! Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 22 Mar 2014, at 15:22, Lin & David <lin@boots1.demon.co.uk> wrote: > No search facility is perfect, so you are quite correct in saying the old > FMP search was lacking in some respects. But why introduce a new search > which does not as a minimum include all the facilities of the old. I do > enjoy the ease of using something I am used to and am impatient when I have > to "learn" a system all over again. But if you promote a new system as > being an improvement - this needs to be obvious or more advice provided on > how to undertake the searches. > > Having just looked at the FMP site I now find a "Handy Guide to FMP new > search" published on 21 March. In response to a query there is also a > comment from Paul Dunlop: "The next post will indeed focus on some the > basics of census searching on the new site. Not every single feature from > the old site has made it across yet, but we're working to bring them up to > par as quickly as possible." > > Well - better late than never but I would have appreciated both items of > information with the email telling me that I had access to the new system. > Anyway Gerry, when you do get it and have used it for a week (!) I'd be > interested to know your views. > > Lin Howard > > -----Original Message----- > From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Gerald Newnham (Gmail) > Sent: 22 March 2014 14:09 > To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] New Find My Past > > I have to say that, as far as I am concerned, the existing (old) FMP search > is sadly lacking in many respects and I can't wait to get my hands on the > new search. I watched the demo at the WDYTYA show and also watched the video > on the FMP web site and it seems to be a great improvement. > > It may be different from what you are used to but that doesn't mean it isn't > any good. My suggestion is - give it a fair chance (at least a week!) before > you damn it. > > Gerry > gerrynuk@gmail.com > > > > > On 22 Mar 2014, at 13:09, P A Wallbank <pawcards5@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes I certainly am very frustrated by the new FMP. I commented on >> their site via their Feedback forum & was emailed by a Paul Dunlop who >> asked me what aspects of the new site fall short. Anyway I said much >> the same as you David, but not as comprehensively. Perhaps if we all >> comment this way, maybe they will start to listen? >> >> I cannot understand why they feel the need to change something that is >> so good. >> >> Patricia Wallbank >> >> >> >> On 20 March 2014 16:12, David Wharton > <david@wharton21.freeserve.co.uk>wrote: >> >>> Is anybody else frustrated by the new "improved" Find My Past website >>> and searches? >>> >>> For example on the census, it is no longer possible to search by >>> Piece/Folio/Page reference. It is no longer possible to search by >>> place of birth. The results no longer appear in a table where >>> clicking on certain columns changed the sort to that column [there is >>> a drop-down box called Order By, but the only option is Relevance]. >>> The transcription no longer shows a sensible table with a line for >>> each person showing all the fields; the other persons appear at the >>> bottom of the page with incomplete information. >>> >>> On Life Events (BMDs), it is no longer possible to search all Parish >>> Baptisms on their own. The choice of Filter is Births & Baptisms. >>> From 1837 this produces Births as well, but the initial data shown >>> does not have the source - you have to click through to see it. It is >>> possible to choose Baptisms for just one county, but this is tedious >>> for mobile people living close to the next county. Again the only >>> option in the drop-down Order By box is Relevance. It is no longer > possible to choose other columns. >>> >>> On Births from 1911, you have to know or guess that the Mother's >>> Maiden Name goes in the Keyword box. On Marriages any of the Spouse's >>> names go in the Keyword box. But the Keyword box does not have any >>> Name Variants option, unlike the previous versions of these searches. >>> >>> On Marriages, it is no longer possible to search by Year of Marriage >>> or a range. >>> >>> On Facebook FMP say that they are noting problems raised and working >>> on them. But it strikes me that the introduction of this change is >>> very premature and also "user hostile" even if they resolve all these > problems. >>> >>> David Wharton >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus >>> protection is active. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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