Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?

[jon541]

Very well put, KGarrad.  As a fellow IT professional I appreciate the realism behind your 3 points.

Lisajb, it's not so much that you are over-simplifying - it's just that the logic behind any system being able to make that kind of assumption would be unwieldy and still wouldn't be able to cope with every exception. 

[KGarrad]

Very well put, KGarrad.  As a fellow IT professional I appreciate the realism behind your 3 points.

And I never even mentioned Agile methodology!!

[Lostris]

I somehow doubt that Ancestry dont care about their UK membership (or any of our Colonial cousins ...)   .... a big investment in UK originated Data like PRs, Directories, Census et al hardly smacks of insignificance ....

[CarolA3]

........ the logic behind any system being able to make that kind of assumption would be unwieldy and still wouldn't be able to cope with every exception.

I imagine this would be the sort of exception you had in mind:

My OH's paternal grandparents died before he was born.  As far as he knew, they were Yorkshire born and bred.  Their son (my father-in-law, if he'd lived longer) never suggested otherwise.

We now know that OH's grandmother was born in the Tamworth area of New South Wales, Australia, to English parents who returned to England when she was about three years old.

This is the only overseas event in an otherwise British tree.  So if I enter just 'Tamworth' as a birthplace, should Ancestry assume I mean the Tamworth in Staffordshire, or should it default to NSW because we now live in Australia?

Carol

[jon541]

Yes, excellent Carol - I think you may just have found *the* perfect example to illustrate the point! 

[CarolA3]

Well bugger me, there's a Tamworth in New Hampshire USA as well

We're doomed

[ThrelfallYorky]

When I spotted the "hint" to try the "New Ancestry" I posted on another area asking if anyone else had tried it. These comments have made me quite sure I'd HATE it, and may even make me decide not to renew my sub when next it falls due ... I suppose they hope we'll all forget about that..
If they want some suggestions to make the site more useful, well....
* how about a box to put other people who are not immediate family in? I found  well-hidden ancestor hiding with a married sister's family
* How about being able to input religion? That could thin the entries out a bit..
* how about being able to EXCLUDE some areas i.e.: NOT WALES, or even more usefully :
NOT U.S.A. in searches?
Really don't need fiddly-faddly "factoids" adding, nor a narrative style, anything like that sounds a bit dumbed down, and will surely lead to even more silly errors than currently becoming set in stone.
Thank you all, and thanks to CaroleA3 on the YTG thread, who pointed me here.

[Stanwix England]

The other day I was given the option to transfer over to the 'new and improved' version of Ancestry.

I'm finding it a bit discombobulating at the moment but I think it will be easier to use in the long run.

Anyone else done this. What do you think? It's a pretty radical overhaul.

[LisaRobinson87]

I've Tried it and reverted back because the hint leaf at the top wouldn't work correctly on the new one but i like the new layout and the profile of people is much better its good that you can revert back and forth if you wish though!