>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. I can't agree with this. Big changes have to be properly planned and managed; FMP did not do this. They could and should have carried out extensive in-house testing and extensive beta-testing prior to going live with the new site; they clearly did not do this either. If HMRC released a new site that was as badly designed, there'd be hell to pay, and their site is free to access. FMP are a commercial organisation and expecting them to release a site that their paying customers can use from day 1 is nothing but reasonable. After all, it's the customers who are now being inconvenienced and even finding the site unusable, and it's the customers' money that's having to be being used to put things right. Yes, change can be confusing and take time to 'bed-in' but that's not the issue here. The problem is that the site is simply not fit for purpose. I will certainly not renew my subscription in October unless there've been some serious improvements by then. John B

My penn’orth is that this is a symptom that internet services have become serious systems just like the big old corporate systems we used to work on in the mainframe days. The modern paradigm has brought great flexibility and agility and new services can be brought to market incredibly quickly. However, as the impact of these services widens and the user population grows the old disciplines need to be brought back into play. Without sounding like an old fossil, the younger generation of IT folk have not had to deal with significant business processing such as a banking system on its knees five minutes before the 3pm CHAPS cut-off. Design, planning, testing, piloting, fallback, resiliency, testing, testing testing. In my mainframe days I would have been literally hung up by my ankles if I brought a live system down or into disrepute. Flexibility and agility are not bad things but some of us old geezers know a thing or three and have the scars to prove it ! Every modern digital agency or development organisation should have a few old wizened consultants lurking around to remind people that if things go wrong there can be dire consequences. On 3 May 2014, at 09:56, John Brown <john@johndhb.me.uk> wrote: >> 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. > > I can't agree with this. Big changes have to be properly planned and > managed; FMP did not do this. They could and should have carried out > extensive in-house testing and extensive beta-testing prior to going live > with the new site; they clearly did not do this either. > > If HMRC released a new site that was as badly designed, there'd be hell to > pay, and their site is free to access. FMP are a commercial organisation and > expecting them to release a site that their paying customers can use from > day 1 is nothing but reasonable. After all, it's the customers who are now > being inconvenienced and even finding the site unusable, and it's the > customers' money that's having to be being used to put things right. > > Yes, change can be confusing and take time to 'bed-in' but that's not the > issue here. The problem is that the site is simply not fit for purpose. I > will certainly not renew my subscription in October unless there've been > some serious improvements by then. > > John B > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Well said! I too am of the 'old' variety and hope that at least some consistency in reports etc. and search input could have been maintained. Chris Stupples

I have just noticed one change since Monday. The census household is now listed in the order on the schedule rather than in name order Regards John Hanson Researcher, The Halsted Trust Website - www.halstedresearch.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of chrisat53@tiscali.co.uk Sent: 03 May 2014 10:44 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] FMP - An apology Well said! I too am of the 'old' variety and hope that at least some consistency in reports etc. and search input could have been maintained. Chris Stupples ------------------------------- 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 can understand John's frustration, but the fact is that Government projects frequently go wrong (and not just here in the UK - when 'Obamacare' was launched in the US the website didn't work). Remember the launch of the 1901 Census? That was bungled - and it took nearly 9 months to get it working. Or the GRO's digitisation programme? That was abandoned halfway through. Even the 2011 Census was poorly handled - the fact that only 16% of people filled in the form online is surely a reflection of the clunky interface (it's not a question of age - less than 30% in any age bracket chose the online option). Findmypast were over-optimistic about the response to the new site because it was based on similar technology and a similar interface to their international sites. What they didn't appreciate is that anyone who had tried both far preferred the UK site when it came to searching UK records. Nevertheless, most of the problems that users have been experiencing haven't been because the new site isn't capable of carrying out the searches, but because it isn't immediately obvious that the same record sets can be interrogated with different search forms. It's true that there are still some searches that the old site would have handled better but my impression is that, once you know your way around the new site, it's significantly more powerful than the old site ever was, especially when it comes to searching parish records. However the underlying logic behind the design of the site needs to be a little more obvious! Peter > >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. > > I can't agree with this. Big changes have to be properly planned and > managed; FMP did not do this. They could and should have carried out > extensive in-house testing and extensive beta-testing prior to going > live with the new site; they clearly did not do this either. > > If HMRC released a new site that was as badly designed, there'd be > hell to pay, and their site is free to access. FMP are a commercial > organisation and expecting them to release a site that their paying > customers can use from day 1 is nothing but reasonable. After all, > it's the customers who are now being inconvenienced and even finding > the site unusable, and it's the customers' money that's having to be > being used to put things right. > > Yes, change can be confusing and take time to 'bed-in' but that's not > the issue here. The problem is that the site is simply not fit for > purpose. I will certainly not renew my subscription in October unless > there've been some serious improvements by then. > > John B > > > ------------------------------- > 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