Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tree Tool ???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • @Gugel (thank you for being here with us)

    The following are not requests for easy fixes. The first one is in my opinion a highly desirable feature. The second is essential in the long run.

    It would be advantageous, if by some means a user could backup the current state of the family tree, for example to her desktop. And there would be a way to upload it back, in order to restore a previous configuration, when new changes need to be reverted.

    If the original uploaded GEDCOM and the later changes are kept separate, then it could be possible to upload a newer GEDCOM and reapply changes semi-automatically (that is with user confirmation). Even very established family trees get redrawn, especially the ones that show/have many descendants, as is the case with trees used for the Family Finder. For example, moving branches around, making (semi-)global changes could/should be left to full-blown genealogical software.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Administratorx3 View Post
      I hate this. Everyone I talk to hates this.
      Did I say I hate this? This ruins the ability for me to research efficiently and quickly as I previously could with the old gedcom feature which responded to the arrows, up/down/side to side. I can no longer transfer a gedcom to a private file to work on off line;

      I co administer three surnames sites, one with 800 members. I can no longer help them navigate their trees or help them find matches. My own kits for my siblings are useless due to the amount of time it takes to move around in them, and without the gedcoms, the whole thing is useless for all I have invested, both monetarily and timewise.

      What were they thinking? UGH!
      I have two surname sites with over 200 members so not as big as yours but with all the problems I'm encountering, and all the complaints, I cannot imagine trying to cope with over 800 unhappy members. Everyone HATES this. I had worked very hard to get my members to post trees and had made progress. There's no way the reluctant members are going to put up with this mess. I think they'll just pull their tests from public view if they are pushed.

      I tried to upload GEDCOMs to two accounts. The accounts are identical in every way except for the identity of the participants. I compiled the two GEDCOMs on my own computer, identical except for the individuals. One uploaded just fine. The other one refuses to load, sort of. It uploads one random individual from the tree and no one else. When I check the GEDCOM, everyone is there. On my computer it looks just like the one that uploaded fine. Bugs, bugs, bugs.

      If you manage over 800 accounts, and I manage over 200, and we had no input, I wonder who they asked about this before they rolled it out. Any real users?

      I'm ready to wipe out all my data for all my kits and just give up on FTDNA.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rhea View Post
        Thank you Taltos, that worked. It even found a couple of matches.
        @Rhea,
        Your welcome, glad to hear that!

        @Gugel,
        Gugel We're listening and appreciate your feedback. We did so during the beta and we'll continue do so.
        Thanks!

        Comment


        • Trees for Trees

          I hate the format and am encountering lots of bugs but there is one feature I'm not seeing that I would like to see that would improve the FTDNA experience for everyone. I want the option to show my tree only to my matches WHO ALSO SHOW THEIR TREES. I also have some tests at Ancestry and that's my biggest gripe there also. Someone who doesn't share their own data, no matter how sparse, should not have access to the trees of others. Adding this feature would surely help get more people to post at least a bare bones tree, at least 3 generations.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PeterLarsen View Post
            I actually love this new tree. Not in its current state but considering its potentials. I hope FTDNA has done a great job in creating a versatile code base easy to add features to, like plugins or widgets.

            It is a huge step, programatically, going from a stiff limited ancestors only tree to a tree that goes in all directions. The graphical presentation for all possible family situations is tricky to solve.

            I agree with most of you here, we need a simple layout in addition to the default.

            A suggestion to FTDNA about how to solve the private-issue on ancestors missing death date:
            In the preproccessing state of uploaded gedcoms look for people born before 110 years ago and switch all ancestors of those to deceased
            I am not so in love with it anymore, but still I have hopes for it to turn out well, .. eventually.

            I reply to my own complaints as I did find out a workaround for the Zooming-issue. To navigate the trees I now Zoom out the actual browser window using key combination CTRL + "-" a couple of times. That brings you a better overview, still not perfect but better in my opinion. However, the key combination to Zoom back in again is Ctrl + "+".

            Perhaps a tip to try if you thin to Zoomed in Family view is too wide.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jbarry6899 View Post
              The report on changes made to date is helpful, but does not address the major design problems with the new trees. Some priority fixes:

              1. Eliminate the icons.
              2. Make the default view a pedigree
              3. Redesign the boxes to display names, dates and locations without clicking
              4. Resize the display to eliminate the need to zoom and move the tree

              Jim
              Excellent advice from someone who has some common sense!!!!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gugel View Post
                We're listening and appreciate your feedback. We did so during the beta and we'll continue do so.

                Since launching the Family Tree beta on Aug. 21, we fixed dozens of issues over the following few weeks. Some of them are outlined in this post: http://forums.familytreedna.com/showthread.php?t=35790

                I can promise you that we'll continue to listen closely to your feedback, but I can't promise we'll get to everything that has been recommended. Feel free to continue to post constructive criticism on the forums or send an email to [email protected] to have your feedback considered.
                If you are truly serious about making something workable then this is the outline:

                jbarry6899 jbarry6899 is offline
                FTDNA Customer Join Date: Jun 2012
                Posts: 292

                The report on changes made to date is helpful, but does not address the major design problems with the new trees. Some priority fixes:

                1. Eliminate the icons.
                2. Make the default view a pedigree
                3. Redesign the boxes to display names, dates and locations without clicking
                4. Resize the display to eliminate the need to zoom and move the tree

                Jim



                As someone who spends at least eight hours a day on genealogy research and implementation we don't need to wade around the kind of software program which FTDNA has implemented. We need to be able to see the big overall picture to see where we need to go. Also, for those who are new to this, it will only deter their interest. Tenn4ever a 40 year researching genealogist.
                Last edited by Tenn4ever; 10 September 2014, 04:04 PM.

                Comment


                • Purple Link Icon

                  I clicked the Family Tree button to learn what it does, and there with my Gedcom was a purple icon saying "We Found Possible Matches!" beside the symbol of my 6th ggf Jose Rios. It seemed too good to be true to find a match for an 18th century ancestor born in a Sinaloa mining town, and odd that the proposed match name was Jack Reeck and not something more Spanish but that's all the info they gave me so I clicked the blue "Link" box anyway. And all it did was replace Jose Rios with Jack Reeck, leaving Jose's wife with a new husband and his son with a new father. There's no undo option so I had to delete Jack and add Jose back in.

                  This sounds like a glitch but I can't help hoping that maybe this Jack Reeck is a match sharing Jose Rios as a common ancestor (and just a coincidence their initials are the same). Does anybody know how this feature is supposed to work?

                  Comment


                  • I would have preferred that Family Tree DNA allow for two trees:

                    1. using the simple gedcom derived tree that we have all become accustomed to.

                    2. create an interactive global tree, using the new format, that would, if connections are made, connect everyone on the planet. This would get rid of the redundancy of entering data over and over again for the 50+ kits I manage. The default for everyone would be Private & would remain visible only to descendants. Once someone changed the individual to Public, the ancestor would become visible to everyone.

                    Timothy Peterman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tenn4ever View Post
                      If you are truly serious about making something workable then this is the outline:

                      jbarry6899 jbarry6899 is offline
                      FTDNA Customer Join Date: Jun 2012
                      Posts: 292

                      The report on changes made to date is helpful, but does not address the major design problems with the new trees. Some priority fixes:

                      1. Eliminate the icons.
                      2. Make the default view a pedigree
                      3. Redesign the boxes to display names, dates and locations without clicking
                      4. Resize the display to eliminate the need to zoom and move the tree

                      Jim



                      As someone who spends at least eight hours a day on genealogy research and implementation we don't need to wade around the kind of software program which FTDNA has implemented. We need to be able to see the big overall picture to see where we need to go. Also, for those who are new to this, it will only deter their interest. Tenn4ever a 40 year researching genealogist.
                      And add to those priorities: Fix the problem that is causing all those ancestors without birth/death dates to appear as "private" in our matches' trees.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pmac View Post
                        I clicked the Family Tree button to learn what it does, and there with my Gedcom was a purple icon saying "We Found Possible Matches!" beside the symbol of my 6th ggf Jose Rios. It seemed too good to be true to find a match for an 18th century ancestor born in a Sinaloa mining town, and odd that the proposed match name was Jack Reeck and not something more Spanish but that's all the info they gave me so I clicked the blue "Link" box anyway. And all it did was replace Jose Rios with Jack Reeck, leaving Jose's wife with a new husband and his son with a new father. There's no undo option so I had to delete Jack and add Jose back in.

                        This sounds like a glitch but I can't help hoping that maybe this Jack Reeck is a match sharing Jose Rios as a common ancestor (and just a coincidence their initials are the same). Does anybody know how this feature is supposed to work?
                        I may be wrong, but I believe the link/match found is not a match due to common dna or ancestor,but from software finding a similar sounding name based on what ever soundex system is currently used. It is just trying to match up names in your match list that happen to be in your tree.

                        Comment


                        • Feeling a bit disillusioned

                          This is a great start and the effort is appreciated even though at lot of people are feeling a bit disillusioned by this initial release.

                          I know that a lot of people with primarily Scandinavian ancestry reached out (including me) during the beta period with suggestions for improvement. A lot of them are now feeling frustrated when it appears that none of their suggestions were implemented.

                          I have primarily Swedish ancestry myself, and one of the "issues" with that is that surnames were adopted relatively recently (early 1900s). Before then, a large part of the population used patronymic surnames (e.g. Andersson, Svensson, Olofsson, etc.) that changed with each new generation. It does not help that the given names commonly in use at that time were relatively few. Consequently, we have to rely a lot more on dates and locations than would perhaps those with ancestors from areas were proper surnames have been in common use for a long time.

                          Imagine looking through a tree of one of your matches, finding that the name of almost every person in that tree matches at least one of your own ancestors. With the current implementation, we have to click into each individual to see the full name, dates, and locations to determine if it is a common ancestor or not.

                          The most pressing need, as I see it, is to show the locations of births and deaths on the tree itself.

                          Additionally, I would like to see the full names of people. I would also like the ability to search by location, not just by name.

                          Also, I much appreciated the list of bug fixes that was posted. I would suggest you keep that up. May I also suggest that you post a list of features and changes that you are planning on including in you next release.

                          Thank you for listening.

                          Sincerely,

                          Anders Olsson

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pmac View Post
                            I clicked the Family Tree button to learn what it does, and there with my Gedcom was a purple icon saying "We Found Possible Matches!" beside the symbol of my 6th ggf Jose Rios. It seemed too good to be true to find a match for an 18th century ancestor born in a Sinaloa mining town, and odd that the proposed match name was Jack Reeck and not something more Spanish but that's all the info they gave me so I clicked the blue "Link" box anyway. And all it did was replace Jose Rios with Jack Reeck, leaving Jose's wife with a new husband and his son with a new father. There's no undo option so I had to delete Jack and add Jose back in.

                            This sounds like a glitch but I can't help hoping that maybe this Jack Reeck is a match sharing Jose Rios as a common ancestor (and just a coincidence their initials are the same). Does anybody know how this feature is supposed to work?
                            I have one of those matches, too. It is on a 7th great grandmother that I have listed as Mrs. Donahue (being a widow, I didn't want to confuse Donahue as being her maiden name). The "match" is Marg Beaudoin who is a match of mine who has no tree or ancestral names. A stretch of a Soundex match?

                            Comment


                            • My mother's tree has no icons other than those used to expand the tree. I tried a cousin's. There was a link icon. I have a James W. Hampton in my tree. I clicked on the icon and a box popped up with the name James H. Hampton in it. My reaction was "Who's he? Does my cousin have a new match?" I tried clicking to get some info about this James H. Hampton they want to link to my tree. Not clickable. I went to my cousin's matches and checked for new ones. None. Searched for a match with the surname Hampton. None. Searched for people who had the surname Hampton in their list of ancestral surnames. Six results, 3 family members, and of the other 3, only 1 with a tree. She has an Elzabeth Hampton in her tree. Who is James H. Hampton? Where did they get his name, and why would I link him to my tree???

                              On the other hand, I got a close match 3 years ago, whom I had contacted a few times without ever getting any reply. I contacted him several days ago, got a reply and easily discovered that we share 3rd great-grandparents. There's no way to link this match to my 3rd great-grandparents that I can see.

                              Comment


                              • This is frustrating. Because of a missing date of death, I can't even see who a person was married to. When I type the name then click on "search name" it says no result. Yet four of my matches have the name in their ancestor list. I know sometimes people have names in the list but not in the tree. but I don't think this was the case. Knowing who people married, where and when they born is really helpful.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X