tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post6992320730296394642..comments2024-03-07T23:20:49.790-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: FamilySearch hits a gold mine of luddite commentsJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-58512937111557555742011-02-25T18:38:18.144-07:002011-02-25T18:38:18.144-07:00Geolover, thanks for your comments; I think you hi...Geolover, thanks for your comments; I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. As you say, "poor platform is poor design". And that is the source of my Luddite woes! Been using computers since long before the microchip, and system engineering and programming for functionality is, I think, still in the pioneering stage in so many ways for far too many organizations, both private and public, mainly because of the monopolistic planned-obsolenscence. But,looks like the new cloud technology is about to change that! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-86734285139304539652011-02-17T19:41:25.480-07:002011-02-17T19:41:25.480-07:00I think you hit it right on the head, changes are ...I think you hit it right on the head, changes are hard to get use to!<br /><br />I personally love the new site! It seemed like many were upset it wasn't as easy (or is now impossible) to access things like the IGI and Ancestral File. Which is fine by me, I prefer access to original records versus compiled databases full of errors. I agree, the search could still use some work, especially when searching the FHL catalog.Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-78731955647952742742011-02-16T13:35:19.647-07:002011-02-16T13:35:19.647-07:00If people don't like the site, why don't t...If people don't like the site, why don't they just...not use it? I mean, there's no law that says you have to use the internet at all. You can still drive to your local NARA branch and use the Soundex if you want. You can still write letters. It's totally fine to stick to the methods you're comfortable with.<br /><br />But when you try to stop progress, you kind of screw those of us who DO know how to use a site like this, and DO want new records and change and streamlined interfaces and all that. If you don't, fine...but I do, and I'm not thrilled when people try to stop progress so I can't have it either. Just stick with what works for you and let the rest of us move forward. Please.Kerry Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17590443839479686201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-10924401152838108122011-02-16T13:20:45.100-07:002011-02-16T13:20:45.100-07:00I'll post another reply.
Feb 16 @ 8:43 AM Ano...I'll post another reply.<br /><br />Feb 16 @ 8:43 AM Anonymous said: "The fact there is so many complaints indicates there is something not intuitive with the site design. Any designer should take notice of these complaints."<br /><br />The second sentence is true. The first is a logical fallacy. People generally comment online about something if they either really like it or really do not like it. So it is easy to perceive general consensus as leaning one way based on what a number of people say. I'm not talking about being to extrapolate attitudes out to a population based on a sample and sound statistical principles. What we see is a self-selection bias in people who are reporting problems. This means that there are many many more people who are not saying anything about the site but who might feel completely differently from the vocal few (or they might feel the same, we just don't know yet).<br /><br />Is the new site really more user unfriendly than the old site? I don't know. I didn't use either very much. What might seem like poor UI at first might be extremely helpful in the long run. I saw an example of this recently. I was attending a training course about some research software that I use (for neuroscience). On attendee kept asking if the development team was going to add a graphical user interface to the software instead of relying on just the command line. Their answer, "No." They did not have the time and/or resources to create a GUI frontend for the software, supposing that would even be a good idea (which I don't think it would be).<br /><br />While it takes a lot of time to learn to use this particular software, once you do, it is incredibly powerful. Having a GUI wouldn't work well and would slow everything down a lot.<br /><br />So how does this apply to the new FamilySearch website? Sometimes what looks like poor UI really is simply change from what you are used to. Maybe it is a step back but maybe the old way was really the bad UI. It just takes time to learn new things.<br /><br />UI, results, and other things are great things to make critiques about but it's not helpful to say, "I don't like it, go back to the old site" or "I can't find anything." Maybe there are bugs, maybe it runs slowly on some people's computers (but there are a lot of possible reasons for that, many of which are not the fault of the developers).<br /><br />Maybe the new site isn't that great, maybe it has serious limitations, but we can't make those assumptions based on 500+ comments. Again, that doesn't mean all those people are wrong, it just is not possible to extrapolate much useful evidence from comments online because the commenters are self-selected. If the site is getting about 1 million visitors per month, it is difficult to know what the other 99.97% of users think based on a few vocal people. Maybe they are correct, we just don't know. In any case, resisting change just because at first you don't like it isn't sufficient reason to not change (which was the point of James' post).Jaredhttp://bystudyandfaith.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-67945114547769340292011-02-16T10:54:10.019-07:002011-02-16T10:54:10.019-07:00While I appreciate your insights into contemporary...While I appreciate your insights into contemporary Luddite tendencies, I think it would be fair to point out that most of the user complaints you quote refer to the efficacy of the search engine, features and site layout of the pilot.labs.familysearch site compared with the newer (formerly 'beta') familysearch.org site.<br /><br />Some of the oft-used features of the pilot site do not exist on the newer site and getting to database images was much easier. The new site loads much more slowly, and its CSS is not now functional with older operating systems (it was functional when still in an early phase of 'beta').<br /><br />Such site changes are not necessarily taking advantage of improved technology, although they may be beneficial for site code-writers and in terms of obtaining less expensive programs.<br /><br />Persons finding that their tried-and-true operating systems no longer work on a site can be expected to be unhappy. Not everyone can afford the latest tech, not everyone likes the planned-obsolescence path of certain software monopolists. Not to mention the intrusive, dysfunctional and counter-intuitive features of some of "the latest." Those who prefer ease of use do not admire programs that have been cobbled together over 20 years that now require immense RAM and huge hard drives just to function at all. Poor platform, after all, is just poor design.Geoloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12050268303916428230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-77090621288109667712011-02-16T09:46:01.688-07:002011-02-16T09:46:01.688-07:00Thank you James for this great article. I am so i...Thank you James for this great article. I am so incredibly glad somebody had the guts to say this. What you said is 100% and don't let the ignorants change your mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-37423833780101336062011-02-16T08:43:58.898-07:002011-02-16T08:43:58.898-07:00It is so easy for the computer literate to ridicul...It is so easy for the computer literate to ridicule the less experienced user. The fact there is so many complaints indicates there is something not intuitive with the site design. Any designer should take notice of these complaints.<br /><br />Yes, not everyone likes change, especially with a familiar website, and often there will be a number of complaints. However, do not be so critical of other people's apparent lack of computer savvy. Their comments are often the result of frustration with the site design.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-34212162301969312142011-02-16T08:40:09.731-07:002011-02-16T08:40:09.731-07:00Re: Anonymous
Unfortunately, you misunderstood th...Re: Anonymous<br /><br />Unfortunately, you misunderstood the tone of the post. What you took as hubris was simply bafflement with people who are resistant to change. Yes, his tone was critical but as someone who knows James quite well, there is no superiority on his part. He'll provide all the patient help with the new technologies that people require and ask for. But apparently sometimes it's easier to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of providing useful critiques.<br /><br />While there are a number of people who are trying to keep up with technological changes in genealogy research, there are many who are not willing to even try. A lot of people are threatened by change and will do all they can to not accept it.<br /><br />Yes, not all change is for the best but progress will not occur without significant change. Technology is one area that will pass you by unless you actively strive to keep up. Because much of genealogy research is now based on technology, to fight against the changes is fruitless and even self-defeating. No far-reaching, significant progress in genealogy research ever occurred without technology; the technologies have simply changed over the years to the point where much genealogy research requires modern computers and high speed internet, which are not available to everyone at home but most public libraries or family history centers provide that kind of access.<br /><br />Luddites are not people who are trying to learn new technology, albeit slowly, luddites are people who actively fight against technological progress (fighting against can be as simple as refusing to accept the changes). In James' other post about Luddites, he said, "Modern luddites may not be entirely anti-technology, they do not have to refuse to use telephones and TVs to be luddites, they can simply refuse to acknowledge when a technology has substantially changed and continue to cling to the older technology without any really valid reason for doing so."<br /><br />That's the context in which you must read this post. It is not a valid argument to say we do something one way because that's how we've always done it. Yes, what was done in the past might be the best way but make a case for it, don't just assume it's the best way.<br /><br />James has never stated that technology replaces the core skills of genealogy research, technology is a tool that facilitates the research. Yes, you can plug along using old tools but you can be much more effective if you keep up with the new tools. It is hard and takes effort to try and keep up but that's all James wants people to do - try and then keep trying.<br /><br />People can and should provide constructive feedback about changes to FamilySearch but offering criticisms without offering suggestions is not helpful. Like the first comment James quotes: "Everything is now so complicated, for instance why not say HOME at he top of the page instead of a picture of a tree?" That's actually effective. The first part isn't ("Everything is now so complicated") but the "for instance" part is useful. But just saying, "I don't like the new site change it back" is not useful.Jaredhttp://bystudyandfaith.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-54478887398124387072011-02-16T05:54:42.800-07:002011-02-16T05:54:42.800-07:00WOW, God is alive and well in Mesa and wishes to ...WOW, God is alive and well in Mesa and wishes to let the masses know just how they fail to stack up against his Almighty wisdom and electronic where-with-all. And certainly not a humble figurehead in that he finds it pleasurable to pick out and number the errors of those he deems less than himself so as to prove his superiority. <br /><br />Genealogy was a lovely pursuit of ones family and background that generally brought pleasure<br />to the seeker along with some frustration at times. Times have changed, research has changed<br />and now some of the self proclaimed experts appear to have changed. BUT not all change is for the best. Time to seek out those mentors who offer help without the holier than thou attitude and move on, slowly trying to keep up just so we are not know as luddites or worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-3650078048721304142011-02-15T22:54:00.436-07:002011-02-15T22:54:00.436-07:00I have to sweetly disagree with you James. I pers...I have to sweetly disagree with you James. I personally also find the newer site much harder to use and get desired results from. <br /><br />Some of my issues may have to do with speed of my isp, which some days is slower than donkey warp. When the new site freezes up my computer time after time, I guess that I am a bit irritated, cause I sure am not finding anything that way. <br /><br />That said, I eventually will give the new site more use and probably will eventually get used to it and it's quirks. Hopefully I will eventually find it a new and improved version, but, my results have not been as good as what you are reporting here. <br /><br />I am sorry if this is clear as mud, but after hiking 3 miles today, I probably should have waited till I sleep on it to respond. <br /><br />No, James, your results are not always my results. I used to think I was a 'sorta' ok researcher and 'sorta' ok hacker. But, no longer. You have made it quite clear I no longer can cut it. SIGHHHCarolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11754623831815018924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-6621475004026675112011-02-15T21:34:58.393-07:002011-02-15T21:34:58.393-07:00I generally agree, I just have to add some (hopefu...I generally agree, I just have to add some (hopefully) insight. You've been using computers and the Internet for a long time. You have a lot more experience with it than most other people, regardless of their age. This gives you a strong skill set in learning new software and changes to how things work. You also have a very flexible and creative approach to things; if something doesn't work you try something else. This is a skill that a lot of people struggle with. I've done a lot of testing of people's abilities; some people are really good at a lot of cognitive tasks and some people struggle with a lot of cognitive tasks. I'm not talking about IQ, there are many more abilities than IQ.<br /><br />Some people have a hard time getting out of set, especially if they are older. This means that once they learn something, it is difficult to change it and learn or do something else. Their brains, either by development or by changes with aging, simply cannot handle change and flexibility as well as other people's brains can. What can seem straightforward and obvious to one person, including how to deal with and learn how to change, is not straightforward and obvious to someone else.<br /><br />The problem is that the developers and beta testers of technological stuff probably don't have the same set of cognitive skills as general users will have (again, I'm not talking about intelligence, I'm talking about broader cognitive domains that don't necessarily have a lot to do with intelligence). This is why some things seem logical to developers and power users but are not to many other people. So in this way, the issues go far beyond simple experience, although that helps a lot. It gets down to our genes and biology and environments and education (not necessarily formal).<br /><br />So what do we do about it? Not change? That's not an option. The best thing we can do is provide information on how to adjust to the changes and make things as user friendly as feasibly possible. People with gripe and complain but that really boils down to an attitude issue. Someone might struggle with change but be willing to do what it takes to cope with it; others simply complain. But we have to recognize that there are a lot of people, particularly ones who fit the genealogy stereotype, who have compromised mental flexibility abilities.<br /><br />There's an unofficial clinical assessment.Jaredhttp://www.bystudyandfaith.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-60214227828873423972011-02-15T21:11:06.564-07:002011-02-15T21:11:06.564-07:00Bravo, James. You said it very well.Bravo, James. You said it very well.Becky Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11841947942442007031noreply@blogger.com