Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?

[Carybeth]

Hi, I tried it the other night and I'm not that keen on it, it's information overload when you initially look at it, but that's just my opinion.

[groom]

One thing I did notice on the timeline, and I don't know why I hadn't picked it up before, was that my grandparents married in the March quarter 1910 and my aunt was born June 10th of that year. I know from pictures I have of their Golden Wedding that it must have been late in the quarter as there are daffodils in flower. I'm away from home at the moment, but need to check the certificate!

I've switched back to the old site so that I can change all the places to England. I've also left feedback about this. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Ancestry to assume that if you are using Ancestry UK, majority of your family would have been born, lived and died there.

[KGarrad]

I've mentioned this US-centric anomaly to Ancestry before.

Don't think they are interested?

I've also posted many times on RC about the need to put a country on every location; and the reasons why!

[Jomot]

I've also found that my family living in 'Bedford Street, Leicestershire' have suddenly moved to 'Bedfordshire, England' - a bit closer than the US but possibly more confusing. The Story View on the old site appears to have been 'upgraded' to include the same error 

My dislike of it is the layout though, the sources down the middle just distract, but as we're all being forced onto it in a few months I'll just have to grit my teeth & get on with it. The old site is definitely looking dated so they did need to do something with it, and like the saying goes - you cant please all of the people all of the time.

[Finley 1]

I might go back to the "old" version, so I can give some feedback, but I think Ancestry is aiming at the people who want a "story" without putting in the hard work. I just want the facts - the Story is in the Hard Copy Books I have created for my family members, & given to them for Christmas! 
Anne   

This is it -  They have made it easier for the populus - (forgive me) that take calculators into maths exams... if you get me..

We will work it out for you and - who is it going to hurt if there are a few minor errors.

NO WAY

So I will much prefer to make MY OWN mistakes, and not use what has been copied over ....

I just wont bother with the 'Trees' on there -- I often used to compare notes - etc... but think now that is a 'No No'...

Oh dear.. I am an O.F. arent I... sorry to be moaning.   

One thing I did notice on the timeline, and I don't know why I hadn't picked it up before, was that my grandparents married in the March quarter 1910 and my aunt was born June 10th of that year. I know from pictures I have of their Golden Wedding that it must have been late in the quarter as there are daffodils in flower. I'm away from home at the moment, but need to check the certificate!

I've switched back to the old site so that I can change all the places to England. I've also left feedback about this. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Ancestry to assume that if you are using Ancestry UK, majority of your family would have been born, lived and died there.

If anyone knows about my John Raven Patrick... they will know that his wife Emma Taylor was NOT married to him for 45 years as it now states on my cousins tree.. Because her death has not been found.. they keep him married to her on her (Emma Taylor) page and then on his page his information is correct -
Proves it is a Robotic Machine, that cannot 'Tally Up' things like that...
Only we humans can do that .. and as you say Groom, Notice The FLOWERS to prove the quarter in the photo..

Off now... I have a pleasant day with real living people ahead of me. 

take care all 

he he he ...insanity definitely ..... hit me..

xin

[alfietcs]

Hi everyone

I logged into Ancestry last night to update my tree and was pretty surprised to see the new layout. Im not paying fees at the moment, so had no idea that they were changing the layout. The colours are a bit

I've already noticed that one of my great grandparents has been moved by ancestry from Swaledale North Yorkshire to Swaledale Iowa. Also, I have a Great Uncle who was born some where in Ireland, but he didn't know where, as his family moved around a lot. There is no birth certificate for him and in census forms he has said he was born in Ireland but he didn't know where. Well Ancestry must know something that me or indeed my great uncle himself didn't know, as now, in the new format, Ancestry have listed him as being born most definitely in Northern Ireland, as a fact on his timeline, when I haven't actually added that myself. That is pretty poor imo. Its like we have to now go round and double check everything to see if Ancestry have made any more mistakes. If you are one of those people with thousands of entries, then it will be a nightmare.

I really liked the quick edit feature on the old layout and the way you can easily switch to the family view by clicking on a family member icon. I found this very hard to do with the new layout. The old layout felt more intuitive.

Although I've had membership for 8 months and spent a lot of time on my tree, I feel for the people who have spent years on their trees and have spent a lot of money. I've read some of their comments on the ancestry site and it seems like a lot of their work has been ruined for them.

I've gone back to the old version and hope that we get to keep that option.

[joboy]

I've mentioned this US-centric anomaly to Ancestry before.

Don't think they are interested?

I've also posted many times on RC about the need to put a country on every location; and the reasons why!

KG you are so right ........ I look for my unusual family surname in Kensington UK and find that they are in Kensington USA ....... makes me sick.
Joe

[kerryb]

Well from what I can see, it is just pure and simply trying to get me to put my tree on Ancestry, something I will never do.  So I'll stick with the old till they wrest that away from me just like they did the original before they changed it to the, what is now old! 

Kerry

[panda40]

I have had a good look at my tree this morning on the new site after reading the comments on this topic. My uncle apparently was born in London, Canada? I had not added his place of birth as he is still living just his name, as I believe in protecting individuals identity. So they have placed him in a completely different country to the rest of the family. They have handled the couples that live together very well. Some place names that did not have a county or country they have gone down a list and clicked on the first one that starts with the same first three letters. This is bad practice and should have been sorted out before migrating the information across to the new database. I will be Turning of the historical facts as they are irrelevant to the tree.
Regards panda