Anyone gone onto the 'new' Ancestry.com?

[Deirdre784]

I asked - on Facebook - about adding a new field for 'name known as' so that the story line doesn't repeat the whole set of Christian names each time. And why it doesn't include the surname of the person on marriage.

The response I received:
Hi Deirdre, thanks for getting in touch. Thanks for the suggestions. We're actively seeking this sort of feedback so we appreciate your thoughts. You can add other feedback directly if you like, here's a link- http://ancstry.me/1FG3xWi

They are getting loads of complaints, far more than any positives.

[Braindead]

But did you put Swaledale, North Yorkshire, England?

If you missed the England bit, then the fault is yours!

I disagree. The fault is Ancestry's for deciding that any places without a country must be in America, especially when the tree owner isn't in America. Changing from North Yorkshire to Iowa is simply inaccurate.

[KGarrad]

Bur they've been doing that for years!

The number of links I get for my England-based family for Somerset, Kentucky or Suffolk, Virginia used to be unbelievable!

So over the past 10 years or so, I have edited as many locations as I can, to ensure a country name has been input,

Please remember - Ancestry is an American organization!

[Braindead]

Regardless of where an organisation is based, I find it hard to believe that changing information without evidence is good practice.
Regardless, I think the biggest problem with the Lifestory view is the way it presents information as fact in order to produce a narrative. I think that this will vastly increase the number of errors in people's trees, as they blindly accept the "X was born in 1833" statements as written without looking for the evidence of the event.

[KGarrad]

 

But Ancestry haven't actually changed any data?! (check the profiles of your people!)
The fault lies in the interpretation of the existing data, and that assumptions are made.

But we all do it?!

If I see the town of Gillingham mentioned, I always assume it is in Dorset - because I'm a West Country lad!
Similarly, Whitchurch is the one in Bristol; Newport is in Monmouthshire; etc.

I totally agree that Ancestry are at fault here
As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.

[groom]

     
I totally agree that Ancestry are at fault here
As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.                 

Hopefully that is what they are now working on as referred to in their reply to me. However, why wasn't this problem picked up on trials of the program, or were trials just carried out in America? Or better still, why weren't the facts and records I've put on my tree just copied directly to the new site without any changes?

[KGarrad]

I'll repeat what I said:

But Ancestry haven't actually changed any data?! (check the profiles of your people!)
The fault lies in the interpretation of the existing data, and that assumptions are made.

The underlying data hasn't changed!
It's just the way it is displayed that has changed.

[Braindead]

As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.

It is easy to check a user's location and Ancestry do do that - I regularly use ancestry.ca as well as ancestry.co.uk and every time I do it asks me if I really want to go to .ca and wouldn't I rather go to co.uk? So why not set locations to default to the user's country of origin?

Regarding ancestry's "assumptions", we clearly agree that they shouldn't be doing that.

[BumbleB]

If I see the town of Gillingham mentioned, I always assume it is in Dorset - because I'm a West Country lad!
Similarly, Whitchurch is the one in Bristol; Newport is in Monmouthshire; etc.

I totally agree that Ancestry are at fault here
As an IT Professional I think it should be so easy to detect on which website a user has logged on, and to change the locations list accordingly.

If I see Gillingham, I think of Kent, Whitchurch is in Shropshire, AND there are 12 locations for Newport plus 51 locations for Newton in Great Britain.  I live in Tamworth in Staffordshire, but I know there is a Tamworth in NSW, and possibly elsewhere on the planet.  AND I'm sure that most of us have people entered into our trees who have left their native lands and settled overseas.  Surely it is up to US to make sure that our ancestors are living in the correct country, and not rely on a machine to do it for us.