Unless I'm the last to find out...

[Gillg]

Why is there no "All" box to tick in the B,M & D menu? I don't like it.  I couldn't even find my own birth when I did a test!
Oh, how we hate change, especially when the old website seemed to work so well.  Why have they done this?

[BumbleB]

The original version is still available as far as I can see - just remove the 2 from freebmd2 

[Spelk]

In the What’s New blurb they say that the original version will be maintained for the foreseeable future. So until tomorrow?
They say that the changes are to make the site more useable on phones and tablets.
On my tablet some pages run off to the side and I can see no way to get any info on the spouse of a marriage apart from after 1911 when they give the surname in the table of results. Seems they have rolled out a beta testing version far too early.

[MollyC]

Don't be afraid!  Somewhere in there (I can't find it again quickly) I have read that original FreeBMD will stay available for the forseeable future.  Vote with your feet, hoping they will compare usage figures.  I have already relegated it down my list of favourites so it is not in the first screenful.  I agree it is cumbersome to copy and paste, which is how people work, making lists of possibles which fall within a short glance, not a wide ranging screenful or more.

I have tried using a split screen to do the same search using both versions.

Consider:
Colour versus "Birth", "Marriage", "Death"
Clear, compact columns versus acres of white space and repeated words "Volume" and "Page"
 - District has become more important than Page which you can only reach via a person record.
Italics versus "district query".
Turns out they have created a lot more district queries, by incorporating the dates-in-use into the district NAME.  e.g. Wortley  Dec 1838-1974 - why would that be a query?
Answer: Because the transcription says "Wortley"

[Spelk]

I've figured out that to see the possible spouse you need to click on the name of the person getting married and then you get a second page where the page numbers are links which when clicked bring up the possible spouses. Why does it now take two clicks? The link could have been on th first page as before.
Also in the old version in the list of results it showed which records had postems associated with them. Now you need to look at the records second page details before you find out that it has a postem. Every extra click and loading a new page is slight but multiply it by billions every year and it a hell of lot of wasted time and electricity.
At lest the posters are still there. I would not have bothered to redo the hundreds of certificate transcripts I have done over many years.

[Geoff-E]

Vote with your feet,

Ask for your money back.

[MollyC]

I am just writing comments including:
"If there is a postem you need to see this ASAP...  I knew there was a postem because I put it there.  It was hiding at the foot of the Person record where it may easily be overlooked.  It should be alongside the name in the Results, on the Page and in the Person record."

ADDED  A bit slow on the uptake here, I have now realised that the Person record is what you found previously by clicking "Info"  - which you would not normally do unless there was some query, but now you are obliged to go there every time to reach the Page, which is critical for Marriages before 1912.

[sparrett]

I think agree with the majority on this.

Keywords seem to be-
 
Old - Compact, efficient, friendly, logical.

New - None of the above.

Sue

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

The new has already had 1 failed release and got pulled, the 2nd attempt doesn't seem much better. The grumpy old man in me wonders why the new is never as good as the old?