Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Tree Tool ???

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

  • Privacy settings

    Originally posted by BJackson View Post
    I liked the old one better. It was a lot easier to navigate. And why are so many entries now "private" when they were not before? Sorry, but I don't have time to read all 20-some pages of this thread.

    Maybe I am missing something. Is there documentation for the new Family Tree feature somewhere?
    It's the default privacy settings for the new tree. The owner of the GEDCOM has to change them in order to make all the "private" people viewable again. There is some "documentation," though it's hard to find and not very complete. There's no link from the Family Tree page; I only found it by going to Learning Center and typing "family tree" in the search box. There's a Family Tree Privacy Settings page, and it has a link to where you can change them, but the link doesn't seem to be working. I've been trying for the last couple of hours, and the page won't load (server not responding).

    Comment


    • Thank you!

      Originally posted by melmoth View Post
      Progress of a sort...

      Looking at my GEDCOM, my 4xgreat-grandmother happens to enjoy the arbitrary distinction of being person #1; I am person #266. This appears to be why the new family tree 'feature' (and I use the term in the sense in which it is usually used by IT professionals, to mean 'disaster') was insistent on making me my 4xgreat-grandmother. So I edited the GEDCOM to transpose the keys (I had no idea what this might break, but I was driven by morbid curiosity). Then, however, my name as it appears in my family tree wasn't close enough to what FTDNA has, and it still precluded me from uploading it. Oh well, I thought, in for a penny, in for a pound... So I changed my name in the GEDCOM, and got it successfully uploaded. Then I changed my name in 'family tree,' not realising it would change the name on my account as well. So now I am 'Private Private.' I wonder if I'm obliged to list that under 'Other names or aliases used' on any future legal documents?

      Anyway, it allowed me to explore the new 'feature' (vide supra). Needless to say, I'm underwhelmed. Simply put, what a genealogist needs is plain text with a maximum of information in a minimum of space; what we are given instead is a vaguely insulting collage of pictures and first names, rather like a nightmarish vegan brunch at a hippie diner where the servers all sit down at your table and introduce themselves (I'm a vegetarian hippie, by the by, so I can say that). I realise many of our ancestors were illiterate, but that doesn't mean we are. Oh, and nothing appears to work. Is something supposed to happen when one clicks on the name of an ancestor for whom a suspected match has been found? It doesn't, in my case, anyway. And it just assumes you have the window maximised and doesn't show you certain controls unless you do. I don't typically maximise windows, but to overlook the possibility someone might be viewing in windowed mode is typical of the blinkered and unimaginative programming that characterises this ... 'feature.'

      Of course I promptly deleted my family tree and will invite any matches who wish to exchange info to visit me on Gedmatch where they have a usable interface.
      Thanks for the common-sense feedback, but even more for making me LOL in the midst of my fury over the new tree "feature."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Smsitton View Post

        Minimize and use ancestor tree view. The first thing to do is click out of the family tree view and click on ancestor view; then immediately minimize it down to where it shows you about one fourth of the full tree on your screen, with a nice layout with only the name of the ancestor. Since FTDNA only allows 9 generation view anyway, this will fit on one page and in the upper right side of screen you will see a thumbnail shot of where you are…you can fairly easily navigate the other four quarters of the screen. Not too bad for surname searching. (You can then open the profiles to get more information like dates, locations after you find a surname)
        What do you mean by only allows 9 generations? The old GEDCOM viewer did not limit generations; if you selected "all," instead of a number up to 9, you got "all" generations. For enormous trees, the little navigator box is useless; it's too hard to keep track of where you are in the tree. What we really need is a compact horizontal pedigree view.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by melmoth View Post
          Of course I promptly deleted my family tree and will invite any matches who wish to exchange info to visit me on Gedmatch where they have a usable interface.
          Excellent idea. I'm going to delete my trees associated with all my kits and place on my profile to message me for my kit numbers to access trees on Gedmatch or write me for my access to my Ancestry tree.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Germanica View Post
            Thanks, hopefully that means it will get resolved soon.
            Update: it later uploaded successfully, hooray.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by susan_dakin View Post
              What do you mean by only allows 9 generations? The old GEDCOM viewer did not limit generations; if you selected "all," instead of a number up to 9, you got "all" generations. For enormous trees, the little navigator box is useless; it's too hard to keep track of where you are in the tree. What we really need is a compact horizontal pedigree view.
              Agreed, like on Ancestry.com. I do not know why this isn't the default for any family tree viewer - even on Ancestry.com, the "family view" is the default, you have to click on "Pedigree" to see the compact horizontal pedigree even though this is much more useful.

              I hate that when I want to expand further back in the tree on FTDNA, I lose the descendant view to the home person. It's easy to get lost in a tree that way and forget how the individual you're looking at is related to the home person. Ancestry.com's horizontal pedigree view never loses the view from the home person, even when expanding the tree back many more generations. Why this is not the standard for any tree viewer?

              Comment


              • I am new to this forum. Is any body else having issues viewing the new family tree format? I have tried 5 different browsers on my PC and also tried my wife's iPad. The iPad is the only one that allows me to see any part of the tree, but only a very small part. I would like to have the old tree back.

                Also, with this new format, I am unable to access my famuily tree to make changes or additions.

                Comment


                • One of the best features of FTDNA was the old gedcom family trees. It was easy to use and worked very well. These new family trees are awkward to use and don't seem to provide as much information..

                  As many others have mentioned, a left to right compact pedigree view similar to ancestry.com would be the feature needed to make this new system work. As it is now, this newer system is a step backwards.

                  Comment


                  • Table with names, birth and death dates and locations

                    When FTDNA developed the new Family Tree feature I think they put the emphasis on the wrong functionality. I believe that most people use the ancestral information associated with their matches to locate a common ancestor. Instead of making this task easier, FTDNA actually made this task harder through the new Family Tree feature.

                    The tree feature itself is not all bad, with a few fixes it will become much better than it is now.

                    However, going back to the task of finding common ancestors, I don't think that a family tree view is the best interface for this task. Instead, I would argue that a simple table containing the names, birth and death dates and locations of all the individuals coupled with the ability to search this data would be a much more better interface. The tree view can then be used as a complement for further understanding how the individuals are related to one another.

                    Thank you for listening

                    Anders Olsson

                    Comment


                    • Please give us back our trees

                      A lot of us have spent a lot of money testing with FTDNA. I have been a customer for many years and have sponsored a lot of kits. I am also a Project Administrator, so I'm not a newbie. While you had the "upload GEDCOM" feature disabled I received test results for two more kits I had purchased for cousins. I looked forward to being able to work through their matches. I was thrilled when I was finally able to upload the GEDCOMs I had prepared for them weeks earlier. With the mess that has been created, the joy I should have experienced in seeing their results has been completely obliterated. Half of their ancestors have been privatized because we don't know at least one of the facts for when or where they were born or died. The trees are useless. Even if this bug is fixed, it is impossible to navigate the trees quickly to find what I need. I should be able to quickly find all of the oldest lines of the tree. That is impossible with this new format.

                      As far as I know, no one asked for the ability to compile a tree on FTDNA. That's not what we pay for here. We pay for DNA testing and to be able to evaluate our matches. There are other sites and other tools for building trees.

                      Please just give us back the tool that works. At this point we are not receiving the product we paid for. I don't see how you have the right to sell a product and then substantially change the features of that product. I certainly was not expecting this when I ordered my last group of kits.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Germanica View Post
                        Agreed, like on Ancestry.com. I do not know why this isn't the default for any family tree viewer - even on Ancestry.com, the "family view" is the default, you have to click on "Pedigree" to see the compact horizontal pedigree even though this is much more useful.

                        I hate that when I want to expand further back in the tree on FTDNA, I lose the descendant view to the home person. It's easy to get lost in a tree that way and forget how the individual you're looking at is related to the home person. Ancestry.com's horizontal pedigree view never loses the view from the home person, even when expanding the tree back many more generations. Why this is not the standard for any tree viewer?
                        I didn't think the day would ever come when I would praise something on Ancestry over FTDNA but it has finally happened. You are correct. It's much easier to navigate the Ancestry trees that are attached to autosomal DNA matches.

                        Comment


                        • They seem to have forgotten that they are a DNA testing company and the purpose of the Gedcoms. They should never have tried to be a creator of online genealogy programs. They should have left that to the companies who specialize in it.

                          Why is it that they were unable to find and correct the problem with places not showing in the old trees quickly after it arose??? It seems like it would have been less expensive and time consuming to just fix the problem. I think that is all we ever asked for. I don't recall anyone asking for a fancy online genealogical program! We just wanted the problem fixed. I do remember stating on a couple occasions that I would prefer a horizontal pedigree.

                          Comment


                          • Family Tree??????????

                            Where the heck did these family trees come from? I added a GEDcom and indicated that certain people were to be private, suddenly the information was added to my "Trees" and I've had to go into them and start taking out people to guarantee that they will be private.

                            And I certainly don't expect to use the trees as I already have one going over at Ancestry, and I don't have time to duplicate all the information there over here.

                            Comment


                            • Personally, I think having the option to Create a Tree and make Corrections and/or additions to it rather than upload a Gedcom is a good idea - BUT the Tree that people can create should be a very, very Basic one so it does not take much programming skill, etc. Should in no way try to compete with Programs designed for Creating Your Tree.

                              Think the Tree on FTDNA should not include options on many of the Profiles to "View Private's Family Branch" (or etc). Too complicated, and a waste of Programmer and Support Time to make it work well, when so many other problems.

                              Moreover the current Tree has many, many problems -- 1) very bad format - profiles way too Big so cannot see very many, can get no sense of the Tree 2) Many of the Profiles that were Viewable now read Private, despite the person who uploaded the Tree having done nothing to request that.

                              Do not have a Tree on Ancestry, am a guest for some Ancestry Trees, never thought to use the Pedigree View - since seeing comments here, tried it - still do not prefer it. Of the few programs I have seen Trees on, I think Geni is the best for Tree View. And FTDNA is the Worst.

                              Comment


                              • I've tried to like the new tree(s), and I just can't.

                                I don't like being sent to Ancestry to view my matches' pedigrees. It's very inconvenient, and mildly insulting. But what choice do they have, if everything here is broken?

                                Newcomers need to be able to upload a GEDCOM or build a basic tree from scratch...without having half or more of their ancestors marked "PRIVATE."

                                I'm hoping that the site's down today in order to fix what's wrong. Fingers crossed...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X