The new Findmypast (Part 3)

[JenB]

I made screen shots of all the problems with suggestions for improvement and sent as PDF attachment to FindMyPast support. So hope it's clear to them.

You might be out of luck there. I noticed this on the 'How can We Improve FindMyPast' page earlier today, in response to someone who had sent an email with attachments

We do not accept any attachments or screen shots via our email system I am afraid for security reasons. This is to help prevent Trojans/ virus etc because if they were to access our system, they could then spread further afield.

http://feedback.findmypast.co.uk/forums/222583-ideas-and-improvements/suggestions/5649598-improve-features-to-bring-in-line-with-the-old-sit  comment by Diana S at 5.08 today.

[estiman]

I have already had an extended exchange with FindMyPast 'help' team re their address search (see earlier post).  I've just tried another 1841 search on James George Laming, born 1816, with variations boxes checked.  First result 1770 returns all with blanks where names should be!!  I removed the George and got 1801 returns, mostly, but not all, blanks!! Same search in Ancestry: 23 returns all with names ( ). They were either James or George and some variations on family name.  I've had so many problems with the new FindMyPast I doubt I shall be renewing my subscription.  Why fix something that ain't broke?  Bring back the old FindMyPast

[LizzieL]

I made screen shots of all the problems with suggestions for improvement and sent as PDF attachment to FindMyPast support. So hope it's clear to them.

You might be out of luck there. I noticed this on the 'How can We Improve FindMyPast' page earlier today, in response to someone who had sent an email with attachments

We do not accept any attachments or screen shots via our email system I am afraid for security reasons. This is to help prevent Trojans/ virus etc because if they were to access our system, they could then spread further afield.

http://feedback.findmypast.co.uk/forums/222583-ideas-and-improvements/suggestions/5649598-improve-features-to-bring-in-line-with-the-old-sit  comment by Diana S at 5.08 today.

That's a nuisance.

They should get themselves some decent virus checking software

[locksmith]

My question about this is what is the difference between a 'town' and a 'place'? How have they decided between one and the other for the purposes of searching?

A few days ago some of the census search forms from 1851 to 1901 had Birth City and not Birth Town, some did not have Birth Place, now they all have Town and Place so they must have been 'improving'.

What is bizarre about these two fields is that on all the actual census forms the only data recorded is 'Where Born'. So how and why has 'Where Born' been divided between the two. Why do some names appear in both? The 1911 census has just the search field 'Where Born'. No logic to this.

I find it unusable and it would be better if it was a free text box with wildcards

Simon

[JenB]

After a few fruitless attempts at searching the 1871 census for someone by occupation and getting no results I discovered that for some reason occupations aren't recorded in the 1871 transcriptions.

This being the case, why is there an 'occupation' box on the 1871 search form?

Another email sent to FindMyPast.

[dawnsh]

The occupation box was there pre-upgrade, but I think it was greyed out on the censuses where the info hadn't been transcribed so couldn't be used.

[neno]

I have been moved today. I can not view any records, all I have is a black screen with a whirling circle.
The old FindMyPast was slow enough but now nothing. I accept that living in a rural area does mean slow broadband but I feel that I should get something for my money from a site that I pay to use. Have unticked automatic renewal of subscription.

[JenB]

After a few fruitless attempts at searching the 1871 census for someone by occupation and getting no results I discovered that for some reason occupations aren't recorded in the 1871 transcriptions.

This being the case, why is there an 'occupation' box on the 1871 search form?

Another email sent to FindMyPast.

Their reply is that the 'occupation field is a default search field for each census year'.

However despite the fact that the occupation box is present on the 1871 search page, and capable of being filled in, they confirm that census is not searchable by occupation.

This is because the 1871 transcription was 'bought in' and no occupations had been transcribed.

I think at the very least there should be some sort of 'warning' about this on the 1871 page or that, as on the 'old' site, that field should be greyed out, as Dawn mentioned.

They state that they will do their own transcription of the 1871 at some time in the future.

[Hampshire Lass]

I emailed about the fact that I can only view images via "my records" and I must say I had a prompt reply thanking me and stating they were unaware of the fact that when the images are unavailable for viewing on IE they could be viewed via "my records". The images then (eventually) open in Windows photo gallery.

They will correct this in time.