Do you have suggestions for improving ancestry.com?

[Biggles50]

Hint - right click Dismiss.
Searching - include more Filtering options, i.e. specific Town/City set a radius in miles for the results.
Fix - Adjacent Counties, it does not work effectively.
User Names - to be Birth Names.
All user Family Trees to include a Pedigree Family to at least Grandparent level (if known), they could make it mandatory by not saving until all 13 fields are filled in.
Newspapers and Fold 3 records to be included with standard Subscription.

DNA specific:-
Pro Tools - standard and not chargeable.
User Names to be actual Birth Name.
Chromosome Browser.
More effective DNA tools as per Gedmatch.
DNA test results assignable to more than one Family Tree.
Grouping presets to be available for each Great Grandparent by menu selection.

[Nick_Ips]

...
User Names - to be Birth Names.
All user Family Trees to include a Pedigree Family to at least Grandparent level (if known), they could make it mandatory by not saving until all 13 fields are filled in.
....
DNA specific:-
...
User Names to be actual Birth Name.
...

Some people like their privacy.  If I was forced to use my birth name as a username on Ancestry I wouldn't have joined... although how exactly would this be enforced?

With more and more data breaches (if they can get M&S then nobody is safe) I'd rather limit the amount of personal data I put online.  Linking my real life name and details to my family history and putting that online is not something I'd consider wise in this day and age.

Likewise, if I uploaded my DNA profile to a website then it wouldn't be attached to my real name.

The compulsory family tree stuff would also put me off.  I'm more than happy with bits of family trees starting several generations back.  I've no wish to include myself, siblings and parents and am happy to have my identity somewhat obscured by being only one out of many descendents among my generation.  I might also start a tree of someone not directly related to me, so I'm not going to include myself in that because it would be plain wrong.

[KGarrad]

User Names - to be Birth Names.
All user Family Trees to include a Pedigree Family to at least Grandparent level (if known), they could make it mandatory by not saving until all 13 fields are filled in.

I have more than a dozen trees on Ancestry. Some are family, some are for friends, some are for clients (I do genealogical research for other people!)

Quite honestly - it's an absurd idea!

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

The privacy angle Ancestry constantly use as the reason for not implementing  features doesn't really work though.

John may have tested 5 years ago, looked at the results and has never logged in since. Fast forward to today, the results for Mary go live but she can't check them immediately.
Meantime I see her as a new match, check the shared match situation and John is predicted as her half sibling. Neither John or Mary have any idea the other exists and have yet to see the results so they are clueless, I'm the first to see the revelation because I have paid for protools.

Somehow that isn't 'private enough' to be a concern but a few cM of dna on a segment from a long gone ancestor is sufficiently private it means no chromo browser.

[MollyC]

Reply #10

Start over with their indexing, particularly of locations. Present system is beyond repair.

Examples:
The naming of some British county record sets is not correct because Ancestry has no clue about the major changes in 1974, so it uses new county names as if they were historic names - e.g. Cumbria.  The indexers seem to have used a modern gazetteer to index historic places.  Some counties retained a historic name but are geographically very different, e.g. Lancashire is much smaller.

There is confusion about the county for some parish records that Ancestry obtained from a County Record Office which also acts as a Diocesan Record Office, for a diocese which has parishes in two counties.

[Steve3180]

Most of these ideas for improvement are very good and, in some cases, very overdue, and if we were dealing with a genealogy company it would be worthwhile sending them in, but by my reckoning Ancestry haven't been that for at least ten years now. These days they are a money making enterprise that leverages a very large database of genealogical records to extract cash from us. They masquerade as genealogy experts but it is clear from their responses to errors in indexing and in particular place names that they have no interest in actually getting things right.
I use to fill in those beta test questionnaires and have reported numerous place name errors, nothing has ever been fixed, nor do i expect it to be now.
Meanwhile we just have to bumble along with what they choose to dole out to us for an ever increasing amount of money, because, let's face it, none of the other genealogical companies can compete with the data they have.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

Trying to pick an alternative to Ancestry is like trying to choose a toilet at Glastonbury.   

[Jool]

Trying to pick an alternative to Ancestry is like trying to choose a toilet at Glastonbury.

Glen, that's a brilliant analogy - really made me laugh.

[Wexflyer]

Seems to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding at work here.

Ancestry are not looking for suggestions that involve improving/fixing their product that would involve extra expenditure (for no extra return).

The improvements they are looking for are to their profit margin and income stream.