{"id":660,"date":"2010-09-29T20:07:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-30T01:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/familysearch-out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the-newplease-i-hope-not\/"},"modified":"2013-07-22T18:21:05","modified_gmt":"2013-07-22T23:21:05","slug":"familysearch-out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the-newplease-i-hope-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/familysearch-out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the-newplease-i-hope-not\/","title":{"rendered":"FamilySearch \u2013 Out With the Old and In With the New\u2026Please, I Hope Not!"},"content":{"rendered":"

There has been a lot of hype lately about FamilySearch Beta<\/a>.\u00a0 I, however, have stuck with Records Search Pilot<\/a> and the \u201cold\u201d FHL card catalog<\/a> for several reasons, but simply put, Beta is more cumbersome to use.\u00a0 For all intents a purposes, Beta is supposed to be a mirror image in terms of data (not the interface), but there are some exceptions (see my previous post, A Little FamilySearch Experiment<\/a>, which includes a link to a similar post written by Randy Seaver.).\u00a0 I would imagine that someday Beta will be the only tool available and this scares me\u2026a lot!\u00a0 This post explains some of the concerns I have with Beta when compared to Pilot and the \u201cold\u201d catalog.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Databases & Record Images<\/h5>\n

Filter Options<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This is probably the biggest complaint I have with Beta in terms of databases\/records\u2026the lack of filter options currently available in Pilot.\u00a0 Sure, there is slightly better search control in Beta, now being able to specify a specific event with a date and +\/- option, but the Beta search is still limited.<\/p>\n

Example 1:\u00a0 The Option to Filter by Role<\/strong> \u2013 Let\u2019s say I wanted to search for the death certificate for John Smith (d. after 1930) in the database Ohio Deaths, 1908-1953<\/em>.\u00a0 Beta returns over 10 thousand records.\u00a0 Even with a death year of 1940 +\/- 10, there are still over 8,000 results.\u00a0 Sure I can add more search criteria, but you never know what is actually recorded on the record (e.g., was the father\u2019s name recorded correctly, or recorded at all?).\u00a0 In Pilot, I was able to choose the Role<\/em>, (in this database the choices are Principal<\/em> or Other<\/em>).\u00a0 By choosing Principal<\/em>, I eliminate all the records where John Smith is the father or spouse of the deceased, leaving me with only those records where John Smith is the deceased person.\u00a0 I can\u2019t do this in Beta, and it makes sorting through a huge number of results a tedious task.<\/p>\n

Example 2:\u00a0 The Option to Filter by Gender<\/strong> \u2013 Many times I\u2019ve run across unnamed babies among my relatives in the Cook County birth records.\u00a0 If I cannot find the certificate\/register by the given name and surname in Pilot, I do a search on the surname, and usually add one or both parent given names.\u00a0 Common names still return a number of results, but let\u2019s say I\u2019m specifically looking for a female.\u00a0 In Pilot I could chose Female<\/em> from the Gender<\/em> filter, which usually makes sorting through the results more manageable.<\/p>\n

I almost always choose a specific database to search in, so the results displayed are narrowed down to that collection.\u00a0 But if I were to search all of the collections at once, I prefer the way the filters for Record Type<\/em> and Collection<\/em> are displayed in Pilot (drop-down menu) versus Beta (incredibly long list in sidebar).<\/p>\n

\"filterPilot\"
Screenshot of Pilot\u2019s Filter Interface<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"filterBeta\"
Screenshot of Beta\u2019s Filter Interface<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Search Screen<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

While some of the filters in Pilot can be accommodated in the Beta search options, I personally think the search layout in Beta is poor when compared to Pilot.\u00a0 In Pilot, the Advanced Search screen is all within the monitor view (unless you have a really tiny monitor, and even then, it’ll fit pretty nicely without excessive scrolling).\u00a0 In Beta, the Advanced Search screen requires you to scroll (albeit it not too much, but if you are paying attention, you may not notice there are more fields available)\u00a0 Below is what the main Advanced Search screen for a specific collection looks like in both Pilot and Beta (the entire window has been captured on a 17\u201d display).<\/p>\n

\"mainSearchPilot\"
Screenshot of Pilot\u2019s Advanced Search Screen<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"mainSearchBeta\"
Screenshot of Beta\u2019s Advanced Search Screen<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Granted, there are more fields in Beta than Pilot, simply because each event now has its own field(s) for criteria, whereas in Pilot, you could only select one event.\u00a0 In this sense, Beta wins.\u00a0 You\u2019ll notice however, that the layout for Pilot could easily accommodate those additional fields that would remain visible without the need to scroll.<\/p>\n

But the worst of the search is when you want to \u201crefine\u201d the search.\u00a0 In Pilot, you would click on the Refine Search<\/em> button, and the search window would pop up.\u00a0 In Beta, there is no need to click a button, because the search fields now make up the top portion of the sidebar (which already includes a huge list of record types and collections, mentioned earlier).\u00a0 I prefer the pop-up window over having to scroll or tab to see the rest of the fields.\u00a0 (Can you tell I\u2019m not a big fan of excessive scrolling?)\u00a0 Also, you can access the Refine Search<\/em> window no matter what view you are in (list of records view, selected record data view, or image view).\u00a0 In Beta, you would have to use your browser\u2019s Back<\/em> button at least once to get back to the list view.<\/p>\n

\"refinePilot\"
Screenshot of Pilot\u2019s Refine Search (Advanced) Screen<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"refineBeta\"
Screenshot of Beta\u2019s Search Results Screen Where a Refinement Can Be Made (Advanced)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Also note that the only way you can choose an exact match in Beta, is to display the Advanced Search, both on the main search screen and the \u201crefine\u201d search on the results screen.<\/p>\n

FHL Card Catalog<\/h5>\n

Then there\u2019s the FHL card catalog.\u00a0 A wonderful tool that let\u2019s us know all of their holdings, what\u2019s on film that we can order to our local FHC, and effectively plan a research trip to SLC.\u00a0 When I first started to use the catalog, I\u2019ll admit I struggled.\u00a0 But then I read a tutorial on how to use it, and I was able to use it with ease moving forward.\u00a0 A few months ago the catalog was down for some reason so I headed over to Beta, knowing the the catalog was there as well.\u00a0 It was up and running, which was good, but it nearly brought me to tears!<\/p>\n

I was working on my Oakland County, Michigan families, so in Beta I selected Place Name<\/em> and entered Oakland, just as I would have in the \u201cold\u201d catalog.\u00a0 I was presented with a list of 47 matches, well knowing that there were probably more than 47 matches for Oakland County, Michigan, let alone any matches for Oakland, California.\u00a0 I then see on the sidebar a way to narrow the results.\u00a0 I proceed to click on North America, then United States, only to find choices for California and New Jersey\u2026Michigan was not a choice.<\/p>\n

\"catalog1\"<\/p>\n

I sat there dumbfounded for a minute.\u00a0 Then I tried \u201cOakland county\u201d as the search criteria (no quotes), and this time, Michigan was listed as an option.\u00a0 Good, I thought, making progress.\u00a0 But it just went downhill from there.\u00a0 The search narrowed down to Michigan, yielded 269 results, in no particular order.\u00a0 I scrolled halfway down the page to the Category section of the sidebar to narrow it down further, based on what I was looking for.\u00a0 To make a long story short, the categories differed from those I was accustomed to in the \u201cold\u201d catalog.\u00a0 Once you find the main topic, you get more topics, and sometimes more after that.\u00a0 You really have to stop and think, what main category would this one thing be under?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not as intuitive as you may thing.\u00a0 For example, let\u2019s say I wanted to see what they had on the topic of cemeteries.\u00a0 In the \u201cold\u201d catalog, I would have done my place search, navigated to Oakland County, Michigan, and then look for the topic \u201cCemeteries\u201d in the alphabetical listing.\u00a0 In Beta, I would have to figure out that cemeteries is a sub-category under the main category of \u201cBirth, Marriage & Death.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another example would be divorce records.\u00a0 I would look for divorce records under the same name in the \u201cold\u201d catalog.\u00a0 In Beta, when presented with all the main categories, I chose \u201cCourt, Land, Wills & Financial\u201d since divorce is handled in the courts.\u00a0 Nothing there\u2026perhaps they don\u2019t have any records.\u00a0 But knowing that they do hold a book on this topic in this area, I proceeded to drop down other main categories and found it under \u201cBirth, Marriage & Death,\u201d then \u201cVital Records.\u201d\u00a0 Okay, I suppose I could buy that, but I don\u2019t agree with it (or perhaps there is a flaw in my logic).<\/p>\n

Additionally, you can really get lost between all the items on the sidebar (I\u2019d illustrate it, but it\u2019s so crazy and requires so much scrolling, I can\u2019t provide a screenshot).\u00a0 I\u2019m a pretty technical and logical person, but this sidebar with all the options had me totally screwed up.\u00a0 What\u2019s worse, is that I couldn’t find what I was looking for even though I already knew it was there (I needed a film number that I forgot to note for a source).\u00a0 Imagine what would happen if I were looking for sources in general.\u00a0 Not finding something would lead me to believe they don\u2019t have it\u2026but what if they really do and I\u2019m so tangled up in the criteria that I don\u2019t ever see it?\u00a0 This is by far the worse search experiences I\u2019ve ever had.\u00a0 Plain and simple\u2026I refuse to use Beta for the catalog\u2026I just pray they keep the \u201cold\u201d one, or do a major overhaul to Beta.<\/p>\n

Overall Opinion<\/h5>\n

Personally, I think FamilySearch has done a great service by providing these records online at no cost.\u00a0 I understand that they want one site where everything is accessible at one time, however, I feel that the Beta interface is not up to par compared to the \u201colder\u201d tools as discussed above.\u00a0 I will continue to use the Pilot and the FHL catalog until such a time (if there comes a time) when they are no longer available.\u00a0 If additional changes are not made to Beta upon such a time, then I will not be a happy camper when it is the only tool available for use.\u00a0 Search results will be tedious to comb through and it will take longer for me to find what I\u2019m looking for, both of which do not make me a happy researcher.<\/p>\n

So in the \u201ccompetition\u201d between Pilot\/FHL Catalog and Beta, BETA LOSES!\u00a0 Instead, how about out with the new and in with the old?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There has been a lot of hype lately about FamilySearch Beta.\u00a0 I, however, have stuck with Records Search Pilot and the \u201cold\u201d FHL card catalog for several reasons, but simply put, Beta is more cumbersome to use.\u00a0 For all intents a purposes, Beta is supposed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[25,300],"tags":[381],"class_list":["post-660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-genblog","category-resources-genblog","tag-tools-tech-familysearch","cat-25-id","cat-300-id"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3HcLI-aE","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=660"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/660\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4618,"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/660\/revisions\/4618"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/genealogy.julietarr.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}