lds.org

[Laser Jock]

(I did remember one thing I hate about the new lds.org. It's ridiculously slow on an iPod. But I have no idea how fast it was on the old site, so that's not a really fair comparison of the two.)

Yes, that is an area they've definitely moved backwards. It was never what I'd call speedy on an iPod touch, but it's now unusable on the one I sometimes use (which, admittedly, is a 1st-gen version). I think that's because they really ramped up the amount of JavaScript they've got going on (but I haven't checked).

[Dragon Lady]

the church is a few years late in adapting to modern web design.

Heh heh. Yes...yes they are.

That's because they want to watch and make sure nothing breaks. Let the world be their testers first. I fought to get my department off IE 6. But they wouldn't because IE6 was "officially" supported by the help desk and none other. Even when Windows offered to donate to charity for every computer upgraded that month, they refused. Drove me nuts. So when they do embrace technology, even a few years late, it makes me very happy.

It also doesn't help that most techy people can get paid a lot more elsewhere and have to wear Sunday dress if they work at the church. So they often don't get the best designers, programmers, etc.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Here's what bugs me: the "Latest Features" links aren't always clear whether they go to video or text. I can't stand the church's videos, and besides, I'm often in a place where I'd need to pull out my headphones to listen to audio.

I'll second that the menu is counter-intuitive. There are lots of possible ways to group links, and these ones look like they were chosen by the correlation department, not by someone who actually uses web sites.

[Katya]

I don't like reading scriptures on what looks like a blog. This is not a functional way to read scriptures: way too much scrolling, for one thing. The old site was better because it was simpler.

Yes. And I should add that I do most of my scripture reading online, so losing the ability to just read through it easily is a significant drawback.

That said, the church's site is a fantastic resource, and they've made the old version available at classic.lds.org and classic.scriptures.lds.org, so I'm not going to complain too much.

Thanks for the info! (Did I miss a notice on the new site that said how to find this?)

[thebigcheese]

I've never been crazy about any of the digital scripture formats. We often read scriptures on the Kindle -- which is great if you're reading from start to finish, but it's terrible if you want to do anything else like study by topic or even just find a specific chapter. It's clunky. Granted, a lot of that is probably more the fault of the hardware than the software. At any rate, I'd like to see a system that does both well.

[Yarjka]

That said, the church's site is a fantastic resource, and they've made the old version available at classic.lds.org and classic.scriptures.lds.org, so I'm not going to complain too much.

Thanks for the info! (Did I miss a notice on the new site that said how to find this?)

There's a button on the left column of the main page that says "go to classic lds.org," but I didn't see it until I went and looked for it. Something about its placement just blends in with the rest of the page -- hidden in plain sight. Some links go directly to the classic version when something isn't available on the new one -- for instance, when you click on 'see other languages' on the main page.

This page explains it very well, and comes up first on a Google search for 'old lds.org', but I can't seem to find any link to it from the main page.

[Dragon Lady]

I don't like reading scriptures on what looks like a blog. This is not a functional way to read scriptures: way too much scrolling, for one thing. The old site was better because it was simpler.

Yes. And I should add that I do most of my scripture reading online, so losing the ability to just read through it easily is a significant drawback.

That said, the church's site is a fantastic resource, and they've made the old version available at classic.lds.org and classic.scriptures.lds.org, so I'm not going to complain too much.

Thanks for the info! (Did I miss a notice on the new site that said how to find this?)

They had it front and center on the new page for awhile when it went live.

[Katya]

I don't like reading scriptures on what looks like a blog. This is not a functional way to read scriptures: way too much scrolling, for one thing. The old site was better because it was simpler.

Yes. And I should add that I do most of my scripture reading online, so losing the ability to just read through it easily is a significant drawback.

That said, the church's site is a fantastic resource, and they've made the old version available at classic.lds.org and classic.scriptures.lds.org, so I'm not going to complain too much.

Thanks for the info! (Did I miss a notice on the new site that said how to find this?)

They had it front and center on the new page for awhile when it went live.

Yeah, I don't actually visit lds.org that often. (I like combining my scripture reading with reading conference talks, so I tend to use scriptures.byu.edu, which had a frame with the same content as scriptures.lds.org.)

[Portia]

Here's a weird thing I noticed: I couldn't find any, like, "hey, it's the anniversary of the organization of the Church" acknowledgment on the series of tubes. Since Church history is about the only part of "Church" I find to be interesting, I was a little disappointed. Is it like one of those "not really important birthdays," that your friends laugh at you if you insist on gifts just 'cause you're 37?

Are the URLs to individual pages still hundreds of characters long? (It appears not.) Before URL shorteners, that was a pain in the rear.

And it has a welcome screen to the Proc, and I hate welcome screens.

Any input on the new family search? It's very, very different, hopefully will solve problems of people (a) literally just making sh*t up; (b) multiple submissions; (c) archaic abbreviations, paper-to-computer formatting, etc. Getting the old folks to adapt to it will be . . . interesting.

[Dragon Lady]

Any input on the new family search? It's very, very different, hopefully will solve problems of people (a) literally just making sh*t up; (b) multiple submissions; (c) archaic abbreviations, paper-to-computer formatting, etc. Getting the old folks to adapt to it will be . . . interesting.

Admittedly, I'm not a genealogist, nor have I ever really used New Family Search. But I worked for Family Search long enough and got enough of the email announcements and went to enough meetings that I have a good idea of what's going on.

New Family Search solves a LOT of the old problems. Solving duplications was one of their biggest goals with New Family Search and what most people praise it for. You can combine records if you find a duplicate. So you may find one person with multiple entries, but they're all grouped together. Which also helps keep duplicate ordinance work to a low.

From what I understand from the dozens of old people I worked with and my dad (who is old ), New Family Search is fantastic and much easier to work with than the old one. The biggest complaint I have heard is that they did away with PAF. They no longer support it, nor will they be updating it. Everything can be done online instead. So if people want a PAF-esque program, they either have to use an old PAF or get new software. (Which is a better option, since most new software is compatible with New Family Search.)

And now I'll bow out, since that's about all I know. (Owning two FamilySearch shirts does not make me a genealogist.)

[Rifka]

Any input on the new family search? It's very, very different, hopefully will solve problems of people (a) literally just making sh*t up; (b) multiple submissions; (c) archaic abbreviations, paper-to-computer formatting, etc. Getting the old folks to adapt to it will be . . . interesting.

I am a Family History major and this is what I think of New FamilySearch.

Pros:
1. I agree with DL that it helps reduce duplication. It's MUCH easier to see ordinance work done on NFS than it was to wade through 20 different entries for the same person on the IGI.

2. I like that there is a place to put in sources for info you (the user) input, with lots of options and specifications to make it really clear what sources you used.

3. The links to other users' names and email (if enabled) is really great for collaborating. I've already connected with some distant relatives and found some great new information through them!

4. The Maps, Timelines, and Possible Duplicates tabs are great new features. It's really cool to be able to see exactly where on the map certain events in your ancestors' lives happened. The timeline view also gives a convenient way to look at things (for example, to see visually if there were any gaps between children, where a child may have been missed). And, the Possible Duplicates tab is great for finding and merging duplicate names (I do wish there was a way to clear out and delete superfluous, incorrect information from merged people, though.)

Cons:
1. My biggest concern with NFS is that it makes it waaaaaaaaaay too easy to take names through the temple without checking to see if their work has already been done. I'm afraid that way too many people just see the exclamation point and click to print out names with out stopping to check for possible duplicates. I would really like it if, when the user clicks that they want to do temple work, NFS would pop up a screen requiring the person to check for duplicates before they can proceed. It would generally be pretty quick, and it would help reduce duplication a lot.

2. Sourcing is pretty much unreadable. It's sooooooooo jumbled up. The exception is sources that users put in by hand. All other sources (i.e. from Ancestral File, IGI, etc.) are like trying to read chicken scratch. Also, when information is uploaded directly from programs like RootsMagic, sources are not uploaded at all (although I'm not sure if that's a problem with NFS or RootsMagic).

3. Removing incorrect information is difficult. This is a tricky issue because if it's too easy to change information, people will quickly put in TONS of incorrect information (hence all the problems with AncestralFile, PRF, etc.) Currently, if you put information into NewFamilySearch, no one else can change that information. They can mark a dispute with your information, but you have to change it. Most of the time that's okay, but what if you get someone working on your line that stubbornly inputs and clings to incorrect information? Or what if the submitter is deceased? Or if the work comes from temple records? Then you have to contact the FamilySearch help people, and that can take a while. Admittedly, there's not an easy solution to this one, but there are some definite flaws there.

4. Multiple spouses. For some reason, when I have ancestors that had multiple spouses, NFS really likes to make the same one pop up as the primary spouse on my screen, even when I have repeatedly clicked the box to "always show this spouse" on the other spouse. I'm not sure if that's just me, or if anyone else has been having that problem, though.

5. The most generations you can see at a time is 3 . . . and you can't see any information other than names. I would really like to have an option to see a larger pedigree at once. I would also like to see a little more information on the basic pedigree view. You have to scroll down to see all the information on the selected individual, anyway, so would it hurt to add birth, marriage, and death dates and places to the basic pedigree (like there are on paper pedigree charts?) Also, it takes ridiculously long to scroll through the pedigree charts to get to generations that are far back.

So, basically NFS has some definite kinks to work out, but overall it's still worlds better than the family trees on the old FamilySearch site. Let's hope it gets even better!

BTW, thanks for asking, Portia-- it was fun for me to reflect on what I liked and didn't like. I think I'm actually going to submit this input to NFS as feedback. If you have any more questions about NFS or family history in general, feel free to ask me. I always love discussing family history!

[thebigcheese]

I think I'm actually going to submit this input to NFS as feedback.

Please do. This kind of feedback would be a gold mine for their user experience staff (that's my job -- but I don't work for the Church).