RootsTech 2014

Mocavo

Some people eat, sleep and chew gum, I do genealogy and write...

Friday, September 28, 2012

The wheel turns -- change is inevitable, life goes on

 I was talking to one of my friends at the Mesa FamilySearch Library as he was sitting working on some of his family names and made a comment about the change from New.FamilySearch.org to FamilySearch Family Tree on FamilySearch.org. He was extremely surprised and reacted very negatively. He really couldn't be bothered with a change to a new program, no matter how good it was! He saw no need for change.

A few months ago, I posted the following list:
  • The old or original (classic) FamilySearch.org website went online in 1999 and went off line in 2012.
  • The newer FamilySearch.org website went online in December of 2010 and is still online.
  • The New.FamilySearch.org website went online to a limited number of people in 2007.
  • New.FamilySearch.org is scheduled to end sometime in December, 2012 (or as I say whenever).
  • Family Tree as a link from FamilySearch.org goes online in February, 2012.
 I was commenting in response to the removal of the "older" FamilySearch.org website from active duty on the Internet. Today, I got belated comments to my post on June 25, 2012. The references to which site the commentator is referring to are not clear, but the frustration with change comes through loud and clear:
The classic site i/was much better. The new site does not work properly, at all. Waste of time putting much info in as it will totally ignore it. Programming is pathetic.

Why can't we still have both sites? The new site has too much "stuff" on it. The classic was easy to use and direct. The classic site was an easy way to quickly see if there were any useful links to the people you were researching. What is wrong with keeping the old site up and running? Can't it be done? Or do we have to wait and discover that ancestry.com now has the program, and for a fee... you,too can use it? They are buying up all the old reliable free sites where we could go to look for something quickly. Please, someone, get the site back up! [not edited for content or format]
In response, the "classic" FamilySearch.org website was severely limited in its content. It contained very little original source information and was primarily a site for user contributed information in the form of the Ancestral File (AF), the Pedigree Resource File (PRF) and the International Genealogical Index (IGI). Part of the IGI was (and is) extracted names in an index format but the remaining information was duplicative and needed to be verified. The most important thing to understand is ALL THE INFORMATION IN THE IGI, AF AND PRF IS IN THE NEW WEBSITE (which is not so new now since it has been up for almost a year).  The old site also had the Social Security Death Index. Hmm. Also on the new site. What exactly is missing? I guess the commentator would rather have to pay for and look at microfilm than have the information on his home computer for free.

If the updated FamilySearch.org website has the same information as the old, now discarded, website, then how can the older site be so much better? Especially when the new site has infinitely more information and original sources than the old? When I teach a group of people about any of the changes to the new site, I get exactly this same reaction; why do we have to change? I think that these people should get what they deserve: an eternity looking at microfilm.

The same thing goes for New.FamilySearch.org. I can tell you what one of the real issues is with the change over to Family Tree; many of the people who are qualifying names of people to whom they are not related for LDS Temple ordinances and/or doing duplicate work, realize their days are numbered. The new Family Tree program will drastically reduce the opportunity for duplication and working with unrelated names. I personally know people who are upset that they cannot continue in their old ways of doing things happily doing duplicative work. 




1 comment:

  1. "An eternity looking at microfilm" ... I love it!

    ReplyDelete