I spent a working lifetime involved with designing, testing, implementing and training for major international insurance computer systems. We were expected to be 99+% right on Day 1. Early training for staff involved was an essential aspect. I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP - to have designed the system, to have tested it thoroughly, to have included all previous functionality, to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. The new system has great potential, but finding the best way of searching for a particular result is confusing. 3 or 4 different paths, with different search boxes and different result columns is challenging. Peter Calver, Rosemary Morgan and others have helped here. But I suggest that training materials is the area where FMP need a major improvement. David Wharton -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Newnham (Gmail) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:20 PM To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology As I said, any change will take time and big changes take longer! It is not possible to test all the options in-house and at some stage FMP had to expose the new search to the public. I agree it is not perfect but I am prepared to allow FMP to take the time to get it right. Expecting it to be right on Day 1 is not realistic. By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 2 May 2014, at 21:33, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not against change! Now when I search the Kent registers the 'Where > Location' field says Kent England - no parish name so not very helpful. > Change has to be for the better! > > Rae Knight > > > On 2 May 2014 21:18, Gerald Newnham (Gmail) <gerrynuk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just to show that there are two sides to the coin, I have been hoping for >> a long time that FMP would improve their search facilities. For me the >> old >> search was very poor in certain areas - particularly when searching >> parish >> registers. I am delighted that FMP have listened to those of us pressing >> for improvements but I accept that change will always be painful for >> everyone. I am happy to give them time to get things right and accept >> that >> it may take some time. To be honest, I think the new search has great >> potential and it was inevitable that the old search would have to change, >> if only to cope with the vastly increased number of data sets. >> >> Gerry >> gerrynuk@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014, at 20:57, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would like to thank Rosemary Morgan and anyone else who has been brave >>> enough to raise their head above the parapet and report on the actual >> state >>> of the 'new' FMP website. We have had an apology (of sorts) and a >>> recognition that mistakes were made. Several people have now had refunds >> on >>> their subscription perhaps due to the threat of legal action. >>> >>> I am sad it has taken so long for FMP to acknowledge the problems - >>> maybe >>> if a few more big names in genealogy had made more of a fuss FMP would >> have >>> got their act together sooner. Hopefully they will now listen to their >>> paying subscribers although they won't have quite so many going forward. >>> >>> Rae Knight >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Hear, hear! I don't have a lifetime in IT but was extremely disappointed and frustrated by the FMP saga. It is comforting to know that my "layman" views are supported by those with the relevant experience. Competitors are now going all out to recruit disillusioned FMP users. I too will wait to see the extent of improvements before deciding whether to continue my subscription in October. I hope the loss of revenue will not result in a substantial increase in their rates. Lin -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wharton Sent: 03 May 2014 08:35 To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology I spent a working lifetime involved with designing, testing, implementing and training for major international insurance computer systems. We were expected to be 99+% right on Day 1. Early training for staff involved was an essential aspect. I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP - to have designed the system, to have tested it thoroughly, to have included all previous functionality, to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. The new system has great potential, but finding the best way of searching for a particular result is confusing. 3 or 4 different paths, with different search boxes and different result columns is challenging. Peter Calver, Rosemary Morgan and others have helped here. But I suggest that training materials is the area where FMP need a major improvement. David Wharton -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Newnham (Gmail) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:20 PM To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology As I said, any change will take time and big changes take longer! It is not possible to test all the options in-house and at some stage FMP had to expose the new search to the public. I agree it is not perfect but I am prepared to allow FMP to take the time to get it right. Expecting it to be right on Day 1 is not realistic. By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 2 May 2014, at 21:33, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not against change! Now when I search the Kent registers the > 'Where Location' field says Kent England - no parish name so not very helpful. > Change has to be for the better! > > Rae Knight > > > On 2 May 2014 21:18, Gerald Newnham (Gmail) <gerrynuk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just to show that there are two sides to the coin, I have been hoping >> for a long time that FMP would improve their search facilities. For >> me the old search was very poor in certain areas - particularly when >> searching parish registers. I am delighted that FMP have listened to >> those of us pressing for improvements but I accept that change will >> always be painful for everyone. I am happy to give them time to get >> things right and accept that it may take some time. To be honest, I >> think the new search has great potential and it was inevitable that >> the old search would have to change, if only to cope with the vastly >> increased number of data sets. >> >> Gerry >> gerrynuk@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014, at 20:57, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would like to thank Rosemary Morgan and anyone else who has been >>> brave enough to raise their head above the parapet and report on the >>> actual >> state >>> of the 'new' FMP website. We have had an apology (of sorts) and a >>> recognition that mistakes were made. Several people have now had >>> refunds >> on >>> their subscription perhaps due to the threat of legal action. >>> >>> I am sad it has taken so long for FMP to acknowledge the problems - >>> maybe if a few more big names in genealogy had made more of a fuss >>> FMP would >> have >>> got their act together sooner. Hopefully they will now listen to >>> their paying subscribers although they won't have quite so many going forward. >>> >>> Rae Knight >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 --- 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

I read these emails with great interest, but this is the first time I've replied to any. As a former applications developer I heartily agree with David as regards testing new systems!!!! Personally I find I have a greater success with Ancestry and records that I find there do not show on FMP, either the old system or the new! I don't have a subscription to FMP, I only buy credits as and when I think I've found something. My subscription to Ancestry has certainly proved worthwhile. Lin Taylor -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Wharton Sent: 03 May 2014 08:35 To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology I spent a working lifetime involved with designing, testing, implementing and training for major international insurance computer systems. We were expected to be 99+% right on Day 1. Early training for staff involved was an essential aspect. I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP - to have designed the system, to have tested it thoroughly, to have included all previous functionality, to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. The new system has great potential, but finding the best way of searching for a particular result is confusing. 3 or 4 different paths, with different search boxes and different result columns is challenging. Peter Calver, Rosemary Morgan and others have helped here. But I suggest that training materials is the area where FMP need a major improvement. David Wharton -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Newnham (Gmail) Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:20 PM To: Sog-Uk@Rootsweb.Com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology As I said, any change will take time and big changes take longer! It is not possible to test all the options in-house and at some stage FMP had to expose the new search to the public. I agree it is not perfect but I am prepared to allow FMP to take the time to get it right. Expecting it to be right on Day 1 is not realistic. By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. Gerry gerrynuk@gmail.com On 2 May 2014, at 21:33, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not against change! Now when I search the Kent registers the > 'Where Location' field says Kent England - no parish name so not very helpful. > Change has to be for the better! > > Rae Knight > > > On 2 May 2014 21:18, Gerald Newnham (Gmail) <gerrynuk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just to show that there are two sides to the coin, I have been hoping >> for a long time that FMP would improve their search facilities. For >> me the old search was very poor in certain areas - particularly when >> searching parish registers. I am delighted that FMP have listened to >> those of us pressing for improvements but I accept that change will >> always be painful for everyone. I am happy to give them time to get >> things right and accept that it may take some time. To be honest, I >> think the new search has great potential and it was inevitable that >> the old search would have to change, if only to cope with the vastly >> increased number of data sets. >> >> Gerry >> gerrynuk@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On 2 May 2014, at 20:57, Rae Knight <knight.rae@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would like to thank Rosemary Morgan and anyone else who has been >>> brave enough to raise their head above the parapet and report on the >>> actual >> state >>> of the 'new' FMP website. We have had an apology (of sorts) and a >>> recognition that mistakes were made. Several people have now had >>> refunds >> on >>> their subscription perhaps due to the threat of legal action. >>> >>> I am sad it has taken so long for FMP to acknowledge the problems - >>> maybe if a few more big names in genealogy had made more of a fuss >>> FMP would >> have >>> got their act together sooner. Hopefully they will now listen to >>> their paying subscribers although they won't have quite so many going forward. >>> >>> Rae Knight >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 --- 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

That's good to know, Lin. I am about to change to Ancestry myself and let FMP lapse when my sub come to an end. I also intend to use the World version of FTM instead of my cumbersome Legacy programs. Chris Stupples

> Personally I find I have a greater success with Ancestry and records > that I find there do not show on FMP, either the old system or the > new! I don't have a subscription to FMP, I only buy credits as and > when I think I've found something. My subscription to Ancestry has > certainly proved worthwhile. The fact that site B doesn't have all the records that you found at site A doesn't make site A better - indeed, it tells you little or nothing about which site is best. Ancestry and findmypast have largely different record sets, and so it's inevitable that many records found at one site won't be found at the other. It's not a question of which site is better, but which site has the record sets most relevant to your research - and inevitably most of us end up needing to use both sites. There are overlaps, of course - the most obvious being the censuses and the GRO indexes. Searching the census by address currently doesn't work as well at the new findmypast site as it did at the old one - but then Ancestry doesn't even offer searching by address. On the other hand I like being able to search using the parents' forenames, a feature that Ancestry offers and findmypast doesn't (but then nor did they at the old site). Ancestry's GRO index search is inconvenient because of the split at 1915, the poor way in which it handles middle names which may or may not be shown in full, sloppy transcriptions in the early 20th century, and ridiculous allocation of registration districts to counties. Except for a death search with a precise birth date I'd use FreeBMD or findmypast ahead of Ancestry. But the simple fact is: researchers tend to prefer the site they're most familiar with, whether or not it's actually 'better' than the alternatives. That's why so many of us got annoyed when Ancestry, FamilySearch, and then findmypast revamped their sites! Peter